New Calvinist Hoplessness
When the doctor comes to us and says, “I’m sorry, there is nothing we can do,” that is interpreted as hopelessness with a capital “H.” But somehow, among Christians, the idea that we can’t do anything supposedly gives hope. No wonder that the world will not come to us for answers to life’s deepest problems. Somehow, we think the world will believe that God can save a soul when He can’t even teach His children to save a marriage. In fact, the church is indifferent to solutions because after all, “God has preordained it.” No wonder churches are dying. True, there are confused ones that believe God hasn’t preordained hopelessness, but still say there is nothing we can do. That is where New Calvinists offer a more doctrinally sound hopelessness.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
JeffB,
I have the Institutes on my To Read list, which is coming up right after this Classics book I’m reading. I may skip to the Calvin parts directly.
With regards to the new Calvinists, I have little doubt that they get their ideas from Calvin, and thrust them upon the current church practically verbatim. I could be wrong, but if they are creating a “new spin” on traditional Calvinism, they aren’t telling the church about it. As far as they are concerned, they are preaching Calvinism as defined by Calvin, and therefore, utterly consistent with true orthodoxy. They are preaching Calvin exactly as they understand him, I submit.
The issue isn’t that they don’t separate Justification and Sanctification, it is that they define both as worked out by the same essential process. “Preaching the Gospel to yourself everyday”, is a refrain I heard from CJ more times than I can count; and it is merely a way of saying that the cross is EVERYTHING, beginning to end. Thus, once you come to the cross, you stay there. Now, how would you explain sanctification in light of this message? You cannot say that the believer has anything to do with sanctification any more than they have anything to do with justification…they can’t move! They are stuck at the cross both in body and mind! By definition, if you can’t move, you can’t act. It is an impossible paradox. And I must disagree: I think this is exactly what Calvin meant. That is, the believer is indeed passive in his/her sanctification, because they have NO power to DO GOOD, God MUST do it for them. If they are still totally depraved, how can they NOT be passive?
As an aside…I think that the New Calvinists have become so used to having logical paradoxes define their faith that they think that paradox is the fundamental mark of true doctrine; it is the end of their arrogant perspective: “You can’t possibly understand this; it is beneath you, o sinner; let your pastor, therefore, stand in His stead”.
Some paradoxes are as follows: You aren’t obligated to do “works” because they are the “law”, but, you still have to do them, because if you don’t, then you are not obeying God. Unbelievers have no choice but to go to hell, as they are predestined, but their damnation is still all their own fault. You must pursue sanctification rigorously, but you are still totally depraved and can never succeed in pleasing God. Pursue the disciplines of the Spirit, pray regularly, give to the Church, serve, teach, raise your children, but always know that you cannot trust a single thought in your mind.
This kind of thinking is not what God intended. He is a God of mystery, and certainly, there are always going to be mysteries. But, it boggles my mind that we live in a world guided by physical laws and rational cause and effect, and yet “sound doctrine” is defined by a sea of irrational non-logic.
LikeLike
Paul –
You’ve looked into this more than I have. You wrote: “Osiander’s fundamental problem with Calvin was what Calvin said Osiander was guilty of.” I’ll look into this; any tips as to where to look would be appreciated.
Argo –
At the least, what the NC preach seems to be unforgivably confusing. If they are indeed teaching no-win paradoxes, they are in grave sin. Since I have not had first-hand experience with their teaching, I’m at a disadvantage, but I want to learn all I can. We’ve certainly seen the fallout from Mahaney and Driscoll. If Immel is correct, then it’s the ideas more than the practice (to the extent they can be separated) that’s causing this.
Calvin can be very subtle, perhaps too subtle, and there’s a danger of anyone misunderstanding him. Or, of course, we understand him all too well. I think that the parts I quoted above are fairly clear in saying that, according to him, justification and sanctification are separate. If, as you say, the real issue is “that [the NC] define both as worked out by the same essential process,” Calvin has something to say about that also. Again, I’m re-quoting from elsewhere on this blog:
“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.'”
This is similar to what you quoted from Luther, but, unlike Luther, Calvin is saying that we are not only capable of works, but that God finds them pleasing because of “the promises of the gospel,” and may even lead to blessing. So, yes, Calvin is staying with the promises, but he at least concedes that we are capable of works. The implication, which, I believe, he explains elsewhere, is that the works are pleasing to God when the promises of the gospel are apprehended by faith. The works themselves have no value to God; only the faith undergirding them are pleasing to him. [cf. Heb. 11:6]
I can see, and have seen (and not by Calvinists) how this can be abused and lead to bondage: “Are you sure you did this by faith?” “Did you do it in the power of the Spirit?” Piper says that works not done with joy don’t count – same basic thing. I think (hope) that Calvin wasn’t into this modern self-consciousness.
One more Calvin quote:
“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, 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.”
This seems to be an orthodox view of sanctification, and certainly not antinomian.
So, at least here, it doesn’t seem that Calvin wants to keep us stuck at the cross. The NC may be cherry-picking from Calvin to please themselves.
I’m not “married” to Calvin in the sense that I think that he must be seen as always correct; it’s Scripture that counts. And he certainly had his faults, some major, as a person. But it’s possible that he had some insights that could be valuable today if we saw him clearly.
LikeLike
Argo and Jeff,
These are great comments. The quotes from Luther and Calvin are awesome. Oh my, COULD IT
BE?????!!!!!! Are people going to actually start debating whether or not these guys taught
a sanctification by justification by faith alone rather than the hokey election/freewill
debate? Trust me, the Reformed crowd doesn’t want to go where this discussion is–they are
VERY vulnerable in this place.
I am in the middle of working on the conference DVD but I will be back to dive into this.
But I do want to chime in here and there. PLEASE NOTE the Calvin quotation cited from this
blog:
“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.'”
Note according to Calvin that the standard for righteousness that must be still upheld in
the life of the believer is the LAW, but elsewhere, he states that any attempt on the part
of the believer to keep the law is futile. So, who is actually keeping the law in
sanctification according to Calvin? He seems to say it is us, but if you put this together
with what he sates elsewhere–that’s impossible.
Also, note carefully in all their verbiage that a maintaining of the law is necessary to
maintain a just standing before God. Therefore, Christ must obey for us. In their
theology, a maintaining of the law is needed. THAT’S A HUUUUUUGE PROBLEM. Why, because
indicative of the theology is a complicated formula/system that continually offers the
perfect work of Christ to the Father to maintain our “just standing.” What is that? Well,
how were we saved? Faith and repentance, right? So, by a continual faith and repentance
only in sanctification, our just standing before God is maintained. “The same gospel that
saves us also sanctifies us.” But, to the Reformers sanctification was/is the maintaining
of our just standing before God. First one who states what this really translates into
gets a free book. Note the chapters “Does Christ Obey fro Us?” and “The Formula for Christ
to Command Himself.”
paul
LikeLike
Paul –
Well, the way you’re describing it, we are constantly in danger of losing our just standing (justification) before God; in effect, constantly in danger of losing our salvation – similar to Catholicism, but probably even worse. So we must continually re-affirm the faith and repentance that was necessary for our salvation or we will lose our salvation.
Don’t have time now to continue – will do so later.
LikeLike
Jeff,
BINGO!!!! The daily double. You just described the crux of Reformed theology. Your hypothetical thesis can be proven unequivocally. I can’t articulate it right now, but will be back.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
Well, I was planning to buy it anyway, but I wouldn’t mind a free copy of the book. Thanks.
If this is the crux of RT, then, of course, it’s heretical. I will carefully consider your arguments.
As I understand it, Calvin thinks that even the best works of a believer are so corrupted by sin that God cannot accept them, unless the promises of the gospel “un-corrupt” them so that God cannot only accept them, he can be pleased by them and grant blessing to the believer.
So far, it seems to me that Calvin is saying that this happens, in a sense, “automatically,” every time a believer performs a “good” work. That is, that he doesn’t have to keep “going to the cross” every time he performs a work so that he knows that God will accept it.
I know that Horton, at least, says that the gospel is like “fuel” for sanctification, and that reminding ourselves of what Jesus did on the cross for us motivates us to love God and neighbor. But I’ve never read that he believes that this reminding is obligatory in the sense that not doing it can endanger our justification. But if others are teaching this, it’s very bad indeed.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Email your address to pmd@inbox.com. Also, consider these three quotes:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
“He’s going to take our place and His Righteousness is going to count for me on the last day and that will be my solid ground.”
“There is danger on the way to salvation in heaven. We need ongoing protection after our conversion. Our security does not mean we are home free. There is a battle to be fought. And in this battle we need protection and help far beyond what we can supply for ourselves….The means God uses to protect us is faith. We are protected by the power of God through faith.”
See the problem here?
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
This seems to support the false view of justification and sanctification I gave in my 11:24 AM comment in response to your question.
“If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel….” How does this apply to the unregenerate? Justification occurs once, in one moment.
Concerning the regenerate, why not just say that that the Holy Spirit conforms us into Christ’s image? Why “the Spirit working through the gospel?” I know they love to say or write “gospel” as often as possible, whether or not it’s necessary. What is the “something else”? The belief that we’re on our own now? What true Christian believes that?
The second paragraph would make more sense if it said “He HAS taken our place,” instead of “He’s GOING to take our place.” How have we been justified if He hasn’t already taken our place?
“Our security does not mean we are home free.” What kind of security is that? “The means God uses to protect us is faith.” Then it’s pretty much up to us, I guess.
In a story written by Flannery O’Connor (“A Good Man Is Hard To Find”), a serial killer who has just killed a professed believer says, “She would of been a good woman if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life.”
Who wrote the stuff you quoted?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I really don’t know where to start, but anyway, they, like Calvin, believe that the Spirit only illumines in regard to gospel/works of Christ, and as we ponder those in the Scriptures, there is a manifestation of Christ’s works imputed to us. This is why John Immel calls Calvin a “Murdering Mystic Despot.” The first quote is by Michael Horton. The other two are by John Piper. And yes, they support your previous thesis to a “T.”
Don’t forget to email me your address at pmd@inbox.com
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Born to battle writes:
“…which would be something from the ‘accuser of the brethren’, using men to do his ditry work.”
I am always amused when Calvinists throw these sorts of insults out. I guess they missed the part where their hero’s and brilliant theologians of the Reformation tortured and drowned BELIEVERS because they did not believe exactly as they did concerning such things as church/state, baptism for believers, etc. But Christ says that when such things are done to believers………….. it is done to HIM.
So much for the foundation of B2B’s beliefs invented by those who tortured and drowned Christ.
LikeLike
….”By their fruits you will know them.”
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
“Well,
how were we saved? Faith and repentance, right? So, by a continual faith and repentance
only in sanctification, our just standing before God is maintained. “The same gospel that
saves us also sanctifies us.” But, to the Reformers sanctification was/is the maintaining
of our just standing before God. First one who states what this really translates into
gets a free book. Note the chapters “Does Christ Obey fro Us?” and “The Formula for Christ
to Command Himself.”
”
I have been following the debates with the New Calvinists arguing with the guys who wrote the 10 articles of faith over at SBC Today. They wrote them to articulate non calvinist/non arminian beliefs and counteract all the NC taking over the SBC. Basically Al Mohler said they were leaning toward heresy as in Semi Pelagianism.
The theme I hear coming from the NC guys commenting in a fury over there at the Non Calvinist “heretics” is that first God regenerates the person, then the person is given both grace and faith. God gives us faith! It is as if they are saying God believes in Himself for us.
So think about it, how in the world could sanctification be anything else but “imputed righteousness” to a NC?
“He’s going to take our place and His Righteousness is going to count for me on the last day and that will be my solid ground.”
See. this is what I was talking about when they use the term “imputed righteousness” this is what they mean. WE can’t obey any commands from Christ because we are too depraved and Jesus does it for us. You know, this is not unlike constant sacrifices in the OT. Only now, Jesus is being crucified over and over for us to remain totally depraved yet be saved.
I gotta tell you, the more I see them debate the more I realize this will not be won by exegesis at all. They have all that covered. WE can make scripture say just about anything if we pick and choose. The real debate has to take place concerning the character of God and what the bible means.
One more thing that is becoming more and more obvious watching the debates is that NC use the same terms but have totally different definitions. Entire threads are devoted to just haggling over definitions. They are impossible to talk to which makes me think of it as more of a cult.
LikeLike
Lin, Yep, your observations have much merit. Basically, Reformed theology is works salvation by faith alone. We have to replicate the same way we were saved to “keep our just standing,” and not do other things in order to not make other things the “ground of our justification,” or “making sanctification the ground of our justification.” Augustine devised a linear gospel that fused justification and sanctification together in an effort to exclude man from the loop altogether, but unwittingly created a works system.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
One more thing….I am not a big fan of hyperbole so believe me when I tell you that after reading thousands of comments over at SBC Today debating everything from total depravity to “liberatarian free will”, with Calvinist comments almost 10-1 in volume, I honestly believe with all my heart that if it were legal, and we were a church state, we would see some burnings. These are some mean, arrogant guys.
LikeLike
Lin,
No doubt about it.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Uh…where did “esthersrequest” come from? I have never used that in my life as a moniker and it only showed up on this site. Very strange. I have been renamed!
LikeLike
That is strange! My site also gets used for advertising as well. I suppose I should report it to wordpress.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike