The Reformation False Gospel Denies the New Birth
“This can be plainly seen in one of the most well-articulated Reformed treatises on the subject of the new birth: it is an article endorsed by the Reformed icon Graeme Goldsworthy, and the article is entitled, The False Gospel of the New Birth. Any questions?”
“This Gnostic paradigm enables those of the Reformed tradition to affirm the truthfulness of the new birth, while denying its significance. The new birth is a mere shadow of the only important thing that can power our lives. Like their Gnostic parents, they are masters of deception in this way. It enables them to dismiss the plain sense of Scripture on a large scale while building their antinomian juggernaut.”
_______________________________________________________
Hopefully, the Reformation will one day take its proper place in history as one of the great cults. Like all cults, it utilizes familiar biblical terminology, but has assigned a different meaning to the terms. Though the Reformers and their offspring frame explanations of salvific elements in biblical plausibility, their words are carefully chosen to deceive those who are not “ready” for their deep Reformation “truth.”
Basic elements of Reformed ideology are a direct affront to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Christ said, “You must be born again,” and this the Reformers deny. The biblical meaning of the new birth is a total recreation of the saved person. The old self was put to death and no longer lives—we are new creatures. “Behold, all things are new.” The old man who was inflamed in temptation by the law is now dead, and the believer is now free via the new birth to pursue freedom in the law, though not perfectly. This is what the new birth does: it changes the relationship of the law to the saved individual. He/she is no longer under it for justification, but upholds it as a kingdom citizen and slave to Jesus Christ. Failure thereof temporarily disrupts the intimate family relationship with the Father and the Son, but can be restored through a repentance that is not a washing, for we are already washed.
This creates an abundance of difficulties for Reformed theology. An actual transformation of the individual that includes the efficacious union of Christ, rather than the life of Christ being the only life in a spiritually dead believer, is the Waterloo of Reformed theology. Are we alive with Christ? Or are we still dead with Christ? Is sanctification by faith alone because we are still dead, or are we creditable colaborers who are able to truly love our Lord through our actions?
In Reformed theology, there is no new birth that makes us new creatures with Christ, the “new birth” is “Christ for us.” Not just for forgivenessof sins, but for EVERYTHING. “You can do nothing without me,” is translated, you can’t do anything at all because you are still spiritually dead.
Reformed theology is a let go and let God doctrine on steroids. And in Reformed theology, to deny that Christians remain spiritually dead is paramount to works salvation because the law remains the standard for justification. Instead of being dead to the law for justification, we are still dead to law for sanctification as well—the relationship has not changed—Christ must keep the law for us to maintain our just standing. This is why, according to most Reformed theology, you can lose your salvation if you do not live the Christian life by, “faith alone.” Trying to obey the law in sanctification is supposedly insanity because the standard is still perfection—we are still under the law. Not only that, we are still spiritually dead to boot. Justification texts are deceptively applied to sanctification and vice versa. It’s all the same.
This is why Reformed theology turns truth completely upside down at every point. It is a gargantuan library of lies that cover for other lies. It started with a false premise, and has spent over 500 years building, refining and crafting its narrative. It uses the same metaphysics that Satan needed to be equal with God. To compete with God, Satan needed to be different—so he created the antithesis of God: evil. Therefore, in Satan’s book, the whole story, or the rest of the story, or the totality of “wisdom,” should have included his creation as well: the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of good alone is knowledge of God alone—Satan would have none of that.
Hence, the first sentence of the Calvin institutes describes wisdom as primarily the knowledge of God and us (who remain totally depraved). Therefore, according to the same garden metaphysics, we must remain evil in order to have a working epistemology. If we change, if we become more and more like God, the epistemological gateway is diminished. A deeper and deeper knowledge of our depravity can no longer be set against a deeper and deeper knowledge of God’s holiness—leading to more and more “wisdom.” Therefore, the idea of the new birth drives a stake through the heart of the first sentence of the Calvin institutes. The transformation of us just points more to knowledge about God and less about our former condition—this seems to upset Calvin’s epistemological apple cart.
But whether or not you buy my working theory on the deeper issue of metaphysics, the fact remains that Reformed theology clearly teaches that we remain totally depraved as Christians. The only argument is whether or not neo-Calvinism has distorted the original intent of the Reformers. I contend that they have not. And if they have, the Calvin purists can blame themselves because an apt treatise against the neo-Calvinists is nowhere to be found, but rather fellowship. If Calvinists don’t want to wear the shoe that fits, let them come out from among them.
In the Reformed mindset, to claim transformation through the new birth is to make salvation about us, and less about God. Such is not the truth because God doesn’t need evil to better define Himself, nor does He need evil as a contrast to magnify His glory. Therefore, pointing to our own evil does not glorify God. Becoming more like God glorifies God; Christ makes this clear in the Sermon on the Mount. But notable contemporary Reformers state the opposite, saying that emphasizing the enabling power of the new birth (as Christ did with the word, “must”) “eclipses” the glory of Christ:
It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.
~ Geoffrey Paxton (Australian Forum)
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~ Michael Horton
And the new-birth-oriented “Jesus-in-my-heart” gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism. (footnoted to Paxton’s article with above quote).
~ Graeme Goldsworthy (Australian Forum)
In it [Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern] it gave one of the clearest statements of why the Reformation was needed…. I would add that this “upside down” gospel has gone away— neither from Catholicism nor from Protestants.
~ John Piper
Another way those of the Reformed tradition explain away plain truth about the new birth is the Reformed Emphasis Hermeneutic which is based on Gnosticism. Truth is beyond what the five senses can ascertain. What the five senses can ascertain are shadows and forms of the vision of the good. So, to “emphasize” what the Holy Spirit is helping us do within is emphasizing what we sense, and what Reformers call “subjective experience.” The only true objective truth is “the objective gospel outside of us” which is a Reformed mantra (http://www.objectivegospel.org/). What they have done is reversed normal metaphysics in the same way Gnosticism does. What we observe is no longer empirical, but deemed subjective; only the true vision of the good is objective; ie, the gospel outside of us. Therefore, to emphasize the new birth is to emphasize the shadows and forms of the higher good, and not the higher good. It is “emphasizing a good thing, but not the best thing,” and, “emphasizing the fruit, and not the root.” This Gnostic paradigm enables those of the Reformed tradition to affirm the truthfulness of the new birth, while denying its significance. The new birth is a mere shadow of the only important thing that can power our lives. Like their Gnostic parents, they are masters of deception in this way. It enables them to dismiss the plain sense of Scripture on a large scale while building their antinomian juggernaut. This can be plainly seen in one of the most well-articulated Reformed treatises on the subject of the new birth: it is an article endorsed by the Reformed icon Graeme Goldsworthy, and the article is entitled, The False Gospel of the New Birth. Any questions?
Reformed theology is in no wise truthful on any point other than some facts that are used as coconspirators in their evil plot to take away from God’s objective truth, and also add to it. Their doctrine drives a stake through the very heart of the true gospel. They boldly deny the words of the Lord of Lords, the glorious Holy King: “You must be born again.”
And their desert will be just.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“Actually, Pietism didn’t emphasize doctrine very much, but that aside, your comment reminds me of what the lady said as she was leaving the A.M. worship service. She said, “Pastor, that was a great sermon, it didn’t have no doctrine or nothin.’”
Perfect metaphor for how Calvinists view non Calvinists. I often wonder how illiterate peasants were ever saved. It could not be they were filled with the Holy Spirit without someone teaching them “correct doctrine”. This is pretty much how Calvin viewed the people of Geneva, too.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Do I understand you to mean Churches don’t need pastors and if they have pastors, they shouldn’t teach theology? If I were a peasant, I would be offended by your comments. You seem to indicate that people who are poor and have little formal education are too stupid to learn. I have spent much of my life with such people. Many of them are quite intelligent and more open to truth than “the wise and prudent.” Think of the people Jesus ministered to. He certainly didn’t hold back on theological teaching.
LikeLike
Again Barba, we are to LOOK at ALL doctrines through the lens of Scripture, not the other way around. If there is ONE ounce of false teaching we should be chucking it out the window. Calvinism has many discrepancies – take the TULIP. This is a lie.
No! there should NOT be any doctrines of suffering, prayer, etc….. these things are simply stated in Scripture and their is no reason for suffering or prayer to be complicated. I had to sit and listen to a 300+ page book on contentment by a Puritan author, when there are a few verses in Scripture that tell us just to plainly be content in all circumstances. What more do you need to know exccept to ask the Holy Spirit to help you be content and start obeying His Word? The Word was not created to be a theological maze for people to have to find their way through to get enlightened. For goodness sakes! just look at the people Christ mingled with- NONE had theological seminary training and ALL were just common folk. I can see this kind of theological circus for what it is- it produces pride. Take the TULIP- who can understand it except for the enlightened ones? You say that I do want pastors to lead- that is not true (where did you come up with that conclusion?)! Pastors are there to preach His Word not complicate it. Pastors are there to exhort and encourage those to follow His Word, not follow TULIP or the Westminister Confession. I see now the lies, because I see that men love power and whenever they can dupe people into believing something they will do it. I do not see humility and love, I see pride and an arrogant spirit.
LikeLike
I meant to say “You say that I do NOT want pastors to lead”
LikeLike
Barba none of the people Jesus taught went on to getting theological training. They just wrote the words that Christ told them to through the Holy Spirit.
So what you and many others are trying to tell us is that to truly understand the Scripture, that was given to the disciples and others, through the Holy Spirit we MUST go through the theological teachings of others, via Calvin or whoever to understand it?
LikeLike
Do I understand you to mean Churches don’t need pastors and if they have pastors, they shouldn’t teach theology? If I were a peasant, I would be offended by your comments. You seem to indicate that people who are poor and have little formal education are too stupid to learn. I have spent much of my life with such people. Many of them are quite intelligent and more open to truth than “the wise and prudent.” Think of the people Jesus ministered to. He certainly didn’t hold back on theological teaching.”
Nice try Barba. That is what you got out of my comment? I was giving the Holy Spirit credit for illuminating truth to the peasant. Not “correct doctrine” presented by the Calvinist.
LikeLike
You clearly do not understand reformed theology or Michael Horton’s beliefs. Horton warns against Gnosticism and the “Let Go and Let God” belief in many Christian denominations. We can not save or sanctify ourselves. God saves us AND sanctifies us. He constantly talks about the Trinity and the Trinity’s work throughout all of Scripture.
LikeLike
Matt,
You are clueless. On the one hand you deny Horton is a Gnostic, which he certainly is, then you admit that he fuses justification and sanctification together. Don’t lecture me about Horton, I have forgotten more about his theology than you will ever know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
….furthermore, the idea that he couldn’t be a Gnostic because he criticizes Gnosticism is silly. That’s the oldest trick in the heretic’s book–saying you aren’t what you are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is your definition of a Gnostic sir? Have you read his books or listened to The White Horse Inn in detail? Do you believe that we are saved by grace? How then are we sanctified? Do you believe in a works-righteousness for sanctification?
LikeLike
Matt,
You misunderstand. I am not concerned with persuading you. You are a waste of my time. Your ignorance concerning basic law/gospel theology is reflected in “works-righteousness for sanctification.” I am busy and will not post anymore of your comments.
LikeLike
I am a female sir. My name is not Matt. I did not mean to waste your time. I was seriously trying to understand why you believe the way you do. I just got back from a walk with my children and as I was walking I was praying for you and for the Lord to show me His truth. One of the things that I love about Michael Horton is his humility. I love the verse in James that talks about wisdom from above being marked with humility, being full of mercy and good fruits. It is gentle and peacable, open to reason. (James 3:17). Michael Horton would never tell someone that they are a waste of his time. One of his beliefs is that we are to work along side non believers, as we are all created in God’s image. We all have God’s law written on our conscience, but only believers have God’s law written on our hearts. The commandment to love our neighbor is for all people. I do have an understanding of law/gospel. The law guides us but it can not put one puff of wind in our sails in our Christian walk. Only the gospel can do that.
LikeLike
Ok then Jamie? look, the source of our power for sanctification is all of the salvation that we get when we are saved. The source of our power in sanctification is the new birth, NOT JUSTIFICATION. Sorry for losing patience, but I have written extensively on Horton’s heresy. For one, he teaches that we can lose our salvation, hence, what do we have to do to keep it? For all practical purposes, be an antinomian. I could care less about Horton’s humbleness routine and his Mr. Rogers demeanor. He is a ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing.
LikeLike
Jamie,
I can do this. If you send your mailing address to pmd@inbox.com I can send you some info on the fact that the law is not still a standard for our justification–this is key.
LikeLike
It’s o.k. I take no offense. I have read (and am reading) many of Horton’s books. I believe the Lord led me to Michael Horton and his teachings. I know for certain that Horton does not believe that we can lose our salvation. I’m not sure what you believe, but I believe that we are either dead to sin or alive to Christ. Salvation is of the Lord. Once the Lord saves us, He is also sanctifying us until we are glorified. We have been saved (justification); we are being saved (sanctification); we will be saved (glorification). Our bondage to sin makes us passive in relation to righteousness, but the gospel liberates us, making us active in love and service to our neighbor. Do you believe that faith precedes the new birth? I believe, like Horton, that the new birth precedes faith. “The new birth, unlike sanctification, is not a process, but the instantaneous and gratuitous resurrection of those who are spiritually dead”. ~Michael Horton
I would be interested in reading any info you would be willing to send along. Thank you!
LikeLike
You are deceived. Though Horton uses the term “new birth” he doesn’t believe that it results in new creaturehood. You are being led astray by a false teacher.
LikeLike