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 
The cross could never get bigger in reality. Our appreciation for it, on the other hand, continues to grow.
LikeLike
Barba,
Ok, so, according to the chart that you agree with, how can our appreciation of the cross grow if our depth of sin is less, and our pleasing behavior of God is increased?
LikeLike
I didn’t say there is a growing awareness that we are pleasing to God. I don’t believe we begin to feel more accepted or more loved by God because we become more and more obedient. Our confidence to approach and serve God is in our union with Christ, never in our own progress in sanctification.
LikeLike
Barba,
What do you mean by “accepted”? This question seems to keep drawing you back to the justification issue. Please define “accepted.” Who said anything about obeying Christ in sanctification to be “accepted”? Again, you claim to believe the two are separate. “Accepted” (the word you used): please define.
LikeLike
Barba,
The apostle Paul said that we make it our goal to please God. Are you saying that we aren’t aware of that? Also, your statement following: “I don’t believe we begin to feel more accepted or more loved by God because we become more and more obedient” is a direct contradiction to 2Peter 1:5-11.
LikeLike
Buy what book?
LikeLike
Trust4himonly,
So you truly believe we earn God’s blessings through our obedience? Do you not understand that sanctification is the work of God’s grace as much as is the work of justification? Do you truly believe you would ever choose to obey God if he had not broken the power of reigning sin in you and continued to give you both the desire and the ability to please him? It is all simply the outworking and application of the redemptive work of Christ. How do you understand Phil. 2:12-13?
My question to you re: 2 Pet 3:9 is not whether God desires repentance, whether he wills it. If he has willed it, it will certainly occur. Please read Isa 46: 9-11.
LikeLike
“The apostle Paul said that we make it our goal to please God. Are you saying that we aren’t aware of that? Also, your statement following: “I don’t believe we begin to feel more accepted or more loved by God because we become more and more obedient” is a direct contradiction to 2Peter 1:5-11.”
There is no contradiction at all. If I am justified, I don’t spend anytime worrying about how I can be any more acceptable to him. I don’t think, wow if I can just become a little more obedient perhaps God will smile on me. He has already smiled on me. He cannot love me more than he does and will not love me less than he does. Out of gratitude, I want to please him as my loving Father. My obedience does not merit his love; knowledge of his love prompts my obedience.
2 Pet 1: 5-11 simply teaches that the elect can make sure for themselves [a middle voice in the Greek] of their calling and election. Those whom God has called according to his purpose will bear the birthmarks of God’s people. This is why God’s true people engage in obedient activities.
LikeLike
Barba,
“There is no contradiction at all. If I am justified, I don’t spend anytime worrying about how I can be any more acceptable to him. I don’t think, wow if I can just become a little more obedient perhaps God will smile on me. He has already smiled on me. He cannot love me more than he does and will not love me less than he does. Out of gratitude, I want to please him as my loving Father. My obedience does not merit his love; knowledge of his love prompts my obedience.’
Here again, you clearly synthesize justification and sanctification in your answer. Being loved all that we will ever be loved and full acceptance are justification concepts and you clearly give those as a reason for not “worrying” about being MORE acceptable to Him. You keep tying sanctification back to justification. You then make “gratitude” for that justification the primer for your obedience. And I believe this is deliberate wordcraft for purposes of deliberate deception. When you say, “I want to please him as my loving Father” you seem to be saying that there is a goal to please Christ in sanctification, but you are really saying that meditation on what Christ has done for us is the sole motivator for obedience. This is right back to the cross chart. Only problem is, it contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16,17. As born again believers, we strive to be “approved workman” that will not be ashamed when we stand before Christ to give an account of our works for the kingdom. I am done here, I will not play your little Reformed circular argument game. Other readers can interact with you, but if you address me in another comment–I will spam you on this blog. In other words, I am done with you.
LikeLike
Being “accepted” refers to justification. It is because I am “accepted” in justification that I have confidence with God in sanctification. There are tons of people who profess to be Christians who are still struggling to be “accepted” through what they believe is sanctification. I have heard it thousands of times in this form, for example, “I know I am experiencing this sickness or the death of a spouse or a child, because of some sin in my life. God must be getting even with me.” Truth is, God got even with the true believer at the cross. Does God sometimes discipline his sons with suffering because he/she has sinned? Yes. Does God sometimes discipline his sons without any reference to any specific sins whatsoever? Yes. Chastening is not the result of God’s anger but of his love. The idea that if I obey, I get what I consider to be blessings, if not I am going to have trouble is contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures.
LikeLike
Barba,
“There is no contradiction at all. If I am justified, I don’t spend anytime worrying about how I can be any more acceptable to him. I don’t think, wow if I can just become a little more obedient perhaps God will smile on me. He has already smiled on me. He cannot love me more than he does and will not love me less than he does. Out of gratitude, I want to please him as my loving Father. My obedience does not merit his love; knowledge of his love prompts my obedience.’
Here again, you clearly synthesize justification and sanctification in your answer. Being loved all that we will ever be loved and full acceptance are justification concepts and you clearly give those as a reason for not “worrying” about being MORE acceptable to Him. You keep tying sanctification back to justification. You then make “gratitude” for that justification the primer for your obedience. And I believe this is deliberate wordcraft for purposes of deliberate deception. When you say, “I want to please him as my loving Father” you seem to be saying that there is a goal to please Christ in sanctification, but you are really saying that meditation on what Christ has done for us is the sole motivator for obedience. This is right back to the cross chart. Only problem is, it contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16,17. As born again believers, we strive to be “approved workman” that will not be ashamed when we stand before Christ to give an account of our works for the kingdom. I am done here, I will not play your little Reformed circular argument game. Other readers can interact with you, but if you address me in another comment–I will spam you on this blog. In other words, I am done with you.
LikeLike
Spam it if you wish but please read it first–You then make “gratitude” for that justification the primer for your obedience. I don’t make it that. I am just reflecting what the apostle Paul wrote, “the love of Christ constrains, impels, motivates me. . . .” The bottom line is , are we motivated by guilt and fear, or are we motivated by forgiveness, love and confidence? It is not a question of whether we want to be obedient to God or not. If we are believers, we do. It is a question of why we want to please him. Do you think gratitude is a bad concept? It is a concept that is everywhere in the New Testament Scriptures.
Of course we strive to be approved workmen, but we do so because we want to glorify the God who loved us, not to earn some sort of reward that goes beyond our ability to glorify God in eternity.
LikeLike
Barba,
Very well, and feel free to interact with whoever you wish here except me–don’t address me. Nothing personal, I just see no point in continuing the discussion with you, or any other discussion for that matter.
Blessings,
paul
LikeLike
I enjoyed the discussion with you too. Nice that we can have this kind of meaningful exchange without hubris.
LikeLike
“There are tons of people who profess to be Christians who are still struggling to be “accepted” through what they believe is sanctification. I have heard it thousands of times in this form, for example, “I know I am experiencing this sickness or the death of a spouse or a child, because of some sin in my life.
Barba, even Christians can fall into this doubt from time to time- this does not mean they were not saved to begin with (you put in those professing to be Christians). This is the problem with Calvinism/Reformed/Lordship Salvation; you must be ALL ON BOARD to be able to KNOW you are saved. You must have the RIGHT theological grounding (according to Calvinism) to be able to know that you are truly one of the elect. You must know the Doctrines of whatever (suffering, prayer, etc..) to be able to fully grasp what it means to be saved. I know because I experienced it, along with all the others here. The church I went to started getting into all kinds of doctrines/disciplines to keep up with- contentment, sleep, prayer, journaling, suffering, etc….This pietism at its best.
We all as Christians will fall and experience times of God dealing with our sin, but also not all hardships are a result of sin. Hardships are there because of sin in the world and hardships are there for us to trust in God more and rely on His love and grace to meet our needs. Sometimes we are right that in our belief that God may be dealing with sin, but sometimes it is because of faulty theologies that will cause us to be deceived into thinking that we are being judged for our sin. Many Pastors love to hold this ax over our heads- popular tactic for many.
LikeLike
OK thanks for the discussion.
Blessings back.
LikeLike