Paul's Passing Thoughts

Tom Chantry Doesn’t Like the Charismatic Brand of the Reformation’s False Gospel

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on February 21, 2013

ppt-jpeg4“Chantry doesn’t like Charismatic subjective results of the same Reformed objective gospel. Therefore, he denies that they have the same gospel. That’s not true.”  

I was sent a post written by Reformed Baptist Tom Chantry. As the rats begin jumping from that sinking ship named New Calvinism, the boring side of Calvinism is trying to distance themselves from Charismatic Calvinists like CJ Mahaney. New Calvinism, which is a resurgence of authentic Calvinism, at least makes heresy a little fun with concoctions like the scream of the damned which was an ad hoc addition to the 2009 Resolved Conference hosted by the who’s who of contemporary Reformed doctrine. Usually, the tyranny and spiritual abuse that goes hand in metaphysical hand with Reformed doctrine dampens any semblance of humor, but this bunch is special; their shenanigans can bring laughter to the darkest realities. Nevertheless, Chantry bemoans the following reality in said article:

That “Reformed Charismaticism” should eventually go down this path – dragging the rest of the “New Calvinism” with it – was predictable.  Such a doctrine has no solid confession.  It pays scant attention to the means of grace.  It is not actually Reformed in any meaningful sense.

Chantry’s grammatical scare quotes indicate so-called Reformed Charismaticism on the first wise and New Calvinism isn’t “New….” on the second. He is dead wrong on the first and absolutely correct on the second.

Let’s take the second scare quote first. New Calvinism isn’t new, it’s a resurgence of the original authentic article. That would be, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. That’s a contemporary tag, but is an apt in regard to the authentic Reformed gospel. Nothing happens inside of us—grace comes from outside of us completely.

“But Paul, that’s true isn’t it? We were not saved by anything inside of us; it all came from God’s righteousness that was imputed to us. Certainly, you are not saying that we had any righteousness inside of us that aided our salvation!”

Sigh. This is where the Reformers have been pulling the wool over our eyes for the better part of 500 years. They believe that righteousness is only imputed to us positionally, and not internally. We remain the same. God does everything in both salvation and our Christian walk. Our salvation is predetermined, and our Christian walk is predetermined. All righteousness/grace remains outside of the “believer.” Hence, and don’t miss this, only the gospel is objective. We are so totally depraved that if any righteousness at all is within us, anything that we would make of it intellectually would be subjective at best. The only reality lifeline man has is the same lifeline that saves him: the gospel.

Therefore, we live by the gospel; i.e., an “objective” endeavor to obtain a deeper and deeper knowledge of our sinfulness (as believers) in order to have a deeper and deeper understanding of God’s holiness and appreciation for the depths of His sacrifice for our sin. Depending on the stripe of Reformed buffoonery, the result is a manifestation of Christ’s obedience in the Holy Spirit realm as opposed to the worldly (flesh) realm or mere wellbeing of spirit with a disregard for whatever God decides to do in our lives.

In the first case, the perfect life that Christ lived on earth is imputed to our Christian walk so that we can live by faith alone in sanctification. When Christ’s obedience is manifested in the Spirit realm, we experience it because we are in that realm, but it is not because of anything inside of us. We experience it as if we are performing the work, but it is really the manifestation of Christ in the Spirit realm.

The latter is explained well in the magnum opus of the Reformation: Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation. In that document, he clearly states that we don’t work, but rather God works as it is predetermined for our particular life. Luther stated that as we mediate on our total depravity and God’s holiness we experience death which leads to a joyful resurrection. In other words, the gateway to joy is a deeper understanding of our total depravity. This is the basis of John Piper’s Christian Hedonism in 500,000 words or less. This was also Luther’s definition of the new birth. For Luther, the new birth was progressive and not a onetime event.

John Calvin then took Luther’s concept and applied its dualism (all reality being interpreted through God’s holiness and our depravity) to the full spectrum of how religion is experienced, lived, and believed. That would be the Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion. This all survives under masterful preaching that only follows this systematized dualism, but much can be preached about God’s holiness and our sinfulness. All preaching by the likes Spurgeon et al can be parsed into this dual prism.  Missing is practical application and a true understanding of our role in the Christian walk which results in what we see today in the American church. This eventually leads to a social death and then historical resurgences that follow.

Some of what I am saying can be seen in Chantry’s rant:

One way to summarize the doctrine of divine sovereignty is this: It is God who acts, not man.  How will the lost be saved?  God must act.  How will sinful Christians overcome the “old man”?  God must act.  How will the church grow in both holiness and influence?  Again, God must act.  He is the sovereign; He is the great Actor in every aspect of our spiritual life.

Notice that “old man” is in scare quotes. They don’t believe that there is any “old man.” We don’t change—we remain empty vessels. The Bible is merely a tool for aiding us in seeing Luther’s “cross story” as opposed to our “glory story.” Again, this fleshes out in many different ways among Reformed cultists. The sacraments, along with preaching Luther’s cross story, aid us in seeing the need for constant forgiveness, what is called “deep repentance” leading to death and subsequent resurrection experienced by joy. The Christian walk is an endeavor to live by faith alone which is an experience, not a work that we do. This is why the Reformers were so exercised in regard to the book of James—James stated a salvation by faith alone while calling for believers to add works to their salvific faith. This turns Reformed theology completely on its head.

Chantry’s thesis is beyond lame. The Charismatic New Calvinists know their cuts of Reformed theology very well. CJ Mahaney’s five word gospel, “Christ died for our sins” and all reality flowing out of that is classic Reformed theology. Chantry doesn’t like Charismatic subjective results of the same Reformed objective gospel. Therefore, he denies that they have the same gospel. That’s not true. When all reality is interpreted through dualism, the results are always subjective. But the prism is the same.

That’s why Jesus said that a tree is known by its fruit. If Chantry doesn’t like the fruit he needs to change trees.



PM 8 (2)-1

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. paulspassingthoughts said, on February 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM

    Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.


  2. Andy said, on February 21, 2013 at 1:14 PM

    Your phrase, “the boring side of Calvinism,” made me chucke!


    • paulspassingthoughts said, on February 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM

      Well, we can either laugh or cry. I’m not sure I have any tears left, so….


  3. tjchantry said, on February 22, 2013 at 11:47 PM


    You have no idea what I was saying, no idea what I believe about the gospel and about sanctification, and no idea how quotation marks are used in the English language.

    That is all.


    • paulspassingthoughts said, on February 23, 2013 at 8:30 AM

      Well then, do tell, why did you put “old man” in quotations? For emphasis? Or to indicate that “old man” is a misnomer (yep). But you are not going to respond to that because….
      thou philosopher king has spoken. Thee among Reformed elders predestined to prepare orthodoxy for the totally depraved. It cracks me up the way you guys think you can end an argument with your “authority.” You’re enlightened, I’m not, so all you have to do is proclaim your divine unction.

      I have sufficient understanding of the false gospel (progressive justification) that you spew among God’s people and am little moved by your visions of grandeur.



  4. tjchantry said, on February 23, 2013 at 9:39 PM

    Why anyone would engage in conversation with someone who puts words in his mouth, answers questions as soon as they are put without waiting for a response, and presumes evil intent behind every punctuation is beyond me. Goodbye, Paul. Think whatever folly you want, and share it with whoever is stupid enough to read your blog.


    • paulspassingthoughts said, on February 23, 2013 at 9:59 PM

      I can tell you this much about my readers: No need to respond to your comment–it speaks for itself.


  5. gracewriterrandy said, on February 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM


    The man is right. You should pay attention.


    • paulspassingthoughts said, on February 24, 2013 at 7:26 PM

      Thank you thou philosopher king.


  6. Lydia said, on February 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM

    Here is the deal: No one ever knows what they are saying who dares disagree. Chantry is paid to communicate and then calls it “putting words in his mouth” when it is interpreted in a way he does not like.

    If there is one thing I have figured about about Reformed doctrine is that it does not do well when analyzed in the public square. I have been dealing with this at ground zero for many years. When you take their doctrine to it’s logical outcome they go nuts. Or when you define what they mean in context they get angry. Why? because it is meant to be “accepted” with no interaction except among their own peers. The peasants are not supposed to question because they are too ignorant. It has to be a great mystery of God only they can understand. And if we do not accept it then we do not believe God is Soveriegn.

    The standard response is: You don’t understand it. Or, you are misrepresenting what I said. Over and over. No matter what. They seem to have this decoder ring that gives them insight the rest of us cannot have. That is where philosopher king comes in. Church History (bloody history) is full of them.

    The truth is they have bought into an ST that does not do well when analyzed outside their stratosphere. We could not possibly have the Holy Spirit to illuminate truths to us. (nevermind the Holy Spirit is rarely mentioned in the Reformed movement because we have the gurus instead)

    They want to bully over doctrine but then cannot handle it when they are responded to inkind. See, they expect everyone else that responds in disagreement to them to act like Jesus but they get to act like Calvin. It is the biggest conumdrum we have right now. How do deal with arrogant “Christian” bullies. I mean these are people who actually believe Calvin was a godly man!!!! Talk about delusional!~

    These are not people who do well with independent thinkers. So they resort to insults. It is all they know. They are used to being the standard of truth for other people. They live in a bubble.

    Doesn’t he hang out with Frank Turk? Sheesh!


  7. trust4himonly said, on February 25, 2013 at 10:01 AM

    GWR and Tom

    Would it not be smart to rethink Calvinism? Just because it was around since the Reformation does not give it divine status. In fact, I find that Calvinism takes away from the Gospel and complicates it for the hearer of the Gospel.
    Lets take an example: Suppose you buy a remote control for your tv and all you wanted out of that remote control was the ability to use it easily and functionally. You are excited about it because you are going to get your popcorn/snacks ready and watch the Superbowl. You get your remote control and guess what? it has all kinds of buttons you have no clue what they mean and what the functional use is for this device. You read the manual that is 45 pages long and you are more confused. Soon you are pushing buttons that basically disable your use of the tv. Now you are calling the manufacturer who is trying to tell you in broken English, because he lives in India somewhere, how to use the darn thing and get your tv back on. You end up frustrated and depressed and no Superbowl.

    This is Calvinism.

    I think Paul you know where I am getting at with this analogy. I was all excited to be in a church that was FOR THE GOSPEL……until I found out about all the buttons.


  8. trust4himonly said, on February 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM

    And it includes whatever form of Calvinism they try to Re-brand.


  9. Abe said, on February 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM

    Calvinism is of the devil. There, I said it. These guys can’t handle even the slightest of criticism, that is because their house is built on sand. They teach works for salvation (which cannot save), and they follow a man that created a horrific police state.


    • paulspassingthoughts said, on February 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

      That pretty much sums it up.


  10. lydiasellerofpurple said, on February 27, 2013 at 8:36 PM

    “Would it not be smart to rethink Calvinism? Just because it was around since the Reformation does not give it divine status. In fact, I find that Calvinism takes away from the Gospel and complicates it for the hearer of the Gospel.”

    The Reformation is what ushered in this idea of the Westernized blonde euro Jesus. The REformers hated Jews and discriminated against them. The Jewishness of the historical Jesus which helps us understand the big picture was redefined by that ST.


    • paulspassingthoughts said, on February 27, 2013 at 8:54 PM

      no doubt.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s