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 
Its not the fact that Calvinists know that you are a sinner, it is the fact that you must continually be aware that you are a sinner……at all times. Wha la- keep focusing on the cross.
And yes this is quite like the Muslim that must be praying before Allah 3 times a day or the Catholic who must continually do penance, observe the Eucharist, and look to the icon of Jesus on the cross to know that they are saved. To the Calvinist you must be aware of the doctrines and continually keep yourself at the cross as a sinner to know if you are sure of your salvation.
The thing is come on, we already know that we still sin even as a Christian, but to still dwell on it, keeps us in it. Are we not to move on from elementary teachings?
LikeLike
T4H,
Exactly. We are to “dwell” on what is honorable and praiseworthy. Phil. 4
LikeLike
Why not enjoy and strive for the rewards that will be given to us in heaven? What is wrong with that? does not God go into full detail on what He will be giving us in heaven? Yes, because He delights in His children and yes, our rewards will in turn glorify Him for what He did for us and in us. There are rewards for our faithfulness.
Does not God tell us what heaven will be like so that we can look forward to this reward of being with Him in fellowship; walking with Jesus; seeing Him face to face; enjoying the pleasures of His kingdom? Does He not talk about the details of what heaven looks like so that we will get excited about being there?
I happen to believe in a personal God who is more excited for all His children to be with Him then we could ever imagine- this is what aggravates me about Calvinism. This doctrine sucks out the joy of the Christian that God delights in seeing His children and delights in those who want to do His will.
Paul states in
I Corinthians 3:12-15
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a REWARD.
If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Luke 19:16-17
“Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.”
John 14:1-4
14 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many mansions;[a] if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.[b] 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
LikeLike
Trust4himonly,
You seem like a very sweet and sincere person and I look forward to being with you in heaven. I am truly sorry you have been exposed to a group of Calvinists that have colored your thinking and prejudiced your against the teaching. That is why it pains me all the more when I see you stating what you suppose to be the Calvinistic position, when I know that is not what Calvinists believe at all. Not everyone who calls himself a Calvinists speaks for all Calvinists.
I don’t spend time dwelling on my sinfulness, but when I feel guilty, because I am over some thought or act of disobedience, I claim the promise of 1 John 1:9 and trust God to re-establish fellowship with me through the cross. He can be “just” to forgive my sin only through the sacrifice of his Son.
LikeLike
Well thank you for your comments.
But this is the narrative that is predominately filling the pews in the churches; the church I attended was a John MacArthur church so I would have to say this hits close to home with many. I ask the question though Barba- Why is it that you must be re-establish through the cross? The cross and His death is a past event for the Christian, we now look to the Resurrection and rejoice that sin was vanquished. I know that when I sin in disobedience that I can look to the Holy Spirit in repentance and to restore me. His justice has already been served by the death of His Son- there now is no need for me to keep re-visiting it.
It seems to me what you have said sounds like Catholicism- that one must keep going through the cross. In Catholicism, they teach that one must keep re-visiting Christ through His death- such as, with the Eucharist. This is not what is taught in the Bible- the Bible teaches that once we have Christ we are born again to a new life, not to dwell on what is dead. Christ came to die to abolish the law which is dead and to fulfill the law in bringing life.
The thing is Barba, I do not need the teaching of Calvinism to give me instruction. The Bible states that it is the Holy Spirit that gives instruction and not man. I choose to stay away from the doctrines of man and focus on the infallibility of His Word.
The Lord Bless
LikeLike
another important question:
Will we be effective in witnessing to a lost soul with the doctrine of Calvinism or by the preaching of God’s Word in and out of season?
2nd question:
What then is the use of Calvinism in the life of a believer?
LikeLike
T4H,
1. The apostles evangelized as if it depended on them. 2. Gospel Contemplationism.
LikeLike
Trust4himonly,
I assume you don’t believe Jesus gave teaching pastors to the church to equip it for the work of ministry. I have always thought that verse in Ephesians 4 was inspired of God. I don’t need Calvin to tell me these things either. I have a copy of the Sacred Scriptures that teach them quite plainly. I beg you to look at other verses other than your proof-texts and try to deal with them fairly. I don’t believe what I do because it is Calvinism. I probably disagree with Calvin as much as I agree with him. I believe it because I find it taught in the Scriptures.
Paul is right. The apostles evangelized as if it depended on them. Then they prayed as if the sucess of the gospel depended on God, because it does. Paul [not this one but the apostle] wrote, “I have planted [i.e., the gospel seed], Apollos watered, but God caused it to grow.”
You asked, “What then is the use of Calvinism in the life of a believer?” I would answer, 1. It is useful to encourage us that our labor in evangelism will be successful, 2. It humbles us to realize that at heart we are no better than any other sinner apart from the grace of God, 3. It promotes the worship of God. A god who isn’t sovereign and whose will can be thwarted by the will of the creature is more to be pitied than to be worshipped, but “our God is in the heavens. He has done whatsoever he has pleased” (Psa. 115:3), 4. It promotes gratitude. etc.
Now regarding the restoration to fellowship through the cross– You suggested that what I am saying is like RCC in revisiting the crucifixion through the Eucharist. I assume you know their doctrine is not that they contemplate the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, but that in the Eucharist, Christ is sacrificed again. If is a fresh offering of the sacrifice over and over again. It is an unbloody sacrifice.
Our doctrine differs in this way–I will quote the Westminster Shorter answer to the question, “How does Christ execute the office of a Priest?” Christ executes the office of a Priest in his once offering of himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God and in his making continual intercession for us.”
As you know, the intercessory work of a priest in the OT was simply the application of the sacrifice he had offered. We don’t need a new offereing of sacrifice every time we sin. What we do need is a fresh application of that sacrifice in the intercession of Christ. He is able to save us completely, because he goes on living to make intercession for us (see Heb. 7:25). God is just to forgive us because of Jesus’ redemptive work. He has once offered himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice. Based on that once for all sacrifice, he now interceeds for us.
I hope you can see that is not like Roman Catholicism at all.
Hope you have a great day.
Barba
LikeLike
In answer to your question regarding the practical use of these doctrines, an old Baptist confession, The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, answered, “7. The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election; so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.”
LikeLike
You are right Paul, the disciples were given the order to preach the gospel to all who would hear. They did not sit around waiting for the “Christ outside of us” to woo elected souls into the flock.
Yes, focus on your sin = Gospel contemplationism. Just reading about the history of Calvinism (thanks to your research skills) one can see that “nothing is new under the sun”. The same jargon has been resurfacing every so often over centuries.
LikeLike
My comments are missing again. I thought it was OK to interact with anyone but Paul here.
LikeLike
Uh, Barba, it’s electronic, but the path from WordPress’s server to my address is not always instant.
LikeLike
Barba —
Paul’s letters to the churches were often addressing similar issues — often the assurance of salvation apart from the works of the law. Nothing can be added to that. As far as Paul referring to the cross, he did a few times. Most of the NT writers referred to the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is inclusive of the complete happenings of Jesus not just the point of Christ’s death.
There was no need to make a joke of my point about Catholicism and the “wooden” cross. The point is that much teaching today is focused on the cross, just as Catholics have focused on the cross by displaying it continually. Why would Christians need to continue to mainly focus on the cross? We don’t need to be washed again. Our position now, in Christ, is not as sinners but as saints, and brothers and sisters, heirs with Christ, co-laborers, redeemed of the Lord, etc.
LikeLike