I see what this pastor is saying. He is both right and wrong, though. He is right in the fact that our salvation has nothing to do with “doing good”. It has everything to do with being sinless. According to our faith, our salvation has nothing do with good works, by definition, because if it did, Christ would not need to have died. Christ’s sinless-ness is not based on any obedience of His, but is based on the fact that He is God. As God, he is not subject to a standard, he IS the standard. As such, He can, in a sense, DO no good, but He IS the good by which all things are measured. Jesus’s obedience is, then, a byproduct of Him being God, not keeping a moral standard.
They are wrong in this sense: Christ’s righteousness is, in fact, moral neutrality. Morality is the presence of good and evil as defined by a standard of TRUTH. That standard of TRUTH must then be morally neutral,,,meaning, absent the things acting against the standard, TRUTH is ITSELF. Absent creation, there is just God. God alone just IS…He is not good in Himself alone because for there to be good, there must be the contrasting concept of evil existing at the same time. This is why God never refers to Himself as “I am GOOD”, but simply “I AM”.
Our salvation is based on being in a position of “not sinning”. Not sinning is in fact a morally neutral position because without evil, there is only good, buuuut….If there is only good, then good simply becomes IS. Which is what God is, in and of Himself. The idea that there will only be good in heaven and not evil is metaphysically impossible. Heaven will be a place where we exist with God in His state of moral neutrality. Good and evil will not exist as they exist here…there will just be God.
The problem with Gruden’s graph is that our salvation is the middle “neutral” spot. That is where our salvation is based: our sinless-ness. Sanctification is the doing of “good” as opposed to evil in our present world so that we may be shown to be a people set apart for God. The only way to show this in our context currently is to do good. Which is what Christ did. But His doing good was a function of His deity in our creation context; it was not the source of our salvation.
However, these men are hypocrites in this way: you cannot hold to the idea of total depravity and the inability of man and “election” and then NOT base sanctification SOLELY on the work of God. The reason being is that the power of the cross then becomes the power to FREELY sin. Not just sin as a fact of your total depravity, but a fact of the power of the Spirit of Christ in you. Before, you could not help but sin. Now, you can help it, but you still do it…but this doing is as a function of your new power in the Spirit. This is blasphemous, thus, the way around it is to do what the Calvinists do: our sin is us; our obedience is God. You are still totally depraved, even after salvation.
The only way to get away from heresy and hypocrisy is to STOP being REFORMED…period. Reformed theology is utterly based upon impossible contradictions at best, and heresy and blasphemy in many instances. It is a strange religion, and it cannot be compromised with. Man either has free ability, or both man and God are impossible in the Christian context.
paulspassingthoughts said, on September 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Argo,
I would have to know their position on the new birth in order to make a judgement on that. I know little about them other than the fact that they have this issue correct as opposed to the vast majority in the Reformed camp. But again, the Reformed view of double imputation is the logical outcome of Progressive justification.
So, whether these guys will admit it or not, the very men they are rebuking are the ones who are being doctrinally consistent with reformed theology. It is bad doctrine, but at least it is consistent. These two are the ones who are confused, and are doctrinal hypocrites.
paulspassingthoughts said, on September 28, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Argo,
Don’t know, but they are sure dead on in this video. And they also call out the big names–I am impressed with that as well. Only thing is, double imputation is the logical conclusion of progressive justification which is the crux of Reformed theology. I am not sure how that all plays out at DSC.
once again, we see calvinistic ‘reformed’ pastors trying to squirm and ‘spin’ out of the logical consequences of their theology yet remain committed to the underlying errors that gave it birth. horribly dishonest and disingenuous of them to say they can remain ‘in the pail’ of orthodox reformed theology while denying the consistent consequences of that ‘Pail’, all the while affirming it to be the ‘orthodox’ position of biblical Christianity.
you can’t have it both ways. the bucket can’t be ‘leaky’ with biblical and logical holes, yet altogether sound and orthodox firm at the same time. what a worthless attempt on their part and utterly insulting of them to our intelligences.
-mike
paulspassingthoughts said, on September 28, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Mike,
I would like to think that they are in process. But to your point, the Reformed view of double imputation is one of the pillars that holds up Reformed theology. I actually intend to do a point by point commentary on this specific video that will ask such questions. However, I think this theological endeavor into the deeper aspects of salvation is very unusual for a Reformed church. I mean, this just isn’t another contemplative angle on CJ Mahaney’s 5 word gospel–this is good theology on the imputation point. But do I think that they need to come the rest of the way out from among them? Yes.
It is going to take God, Scripture, Truth, and prayer for many of these men to change what they believe. The men in this video are beginning to “see.” I pray that they will continue to see the ramifications/outcomes of many of the doctrinal stances they take.
I find that many, many men (reformed) are in love with the “traditions” that reformed theology avails to them. It is very hard for them to look outside that box and view Scripture from a different perspective or even to ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the Truth to them. Getting away from tradition (and and reformed teaching) brings fear to their faces. I have seen it first hand.
It was interesting that the names they mentioned in the video would all be considered part of the “Calvinista” crowd. Also interesting to note that most of these groups are associated with abuses of one sort or another.
Changing gears to . . . CJ Mahaney and his connection to “the Savior.” CJ rarely refers to “Jesus,” sometimes refers to “Jesus Christ,” refers to “our Savior” often, to “the Savior” constantly. I would say that this is consistent with his theology of progressive sanctification (though sad). CJ needs Jesus to be obedient for him, hence CJ’s main (only?) relationship with Jesus is as “the Savior.” CJ does not view Jesus as his brother or friend, nor the Holy Spirit as his Helper because he has to keep himself (CJ) at the cross for sanctification. This makes the power of the Holy Spirit in his life of no use whatsoever.
When CJ said he wanted to “keep the main thing the main thing,” he wasn’t kidding. Unfortunately that statement isn’t what Jesus explained to his disciples in John 16-18. Nor is it consistent with Paul’s teaching of moving on from the milk to the meat, yet not forgetting where we came from.
Mike,
Your post was great. More and more people are drawing the same conclusions you illustrate; thanks for hammering the doctrinal inconsistency in such a concise way.
Bridget,
Your first paragraph: I agree to a point. Ostensibly there is hope, but the fact still remains that it is bad doctrine. One might argue that at least it is a better version of bad doctrine, but I almost see it as worse, and that discourages me. It seems that they’ve merely done what Calvinists so often do when confronted with an inconsistency they don’t like. They merely add another one to subterfuge the first one so they can stop thinking about it and sleep at night (and impress themselves with their own divine “wisdom”). Thus, they compound the problem, not improve it. I don’t accept changes as anything but more Calvinist hi jinks, even if they seem to go in the right direction. The fact that they cannot seem to see the glaring, impossible contradiction in their perspective concerns me. Okay…Christ doesn’t obey for us to sanctify us. Fine, but then who does? If we do, then what does this say about our post conversion sin in light of Total Depravity? And if the answer is that we do, because we MUST obey then there is no choice, thus it cannot be US who obeys, but God for us. So the 2 possible conclusions from reformed doctrine are 1. Our conversion allows us to both do good and to sin; so our post conversion sin isn’t a result of our sin nature, but of our…new nature in Christ? 2. We still have a sin nature, and we sin by it; and our good is done by the Spirit. This of course = God obeying for us; thus our sanctification is a direct result of Christ’s active obedience for us as a function of the cross.
They choose option one. The men they dog choose option two. They are both bad exegesis, but of the two, which is more consistent?
So, while I want to commend them, I struggle, because it is clear that with them, just like every dedicated Calvinist I know, their train of thought needs to cross bridges that they burned a long time ago.
lydiasellerofpurple@yahoo.com said, on September 28, 2012 at 7:28 PM
Heere is more of this sort of thing. Calvinists debating each other and in a place where they would want to show unity.. here is a comment thread that is fascinating. It is a non Calvinists blog but the subject was something the Founders movement wrote. What one Calvinist wrote is fascinating in how the historical doctrines have changed over time. The commenters name is David. Very interesting. Give it a read.
Are we seeing cracks in the movement? Calvinists love to argue. I read an article by a Presbyterian pastor a while back who left the OPC because he got so sick of arguing over minutia of doctrines.
paulspassingthoughts said, on September 29, 2012 at 8:11 AM
Lydia,
Authentic Calvinism eventually dies a social death. It looks like the following pattern: It dies, then there is a resurgence that lasts 30-50 years. The death usually lasts about 100 years before another “rediscovery.” Remnants of the resurgence lives on with more biblically grounded soteriology, but retains the name, “Calvinism.” Moreover, this is why contemporary Calvinism (the remnant) has a soteriology that is inconsistent with their eschatology. Hence, many “Calvinists” of our day contend against “New Calvinism.” New Calvinism is a resurgence of authentic Calvinism with a new twist: for the first time in church history, it was systematized and packaged for the present church culture via the Australian Forum (1970). This time, it may not go away and become part of the last day antinomian blitzkrieg that will precede Christ’s return. However, Susan and I have been visiting churches that were on the cutting edge of the most recent resurgence. They were the ones who embraced this Reformed model early on as the movement was picking up steam (early 80’s). And what we are seeing is almost surreal. The best way we can explain it is: the outward expression of praise and worship with no life. Almost like skeletons raising their hands in praise to Jesus. Lots of praise and worship, but in both cases, large crowds of people move past each other like ships in the night. While the message is love, love, love, joy, joy, joy; we were not greeted by anybody. Never in my life have I seen so many unfriendly people with smiling faces.
lydiasellerofpurple@yahoo.com said, on September 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM
One other question about the video. Where are they on total depravity (inability)? That one has a lot to do with ability in sanctification. Also most Calvinists believe that God gives us faith. We do nothing.
Sometimes their Calvinism does not make sense without double imputation thrown in there to shore up the 5pts..
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
I see what this pastor is saying. He is both right and wrong, though. He is right in the fact that our salvation has nothing to do with “doing good”. It has everything to do with being sinless. According to our faith, our salvation has nothing do with good works, by definition, because if it did, Christ would not need to have died. Christ’s sinless-ness is not based on any obedience of His, but is based on the fact that He is God. As God, he is not subject to a standard, he IS the standard. As such, He can, in a sense, DO no good, but He IS the good by which all things are measured. Jesus’s obedience is, then, a byproduct of Him being God, not keeping a moral standard.
They are wrong in this sense: Christ’s righteousness is, in fact, moral neutrality. Morality is the presence of good and evil as defined by a standard of TRUTH. That standard of TRUTH must then be morally neutral,,,meaning, absent the things acting against the standard, TRUTH is ITSELF. Absent creation, there is just God. God alone just IS…He is not good in Himself alone because for there to be good, there must be the contrasting concept of evil existing at the same time. This is why God never refers to Himself as “I am GOOD”, but simply “I AM”.
Our salvation is based on being in a position of “not sinning”. Not sinning is in fact a morally neutral position because without evil, there is only good, buuuut….If there is only good, then good simply becomes IS. Which is what God is, in and of Himself. The idea that there will only be good in heaven and not evil is metaphysically impossible. Heaven will be a place where we exist with God in His state of moral neutrality. Good and evil will not exist as they exist here…there will just be God.
The problem with Gruden’s graph is that our salvation is the middle “neutral” spot. That is where our salvation is based: our sinless-ness. Sanctification is the doing of “good” as opposed to evil in our present world so that we may be shown to be a people set apart for God. The only way to show this in our context currently is to do good. Which is what Christ did. But His doing good was a function of His deity in our creation context; it was not the source of our salvation.
However, these men are hypocrites in this way: you cannot hold to the idea of total depravity and the inability of man and “election” and then NOT base sanctification SOLELY on the work of God. The reason being is that the power of the cross then becomes the power to FREELY sin. Not just sin as a fact of your total depravity, but a fact of the power of the Spirit of Christ in you. Before, you could not help but sin. Now, you can help it, but you still do it…but this doing is as a function of your new power in the Spirit. This is blasphemous, thus, the way around it is to do what the Calvinists do: our sin is us; our obedience is God. You are still totally depraved, even after salvation.
The only way to get away from heresy and hypocrisy is to STOP being REFORMED…period. Reformed theology is utterly based upon impossible contradictions at best, and heresy and blasphemy in many instances. It is a strange religion, and it cannot be compromised with. Man either has free ability, or both man and God are impossible in the Christian context.
LikeLike
Argo,
I would have to know their position on the new birth in order to make a judgement on that. I know little about them other than the fact that they have this issue correct as opposed to the vast majority in the Reformed camp. But again, the Reformed view of double imputation is the logical outcome of Progressive justification.
LikeLike
So, whether these guys will admit it or not, the very men they are rebuking are the ones who are being doctrinally consistent with reformed theology. It is bad doctrine, but at least it is consistent. These two are the ones who are confused, and are doctrinal hypocrites.
LikeLike
Argo,
Don’t know, but they are sure dead on in this video. And they also call out the big names–I am impressed with that as well. Only thing is, double imputation is the logical conclusion of progressive justification which is the crux of Reformed theology. I am not sure how that all plays out at DSC.
LikeLike
once again, we see calvinistic ‘reformed’ pastors trying to squirm and ‘spin’ out of the logical consequences of their theology yet remain committed to the underlying errors that gave it birth. horribly dishonest and disingenuous of them to say they can remain ‘in the pail’ of orthodox reformed theology while denying the consistent consequences of that ‘Pail’, all the while affirming it to be the ‘orthodox’ position of biblical Christianity.
you can’t have it both ways. the bucket can’t be ‘leaky’ with biblical and logical holes, yet altogether sound and orthodox firm at the same time. what a worthless attempt on their part and utterly insulting of them to our intelligences.
-mike
LikeLike
Mike,
I would like to think that they are in process. But to your point, the Reformed view of double imputation is one of the pillars that holds up Reformed theology. I actually intend to do a point by point commentary on this specific video that will ask such questions. However, I think this theological endeavor into the deeper aspects of salvation is very unusual for a Reformed church. I mean, this just isn’t another contemplative angle on CJ Mahaney’s 5 word gospel–this is good theology on the imputation point. But do I think that they need to come the rest of the way out from among them? Yes.
LikeLike
Argo –
It is going to take God, Scripture, Truth, and prayer for many of these men to change what they believe. The men in this video are beginning to “see.” I pray that they will continue to see the ramifications/outcomes of many of the doctrinal stances they take.
I find that many, many men (reformed) are in love with the “traditions” that reformed theology avails to them. It is very hard for them to look outside that box and view Scripture from a different perspective or even to ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the Truth to them. Getting away from tradition (and and reformed teaching) brings fear to their faces. I have seen it first hand.
It was interesting that the names they mentioned in the video would all be considered part of the “Calvinista” crowd. Also interesting to note that most of these groups are associated with abuses of one sort or another.
Changing gears to . . . CJ Mahaney and his connection to “the Savior.” CJ rarely refers to “Jesus,” sometimes refers to “Jesus Christ,” refers to “our Savior” often, to “the Savior” constantly. I would say that this is consistent with his theology of progressive sanctification (though sad). CJ needs Jesus to be obedient for him, hence CJ’s main (only?) relationship with Jesus is as “the Savior.” CJ does not view Jesus as his brother or friend, nor the Holy Spirit as his Helper because he has to keep himself (CJ) at the cross for sanctification. This makes the power of the Holy Spirit in his life of no use whatsoever.
When CJ said he wanted to “keep the main thing the main thing,” he wasn’t kidding. Unfortunately that statement isn’t what Jesus explained to his disciples in John 16-18. Nor is it consistent with Paul’s teaching of moving on from the milk to the meat, yet not forgetting where we came from.
The “why’s” are starting to make some sense.
LikeLike
Mike,
Your post was great. More and more people are drawing the same conclusions you illustrate; thanks for hammering the doctrinal inconsistency in such a concise way.
LikeLike
Bridget,
Your first paragraph: I agree to a point. Ostensibly there is hope, but the fact still remains that it is bad doctrine. One might argue that at least it is a better version of bad doctrine, but I almost see it as worse, and that discourages me. It seems that they’ve merely done what Calvinists so often do when confronted with an inconsistency they don’t like. They merely add another one to subterfuge the first one so they can stop thinking about it and sleep at night (and impress themselves with their own divine “wisdom”). Thus, they compound the problem, not improve it. I don’t accept changes as anything but more Calvinist hi jinks, even if they seem to go in the right direction. The fact that they cannot seem to see the glaring, impossible contradiction in their perspective concerns me. Okay…Christ doesn’t obey for us to sanctify us. Fine, but then who does? If we do, then what does this say about our post conversion sin in light of Total Depravity? And if the answer is that we do, because we MUST obey then there is no choice, thus it cannot be US who obeys, but God for us. So the 2 possible conclusions from reformed doctrine are 1. Our conversion allows us to both do good and to sin; so our post conversion sin isn’t a result of our sin nature, but of our…new nature in Christ? 2. We still have a sin nature, and we sin by it; and our good is done by the Spirit. This of course = God obeying for us; thus our sanctification is a direct result of Christ’s active obedience for us as a function of the cross.
They choose option one. The men they dog choose option two. They are both bad exegesis, but of the two, which is more consistent?
So, while I want to commend them, I struggle, because it is clear that with them, just like every dedicated Calvinist I know, their train of thought needs to cross bridges that they burned a long time ago.
Am I being too pessimistic?
LikeLike
Heere is more of this sort of thing. Calvinists debating each other and in a place where they would want to show unity.. here is a comment thread that is fascinating. It is a non Calvinists blog but the subject was something the Founders movement wrote. What one Calvinist wrote is fascinating in how the historical doctrines have changed over time. The commenters name is David. Very interesting. Give it a read.
Are we seeing cracks in the movement? Calvinists love to argue. I read an article by a Presbyterian pastor a while back who left the OPC because he got so sick of arguing over minutia of doctrines.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Authentic Calvinism eventually dies a social death. It looks like the following pattern: It dies, then there is a resurgence that lasts 30-50 years. The death usually lasts about 100 years before another “rediscovery.” Remnants of the resurgence lives on with more biblically grounded soteriology, but retains the name, “Calvinism.” Moreover, this is why contemporary Calvinism (the remnant) has a soteriology that is inconsistent with their eschatology. Hence, many “Calvinists” of our day contend against “New Calvinism.” New Calvinism is a resurgence of authentic Calvinism with a new twist: for the first time in church history, it was systematized and packaged for the present church culture via the Australian Forum (1970). This time, it may not go away and become part of the last day antinomian blitzkrieg that will precede Christ’s return. However, Susan and I have been visiting churches that were on the cutting edge of the most recent resurgence. They were the ones who embraced this Reformed model early on as the movement was picking up steam (early 80’s). And what we are seeing is almost surreal. The best way we can explain it is: the outward expression of praise and worship with no life. Almost like skeletons raising their hands in praise to Jesus. Lots of praise and worship, but in both cases, large crowds of people move past each other like ships in the night. While the message is love, love, love, joy, joy, joy; we were not greeted by anybody. Never in my life have I seen so many unfriendly people with smiling faces.
LikeLike
oops, here is the link
http://sbctoday.com/2012/09/27/leonard-woods-he-wills-that-all-men-should-be-saved/#comments
LikeLike
One other question about the video. Where are they on total depravity (inability)? That one has a lot to do with ability in sanctification. Also most Calvinists believe that God gives us faith. We do nothing.
Sometimes their Calvinism does not make sense without double imputation thrown in there to shore up the 5pts..
LikeLike