Reformed Response to PPT Helps Me Make My Point About Their Heresy
A Response to some of my recent posts is just too juicy to pass up because it helps me make my point. The article was written by one of the early advocates of New Covenant Theology which was a spin on Luther’s law/gospel concept that came out of the Australian Forum via Jon Zens. Zens was one of the core four of the Australian Forum along with Robert Brinsmead, Graeme Goldsworthy, and Geoffrey Paxton. They are the true, and original core four, not those other dorks.
I owe them a debt of gratitude for articulating so well what the Reformers really believed which is going to make the second volume of “The Truth About New Calvinism” much easier to write. I have actually corresponded with Brinsmead who owns a rockin’ fruit farm in Australia. I wanted to go over there and hang with him but Susan said we couldn’t afford it. Oh well. Some say he is an atheist now, but that isn’t true. Actually, what he now believes is much healthier than Reformed Theology.
The title of the post is, “Straw Man Arguments About Justification and Sanctification.” A Reformed definition of a “straw man” is: a man that burns really, really fast on a stake and doesn’t scream at all. That’s why “straw man” has such negative cogitations in Reformed circles.
I will skip the usual Reformed crybaby stuff that prefaces the introductions to Reformed writings about “unity,” “secondary issues” etc, and get to the meat of the issue.
The name of the blog is “Truth Unchanging” which has Platonist cogitations. Plato, the daddy of Reformed theology (as will be documented in “The Reformation Myth”), believed that anything that changes form cannot be truth. That would exclude the material world, and explains the crux of why Reformed hacks are so opposed to dispensationalism, albeit a lot of them don’t realize it. Basically, most of them don’t like dispensationalism because John Piper says it’s naughty.
The author’s first point follows:
In matters that concern the purity of the gospel, it is clear there are mis-statements that are so grave that the very gospel itself is in danger of being lost. For example, if a person denies the concept of imputation, he has denied the heart of God’s good news. If the sinner’s justification depends to any degree on his faithfulness to God’s covenant, the so-called “good news” would become bad news. Not only do the unconverted sinner’s best works of “righteousness” fall short of meeting God’s standard for justification, but the believer’s best obedience also fails to meet that standard. God requires perfect, continual, and internal obedience to his Law. What one of us can claim that we have loved God, perfectly, continually and from the heart? I would like to believe I love God, yet I would never profess that, even as a believer, I love him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength.
This is a shocking admission, but very indicative of Reformed theology. A perfect obedience to the law must be maintained during the believers sanctification. The apostle Paul went out of his way in his gospel letter to the Romans to refute this very tenet, but it is in fact the crux of the Reformation gospel. A change of standard is counter-intuitive to the Greek philosophy that Reformed theology was founded on. But Paul makes it clear: God imputed a righteousness that is “apart from the law.” This is also why the Reformers were against the dispensationalist idea of two judgments and two resurrections. Two different judgments suggest that one judgment can’t be based on the law because believers are no longer “under the law, but under grace” ….for justification. The Reformed view of imputation then becomes a progressive imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to uphold the standard of the law during our sanctification. This is called “Christ’s active obedience.”
The author continues:
The reality is that God doesn’t declare righteous those who are righteous in and of themselves. Nor, does he justify sinners because through the infusion of grace, i.e., enablement, these sinners have attained a level of faithfulness to God’s covenant that God is now able to declare them righteous, despite their failure to attain the level of perfection the Scriptures teach us he requires.
Though the goal of perfection is required in sanctification, this is another clear-cut statement showing that a perfect keeping of the law is required to maintain the just standing of the believer. The usual argument is that since Christians sin, they have no righteousness in, and of themselves that can maintain the standard. But this is the exact idea Paul was refuting when he wrote, “….because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.”
Notice that in true Reformed tradition, the author denies “the infusion of Grace”; ie, the new birth, of which Christ said we must have for salvation. The key here is the fact that we are considered Holy because there is no law that can judge us for justification, the penalty thereof has also been paid by Christ, we have the seed of God within us, and the old us has been crucified and is dead. And therefore, “….is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.” As Christians, we can therefore obey the law in a way that pleases God as opposed to the way we were before we were crucified with Christ.
The author then states a lot of things about justification that no one would disagree with, but then pulls the Reformed missing transition between justification and sanctification communication technique:
What, then, is God’s standard? Paul’s answer is clear. It is perfect, continual and inward obedience to God’s Law. He wrote, “For it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before, but the doers of the law who will be justified [declared righteous]” ( Romans 2:13).
The author cites Romans 2:13 as a standard for justification regarding believers, but it is not. That verse speaks of the direction of the saved, and not the perfection in comparison to those who are unsaved. This is clear if you observe the preceding text in 2:6-11:
He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.
Why would those who keep the law perfectly need “patience” in well-doing? It speaks of the desire of the saved who are hindered by sinful mortality. This is a sanctification verse.
The author continues:
Now, we must ask two questions: 1. What sinner is there among us who has met that standard? Paul’s answer is, “not one!” 2. Who has been subjected to that standard who has met the standard perfectly? The answer is, only one! Paul argues that “since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” It is not a divine righteousness our case demands. It is a perfect human righteousness, defined by God’s perfect standard. Our case demands a righteousness defined as unbridled, wholehearted love for God that is manifested in an unswerving commitment to God’s revealed will.
The good news is that believers are given credit for that kind of love for God and obedience to his will that even in our best moments we do not possess personally.
Here is another shocking admission, but again, uniquely Reformed: God’s declaration of His imputed righteousness to the believer, based on their belief in Christ is not enough, it must be a perfect human righteousness! This is exactly why the preponderance of Scripture states that it is God the Father’s righteousness that was imputed to us, and with the exception of one or two verses where it is inferred, not the righteousness of Christ.
Romans 8:30 states specifically that God’s righteousness was imputed to us and our glorification guaranteed before creation. The significance of Christ’s perfect obedience is the fact that He was the only man “born under the law” (Galatians 4:4) that could go on to die on the cross for the world’s sins without being tempted by the law or condemned by it. All other men are provoked to sin by the law, will be judged by the law, and condemned by the law unless they believe on Christ. They are under law, not grace, and enslaved to sin. Christ’s perfect life on earth was not part of the atonement, but was necessary in order not to be condemned as one born under the law like all other people born into the world. He was the only man who ever lived on Earth that could have come in order to pay the penalty of sin for all of mankind because He was able to keep the law perfectly. But His obedience was not then imputed to our sanctification.
The rest of the article is just a bunch of doublespeak with intent to fog the issue. It can be summed up this way: we supposedly work, but our work is not in combination with God for a result in sanctification. We work because God works first, and oh, by the way, Christ’s obedience must be added to it as well. They make it sound like a colaboring, but in the end, remember that they reject a separate resurrection and judgment concerning rewards.
They instead believe in one resurrection and one judgment to determine who is justified….
….by maintaining our justification by faith alone in sanctification.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Just started reading this article, but your Reformed definition of “straw man” had me ROFL for about 5 minutes! Now that I have contained my self I can continue reading.
LikeLike
Hey Paul,
I remember you, your wife, and sons in the early to mid 1990’s when we all were going to Clearcreek Chapel, and when you left. The fact that you are so violently opposed and show continued bitterness and division in the body of Christ is less due to their doctrine being a “cult” and more to do with some of the church finding out what your son R. exposed in you and your wife’s personal walks. I won’t write his name but I know you and him personally and wanted to make that clear. Was R. right in exposing it in detail? No. Was calling it sin correct? Yes, most definitely. I have found that some of the most mature believers I have ever met went to Clearcreek Chapel. Why? Because they left a candy coated walk with God where it belongs, with Satan and people who think or pretend to know Christ but do not or believers who aren’t willing to live as foreigners in this world and instead wholeheartedly conform to it. Is this judgmental? Yes, and I expect to be judged in the same manner, by the Word of God, living and breathing in me daily. If in this day and age I don’t daily put my selfish desires to death then I may as well join a church that will spoon-feed me a white washed gospel that leads to death. Considering how long you have been maligning Clearcreek I find it telling that you can’t allow a very small church to go it’s way in it’s unbelief instead of violently attacking it. Do you attack the Mormon church or Jehovah’s Witnesses with the same fervor in regards to their faulty doctrine? If they are a “cult” then they will be judged by God won’t they? You really should move on and let Jesus heal you of the venom destroying you instead of daily renewing this verbal vomit of hatred and spite. You take out of context what convicts you and you will be judged by the same measure. You believe you are a victim and so Clearcreek should for your personal gratification conform to salve your hurt feelings? I would have thought you would be beyond this as a grown man and believer if you still profess to be one. Please give this a rest and find a better use of your time such as opposing the rampant sexuality present in churches in your area. Or allowing a believer and military veteran in Franklin OH to be taken against his will and hospitalized without a peep from the body there. Have you done anything about that? Or do these things not matter? Instead of being used by Satan to foment even more separation of the body of Christ find a way to bring the body together.
Rob L
LikeLike
Rob,
I seriously doubt I ever knew you, and I doubt even more that you are who you say you are. Um, Rob, the total depravity of the saints doesn’t mean that you can assume that all Christians have deep sin in their lives that isn’t exposed. So, I am not sitting here right now saying to myself, “Ugh! He knows!” Sorry. So, you little weasel, if you know something about my life that is some deep, unresolved sin, state it right now, right here.
You have unwittingly shown why I do what I do. Hence I will not rest until these evil men are out of the ministry. You expect me to go away while these men perpetrate what you have just perpetrated here, and many things like it, unabated.I don’t believe in private virtue. Nor can I fight all of the terrorism in the world, but I can relentlessly fight against the terrorists that I know the most about. And again, you have demonstrated one of their many evil ploys: accuse people of sin, but don’t state it under the auspices of mercy while leaving people to their own imaginations. That’s why the CCC elders didn’t state my “sins” when they excommunicated me–they knew people would assume the worst. Russ Kennedy told my own daughter that my life was full of deep, unconfessed sin. These are extremely evil men who have license to effect people’s lives in large numbers.I will not go away and leave hordes of people to go to them unaware. I will sound the alarm.
And again you stinking coward, if you know something about my life, state it now, or go back under the flat rock you came from.
paul
LikeLike
I actually printed this article because it is just so great at explaining and refuting New Calvinism. Keep up the excellent work, Paul and Susan!!! We love your ministry and it is very much needed in the Body of Christ! Blessed is the man and woman who keep God’s law and teaches others to obey it!!! They will be called great in the Kingdom of God! 🙂
Matthew 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven: but whosoever shall DO and TEACH them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.”
LikeLike
Thanks Jenn, funny, when you are a writer, often stuff you don’t feel that great about rings the bells of others. This article is in fact getting a lot of hits and emails. I will have to read it again and see what I did right. Thanks for your encouragement.
paul
LikeLike
JD,
Your citation (“but whosoever shall DO and TEACH them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven”) has been following me around all day long. Let us ponder that deeply. What a promise! And here is the question that is really hitting me between the eyes: Is this really the crux of what we would call “biblical counseling.” I mean, if hearing and putting what we learn “into practice” results in “a house built on a rock,” well, how much better does it get than that?
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
Thank you for posting my comments and I ask you to please forgive me, I had you mistaken for someone else I knew in Clearcreek. So I recant my statement about your sin, I am who I say I am, you are not who I thought you were to my regret in applying my statement above to you and your wife. I still think that you are in error and will call you on not encouraging the body in love. I didn’t resort to calling you derogatory names like “a little weasel” or “a stinking coward” and saying I wasn’t who I said I was. If I indeed knew of sin in your life I certainly wouldn’t address it in detail on a website as that doesn’t edify you or the body and no where in the bible does it say to call out personal sin in detail, it is to be done in a personal manner with a few of the body. However since you are calling out what you proclaim as sin by the members of Clearcreek I ask you to explain your method of edification. You can look up my name Robert Lynn in the church membership from the mid 90’s so we can clear up whether I am who I say I am. I am man enough to admit my mistake to you because in not doing so I would give Satan an opportunity to separate the body further. So I again ask you to forgive me for my sinful and wrong application of another situation to you. Does the bible not say that “love covers a multitude of sin”, “showing brotherly affection”, or “love fulfills the law”? So I question you on this, are you operating in the same way? Again you state that Clearcreek is “affecting people’s lives in large numbers” yet they are a small congregation. Again I would ask that you address the questions I asked you now that you know who I am and I can easily verify this by any way you would like. If you are indeed operating in a Godly manner then you should have no problem addressing my other questions which stand as I asked them instead of ignoring them. Whether I was right or wrong about who I thought I was addressing is immaterial in regards to my questions as they are addressing what you are putting out as fact now. I look forward to your response now that I have had an opportunity to address my sinful mistake against you and hope again that you can forgive me of that.
Sincerely,
Rob
LikeLike
Rob,
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate you retracting your mistaken comment and I retract mine as well. No outstanding hard feelings here at all. I also appreciate your other comments, but let me say this: CCC is living off the foundation and reputation of that ministry as a NANC counseling center left by John Street. Though a small congregation (probably 300 or so), several mega churches in the state of Ohio refer people there for counseling. In fact, several large churches in that area farm out ALL of their counseling to CCC. And UNITY? This ministry receives continual correspondence regarding the relationships that these elders continually destroy. In fact, I received another one just two days ago. It is the estimation of this ministry that the CCC elders oversee 3-4 divorces per year. Beyond that, they have been responsible, and continue to be responsible for the dividing of numerous relationships of different kinds. Though I left CCC some time ago, a member there was confronted for having me on their FB friends list. The place is a dangerous cult. Besides families that have fled the state of Ohio to get as far away from them as possible, there are others under the care of psychologists in the aftermath of their departure. Present members are not allowed to associate with any members who have left, and are threatened with church discipline if they do. They place is an evil cult–unity is not the issue here; civic duty is the issue.
paul
LikeLike
I just have two things. You say Justification as you hofuleply understand now through our talks is freely given to you by purely believing in faith Christ crucified . I know what you are saying, because I know you. However, you just have left it at believing in Christ crucified . The other way seems like you are saying you have faith in your faith. Also, We both know that we could never be perfect this side of heaven. Romans 7 reminds us that this struggle between what we want to do and what we really do will always be with us until we see Christ in glory. Other then being picky with your words, I appreciate you brother. Your friendship and as a brother in Christ. Keep fighting the good fight and remember Romans 8:1: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus ; You were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11).
LikeLike