Beaverton Scandal is Just More New Calvinist Spiritual Tyranny
Frustrating. Once again, we are focused on symptoms and not the disease. New Calvinism and its doctrine/philosophy is the disease, Beaverton is a symptom. Beaverton what? Beaverton as in Beaverton Grace Bible Church in Beaverton, Oregon. Here is their website: http://www.beavertongracebible.org/. And here is the scandal: http://bgbcsurvivors.blogspot.com/2012/05/anticipation.html.
Another survivors website to add to my blogroll. But it is the same old story: 1; New Calvinism comes to a church. 2; Members start asking questions. 3; New Calvinists use the techniques they learn at conferences to dissuade concerns. 4; But most churches have at least a few people that can think for themselves which = trouble/possible exposure that the leadership is slowly assimilating the “unadjusted gospel” into the minds of the people. 5; Since one of the tenets of this doctrine is that the (usually newly appointed under the new system) elders can bring someone under church discipline for ANY sin, and contesting the “underestimated” gospel is paramount to propagating false doctrine, the pesky member is disciplined and thereby neutralized as a threat to the authority of the elders. And, to discuss why the “sinner” is under discipline would be, but of course, gossip. The pesky member can now scream, squawk, or anything else they would like to do to no avail; their credibility is history. It’s the same old, worn out, five-step story being played out over and over again while rolling up the body count on the landscape of American Christianity.
This has been going on now for 42 years. The sharp increase in church discipline reported by the Wall Street Journal in 2008 is directly related to the New Calvinist movement which was launched by the Australian Forum think tank in 1970. It is a return to heavy handed Geneva style Reformed leadership—the days when Calvin had “heretics” burned and beheaded. Here in America, the scarlet letter of church discipline and lawsuits are the next best thing for those who dare contend against the “scandalous gospel.” Granted, many who contend against it don’t understand the theology per se, but have concerns about the results they see: control issues; fast changes without regard to the feelings of others; unbalanced preaching; and troublesome ideas like our total inability as believers to please God. That’s too close for comfort for most New Calvinist spiritual despots. This movement is also the primary supporter and catalyst for other movements like Quiver Full, Patriarchy, Vision Forum, SGM, Shepherding, etc. These movements comprise easily 90% of the spiritual abuse that takes place in American Christianity.
But yet again, even though it would seem like New Calvinists are on the ropes with the embarrassing revelation in the Beaverton situation concerning John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church, they win. Why? Because once again, symptoms are the issue, and not the movement’s doctrine/philosophy driving the behavior. Ronald Reagan knew how to get rid of a problem. He didn’t focus on the naughty behavior of communism—he sought to destroy the beast. And for certain, many bloggers don’t want to see the demise of New Calvinism for they would have nothing to write about anymore. In the same way, the National Inquirer dreads the idea that movie stars and politicians would start behaving.
This is a nasty philosophy: a play scripted with three primary characters; the enlightened totally depraved chosen by God to contain the total depraved peasantry until the day of apocalypse, and using the law and government for guardrails. Phil Johnson’s response to the Beaverton situation is beyond disingenuous. He knows grade A well that once a parishioner is excommunicated, they can be “treated like an unbeliever.” I can confidently say that his reference to the defendants as “believers” is not what he believes about them. With this doctrine, authority = truth which is why MacArthur will once again entertain with CJ Mahaney at this year’s Resolved Conference despite the fact that CJ has never repented of his criminal activity. Stuff happens in the messy business of controlling the totally depraved in order to present them to God as those who excepted the fact that Jesus has always obeyed for them (and any obedience on our part rejects the atonement). CJ’s behavior is unfortunate collateral damage in a war where the one in 99 is expendable for the Geneva commune. By the way, while New Calvinists pontificate about the virtues of separation of church and state, this ministry receives information regularly about their consorted effort to get in bed with the government, especially through the U.N.
I guess my only question is how high does the destroyed family body count have to get before people wake up?
As James Carville said in the four words that got Bill Clinton elected: “It’s the economy doctrine stupid.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul again you are right on target- the biggest issue is not the issues (such as abuse, of all kinds) it is to go the core of the issues- the source: Calvinism itself. If the doctrine is wrong, everything will go wrong. I am disgusted at the outright false teaching of Calvinism! Calvinism sounds all pious and intellectually brilliant, but lift up the clean rug and you find nothing but crumbs and dusty remnants of a theological system that leaves others in a state of confusion and despair- “there is nothing under the sun” as Solomon in all his wisdom wrote in Ecclesiastes. This theological system, created by man, has been tried before and left in its wake cold and dead Christians- just take a good look at Europe- much good the Reformation did for this Continent. Thankfully, we had a few really smart men in 1776 who knew what would happen if both the Government or the Church would take over what our country would like- tryanny.
LikeLike
T4H,
No doubt, God is sovereign, but how he weaves that together with our responsibility is a mystery. Fatalistic determinism is not biblical, but hard to avoid in Calvin’s theological framework. I have never heard a gospel presentation yet that stated: “Hi, I am here to preach the gospel to you in order to see if you are chosen are not.” But I can tell you this: in NC circles, repentance as part of the gospel presentation is strictly forbidden. If the person is chosen, they will repent without being told to. That I have witnessed firsthand.
LikeLike
Yes I also understand this-the funny thing is NC is contradictory. In one sense they will say it is God who controls all that we are and then on the other they rail the Christian for any sin they deemed to be worthy to condemn and will attempt to control that individual. So much for Gods Sovereignty and His ability to sanctify those who are His.
Another issue that I had was the constant “preaching” of the believer to suffer and know that we are STILL under wrath. The cross was constantly in the front of the believers face at all times in the church I attended instead of living a life of joy in Christ and living in the Spirit. It was two years of doubts and confusion for me.
LikeLike
They don’t believe we should live by the law, Jesus obeys for us to maintain our justification, but they believe the law is necessary to keep the totally depraved zombie sheep from destroying themselves.
LikeLike
New Calvinism is a distortion of Calvinism. For one thing, Calvinism believes that man has a genuine measure of free will, but that it is ultimately a mystery how that interacts with God’s sovereignty. It does not believe that God controls “all that we are”: If that were true, then, when we sin, it is because God made us sin. That is Hyper-Calvinism, not the Reformed view. Also, total depravity means that sin has affected every part of our being, not that we are as bad as we could be (the phrase is unfortunate). And there is no separate category for pastors and elders.
I highly recommend Michael Horton’s “For Calvinism” for an accurate assessment of the real thing.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Read pages 508-510 of Beverigde’s translation of the Calvin Institutes. Calvin believed that the Christian remains totally depraved and is incapable of doing any work that pleases God. He also believed that a perfect keeping of the law is needed to maintain our justification, which of course is done by Christ and not us. He argues that even if a Christian could keep the law once, or on one point, it’s meaningless (in sanctification) because if he/she breaks one law, they are guilty of breaking all of the law. This clearly shows the fusion of justification and sanctification that Calvin held to. Calvin states plainly in chapter 14 that justification is perpetual–it’s even the title of the chapter. New Calvinists are dead on concerning their doctrine being true blue Calvinism.
LikeLike
Very, very interesting post. I’m Julie Anne – one of the defendants in the lawsuit – the loudmouth 🙂 I am very familiar with many of the groups you mentioned especially as they are rampant in homeschooling circles across the nation. Can you direct me to references on New Calvinists? I was especially interested in the 5-step “story”. Who identified that process? It’s scary to think of how many churches are doing this.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Around here, hearing your story is routine. When people make initial contact with us and say they want to tell their story, I write back and tell them that I expect their story to fit into the 5-step motif in some way, which usually amazes them. The neo-Calvinism movement is a movement that dies a social death from time to time because of its tyranny and restriction on independent thinking, but is reignited via “rediscovery” movements. This most recent “resurgence” started in 1970 via Robert Brinsmead’s Awakening Movement. However, they have learned from their past mistakes which makes this latest rediscovery movement a perfect storm of despotism. John MacArthur was brought into the movement around 1994 through his relationship with John Piper. Piper and others convinced Mac that “the centrality of the objective gospel completely outside of us” (the core doctrine of New Calvinism) was the true Reformation gospel. It teaches that all righteousness remains outside of us even after conversion. Hence, you are nothing but a totally depraved zombie lamb that should shut up and submit to the care of your spiritually enlightened “shepherd.” Last year, I published a book on New Calvinism, and you have most certainly earned a free copy if I could get an address from you (my private email is pmd@inbox.com). Info on the book, and reviews, can be found at thetruthaboutnewcalvinism.com My own stand can be seen at clearcreekchapelwatch.org and clearcreekchapel.com My son-in-law built a website in defense of me at eldersresolution.org
My sister, I have been down the road and back with these rascals a dozen times. Anyway at all I can help–just name how, when, and where.
paul
LikeLike
Julie Anne you will find great resource here- I have gleaned quite a bit from the information Paul has put forth. We are all standing behind you as brothers and sisters in Christ. We can see by your posts that you have a spirit not of strife, but to hold those accountable in the truth of -Gods word and in love. Keep up the good fight.
LikeLike
First the Coup.
Then the Cleansing.
And in the Cleansing, there is no such thing as too many mass graves.
Long. Live. Big. Brother.
LikeLike
“The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering among your inferiors. If you want to see the future, visualize a boot stamping on a man’s face — FOREVER.”
— Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, Nineteen Eighty-Four
LikeLike
I’ve experienced “all of the above” but just didn’t have a name for it! Thank you! I heard over and over “Do not touch God’s anointed” and “I got this on my knees from God.” You get the idea and, of course, it’s even worse because I’m a woman. Things are said and done to women that most men would never allow “man to man”…but everybody already knows that. Last Mother’s Day the pastor told the women that they are to be subservient and submissive. I barely got to the car before I burst into tears. A few months ago he said we were “equal”. I informed my husband that I’d just gotten a promotion in less than a year! ha ha
LikeLike
Sorry for the length of this comment.
You wrote: “Calvin believed that the Christian remains totally depraved and is incapable of doing any work that pleases God.”
In the Institutes, 3.17.3, it says: “But when the promises of the gospel are substituted [for our transgressions], which proclaim the free forgiveness of sins, these not only make us acceptable to God but also render our works pleasing to him. And not only does the Lord adjudge them pleasing; he also extends to them the blessings which under the covenant were owed to the observance of his law.”
You wrote: “He also believed that a perfect keeping of the law is needed to maintain our justification, which of course is done by Christ and not us.”
True.
You wrote: “He argues that even if a Christian could keep the law once, or on one point, it’s meaningless (in sanctification) because if he/she breaks one law, they are guilty of breaking all of the law. This clearly shows the fusion of justification and sanctification that Calvin held to.”
I haven’t found anywhere in Calvin the fusion of justification and sanctification. For instance, in 3.14.9, he writes that, in addition to God reconciling us to Him through Christ’s righteousness and “by free remission of sins counts us righteous” (justification), “his beneficence is at the same time joined with such a mercy that through his Holy Spirit he dwells in us and by his power the lusts of our flesh are each day more and more mortified; we are indeed sanctified, that is, consecrated to the Lord in true purity of life, with our hearts formed to obedience to the law. The end is that our especial will may be to serve his will and by every means to advance his glory alone.”
In 3.14.10, he says that we cannot achieve righteousness from the law, but he is clearly talking about justification through the law. So, even though the Holy Spirit turns our hearts “to obedience to the law,” we are unable to obey it (can’t even obey one command perfectly), and so the law neither justifies nor sanctifies. That’s something that justification and sanctification share, but Calvin doesn’t confuse the two.
You wrote: “Calvin states plainly in chapter 14 that justification is perpetual–it’s even the title of the chapter. New Calvinists are dead on concerning their doctrine being true blue Calvinism.”
In 3.14.11, Calvin states: “Therefore, we must have this blessedness [of forgiveness of transgressions] not just once but must hold to it throughout life. Finally, he testifies that the embassy of free reconciliation with God is published not for one day or another but is attested as perpetual in the church [cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. Accordingly, to the very end of life, believers have no other righteousness than that which is there described.”
I believe that Calvin is saying that the *blessings* of justification continue throughout life, not the process. Admittedly, the chapter title, “The Beginning of Justification and its Continual Progress,” is a little confusing. But he also says in 3.14.11: “And Paul does not say to the Ephesians that we have the beginning of salvation from grace but that we have been saved through grace, ‘not by works, lest any man should boast.'”
So again I maintain that New Calvinism is, in many ways, a distortion of Calvinism.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I am on the road and will unravel this later. Your substantive challenge presents a good opportunity for clarification. And also, this is where the conversation needs to be, not on how God weaves His sovereignty together with the will of man. Furthermore, if what you say is true, where are all the Calvinists who should be calling these guys out?
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Thanks. Yes, where are the Calvinists who should be calling these guys out? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I believe Michael Horton is, at least, beginning to do this. He pretty much tore the notion of “Masculine Christianity” apart in a recent article. (Maybe it’s mentioned on your blog – I’m new to it.) Also, in “For Calvinism,” he said that the co-existence of God’s sovereignty with man’s freedom is ultimately a mystery – he doesn’t pretend to have it mapped out.
I wish R.C. Sproul would speak up. I have no documentation on it, but I’ve heard that Mahaney made a fool of himself at one of Sproul’s conferences, and that he won’t be invited back.
Like you, I’m very disappointed that MacArthur invited Mahaney to the RESOLVED conference. He at least spoke out against some of the aspects of the YRRs, but there’s much more he could do, even given his age and schedule, I think.
LikeLike
Lets get the debate where it needs to be. Per the Institutes, what did Calvin really teach?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike