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 
Trust4himonly,
Can you tell me what promise Peter is talking about in context and to whom he is writing, i.e., who are the “us” he does not wish to perish? Do you really believe everyone is going to be saved? If not, does that mean God has decreed something something that doesn’t happen? Or is this verse talking about something other than God’s decree.
It really is quite simple if a person is willing to cite proof -texts out of context and then ignore all the passages that teach that God is sovereign in the salvation of sinners. Please always remember, single texts can only be understood in the light of the whole of Scripture. A text that is intended to explain why God’s promise of judgment has not yet been executed should not be used to explain away texts in which the explicit intent is to explain God’s decree for saving sinners. You must not build your entire theology on one verse and then state that all the other verses just complicate the issue.
Concerning the infant “baptism” thing and the “no salvation outside the visible church thing, you and I are in complete agreement.
LikeLike
“No. What’s growing? Salvation doesn’t grow”
Bingo. But Holiness does.
One cannot have Justification without Sanctification and visa versa. But they are two different things. And Synergistic. Calvinism by dent of what is taught merges the concepts and keeps folks bragging about their wormliness, stuck at the Cross and not growing in Holiness because that concept is alien to the Calvinist filter.. Calvinists glory in a wicked hearts while claiming salvation. Their doctrine is perfect for cultish thinking because it fits exactly LIfton’s “doctrine over people” method of cults. They have turned “love” into hate and truth into arrogance and thought reform. They do this by redefining concepts and words.
Makes me want to lock up the children and hide the silver when the Calvinists come to dinner. Why? Because being Born Again in Calvin thought does not mean becoming a new creature in Christ. And that is scary. That is why Ernest Reisinger can write a book called Quiet Revolution about covertly take over churches for Calvinism. The pew sitters are so ignorant they won’t figure it out until it is too late is what he believed. And that thinking is all over the YRR/NC movement. In fact, they are more honest about Calvin doctrine than the liberal Presbyterians who decided the Calvin doctrine was too mean long ago so they focused on social justice. (wink)
Doctrine drives belief and behavior, folks.
LikeLike
I mean, the chart says it all: we don’t grow, the cross grows. We don’t change–we make the cross bigger by seeing our total depravity more and more. I mean, what is there to discuss here? It’s in-your-face Gnosticism. Here, I will add another one of THEIR charts showing the heresy of double imputation that goes hand in hand with the other: https://paulspassingthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/how-to-preach-the-gospel-to-yourself-2.gif
LikeLike
Lydia,
I have no question but that you are correct in stating that Calvin was driven by his doctrine. What I don’t accept is that his polity for Geneva was driven by his belief re: predestination. Instead, he was controlled by his faulty understanding of the church. He simply continued the practices of the RCC which they wrongly derived from a failure to understand that the covenantal system that existed in the Old Testament period no longer obtains
LikeLike
Lydia,
“One cannot have Justification without Sanctification and visa versa. But they are two different things.” Well stated. I couldn’t agree more.
LikeLike
“In research for TRM, what is astounding is the similarities between Calvinism and Islam”
Paul, As a kid, my mom had a ministry to Muslim students so I was around Muslims a lot. They were always in and out of our home. And we did study the Koran to understand them better. Then after 9/11 I had a Koran study group with a few Christians who really wanted to understand Islam.
When I was attracted to Calvinism and started studying it, I was alarmed with some of the parallels with Islam. If you dive into rules you miss it. If you look at the overall arching belief of both religions it is the “Determinist God” filter. Both start with the wrong premise.
I have no illusions about Calvinism. If we were in a state church government right now, Calvinists would be using force. It fits their doctrine and subsequent demeanor perfectly. And we see that bent played out when you actually interact with many of the YRR today. Even Mohler publicly stated that some need to be “marginalized” who were outspoken non Calvinist pastors in the SBC. Why would an employee of the SBC make such a statement for public consumption? Why would he think such a thing Christlike? That sort of thinking is foundational for the step toward coercion. If he had real political power, I shudder to think how it would play out.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Exactly, determinism, and Plato’s Republic and the tri-level spiritual caste system. Islam was strongly influenced by Plato’s philosophy which will be documented as well.
LikeLike
Just curious, what does your brand of Reformed do with the mentally challenged adults who are sinners? Your doctrinal mentors believed padeobaptism covered them since they were born guilty of Adam’s sin.
If you do not believe in padeobaptism, then what? Where do you see God decreeing that those who die in infancy and the mentally challenged as adults are automatically saved?
Over at the Reformed blog, Challies, I used to read commenters who insisted that God is glorified as he sends babies to hell. I realize that there are Reformed who do not agree with that but at least the Challies commenters were honest about where their doctrine actually leads.
LikeLike
Paul,
I have studied Gnosticism, but I don’t see any correspondence between it and this teaching.
LikeLike
Barba,
Look at the cross chart. “The good” is manifested on earth by contemplating the contrast between good and evil. It’s not even ambiguous.
LikeLike
“I have no question but that you are correct in stating that Calvin was driven by his doctrine. What I don’t accept is that his polity for Geneva was driven by his belief re: predestination. Instead, he was controlled by his faulty understanding of the church. He simply continued the practices of the RCC which they wrongly derived from a failure to understand that the covenantal system that existed in the Old Testament period no longer obtains”
Barba, That does not work in God’s Economy. The “church” is made up of those with the indwelling Holy Spirit who are born again. The only thing it tells me is that there was no real church in Geneva. There might have been some true believers.
You want, as most Calvinists do, to separate behavior from beliefs. That is like saying Stalin was a really nice guy who really had the right idea except for the way he carried them out. Sheesh!!!
There were others at the time who gave their lives to defy the tyrants of the state church in things like infant baptism, sacraments as a means of grace, etc. Calvin did have a “choice”. Or was it decreed he be a tyrant?
LikeLike
Lydia,
“Could you direct me to the place where Calvin or a Calvinist teaches that God controls our every action in the sense that he causes us to do what he has forbidden? I don’ think I have ever read that in Calvin or in any Calvinist literature. I am quite certain that is not my view. Since you know Calvin’s writings so well, it shouldn’t be difficult to produce at least on quotation.”
I know you saw this post because you reposted it. Can you tell me where Calvinists teach what you claim?
Thanks
LikeLike
Barba,
Yes, the Redemptive Historical hermetic is based on the principle that the Bible is a predetermined gospel narrative that supplies a general prism for every believers life. The goal of sanctification is to become part of the narrative through meditation on the Bible a meta-narrative. It’s a bunch of stinking Eastern mysticism. Plato got it from the Hindus after Socrates drank Kool-Aid, Neo-Platonist got from Plato, Auggie got it from Neo-Platonism, and Luther/Calvin got it from Auggie.
LikeLike
Would anyone here like to discuss some of the Bible verses that talk about God’s decree instead of simply trying to demonize the doctrine by a comparison to Islam? Just because Islam teaches it, doesn’t make it wrong does it?
LikeLike
Barba,
Again, my problem with Calvinism is that it a maintaining of Justification through sanctification by faith alone.
LikeLike