Paul's Passing Thoughts

By the same reasoning, a cat isn’t really the same thing as a cat because it starts walking.

Cognitive Dissonance is a state of anxiety caused by the tension between what someone believes and reality:

In 1956 Leon Festinger coined the term ‘cognitive dissonance’ in When Prophecy Fails. He used the idea to explain the apparently bizarre behaviour of members of a UFO doomsday cult when the leader’s end-of-the-world prophesy failed to occur and it became clear that the world was not going to end. Festinger observed cult members enter a strange state of disturbance – not knowing what to believe or do. Eventually, rather than accept that they were misled or wrong, most cult members preferred to believe it was the power of their faith that saved the world. Perversely this motivated them to recruit new members thereby increasing the membership of the cult!

By observing the sequence of incompatible cognitions leading to strange states requiring resolution – the notion of cognitive dissonance was born. In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957) Festinger defines it as:

The psychological opposition of irreconcilable ideas (cognitions) held simultaneously by one individual, created a motivated force that would lead, under proper conditions, to the adjustment of one’s belief to fit one’s behavior – instead of changing one’s behavior to fit one’s belief (the sequence conventionally assumed).

Since then, the definition has widened somewhat. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance for a useful overview:

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

Online source: http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/262/0/Cognitive-Dissonance-and-Creative-Tension/Page0.html

Hence, man will seek to reduce cognitive dissonance by one way or the other: by changing beliefs and logic, or by adding a consonant element (click on to enlarge):

Online source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CognitiveDissonanceDiagram.jpg

Church historian John Immel unpacked this concept wonderfully at the 2012 TANC conference TANC 2012 Master. When people refuse to change their logic, it will produce the same actions and results over and over again. Here at PPT, this is our main complaint in regard to discernment bloggers: they seek to change behavior by exposing the behavior; this will never happen, the logic must be addressed. Inevitably, sooner or later, the same logic will reproduce said behavior.

A good example in our day is socialism. Though it has failed miserably throughout history its proponents insist that it is the right logic that has never been properly applied. This idea (and all of its derivatives) is the consonant element buffer; ie., results are meaningless, application is the problem. Hence, an endless array of new consonant buffers are proposed in order to reduce cognitive dissonance—the bad feelings and anxiety associated with a contradiction between what we believe and reality. More often than not, a perpetual clamoring about for some “new teaching” is nothing more than consonant elements seeking to reinforce a primary logic.

Another good example is John Piper’s assertion that John Calvin putting Michael Servetus to death was a moral hiccup in his life, and pointing out that Calvin petitioned for a more humane execution: beheading versus burning. This belief is a consonant element that reduces Piper’s dissonant anxiety in regard to the Calvinist element. Changing his belief about Calvin’s character would necessarily require a change of belief in regard to Calvin’s gospel. Online source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wexGQxXw0I

In regard to the Reformation’s VERY troubling history, the Resolved Conference series from 2005 to 2012 was a massive consonant buffer that sought to rewrite Reformation history.

So then, the goal of this ministry is to keep cognitive dissonance high among Calvinists. At various points, high degrees of dissonant anxiety is likely to lead to a change of logic, and thus ridding the Evangelical community of the Reformed blight as much as possible. This leads to happier lives and a better gospel presentation to the world.

This requires the arduous task of deconstructing a mass of Reformed consonants. One such duty was presented to me yesterday. As more and more Reformed minions understand the doctrine, they verbalize it in an unveiled way that many are not ready for. As spiritual monarchs like Kevin DeYoung know, this raises cognitive dissonance among those who are in process of being boiled like a frog, so there must be intervention via a consonant element. In this case, he employed a guest writer on his blog to supply the buffering.

First, the Reformed hack employed the no dissonance here folks, this is just conversation; no need to worry, all is well:

We have much to be thankful for in the recent discussion regarding justification and sanctification in the Reformed community. And it appears that this will continue to be a discussion for years ahead. First, I am thankful for the renewed zealousness and commitment to the doctrine of justification.

And the ever-handy us against them motif:

It seems every few decades this doctrine needs to be reconsidered and appreciated due to some assault upon it.

And of course, there is always good ole’ fashioned lying via, it’s ok folks, don’t worry, Reformed tradition has always held to an aggressive sanctification:

Second, I am thankful for the seriousness with which some are looking at the doctrine of sanctification. The Reformed community throughout its history has always maintained a strong teaching on the Christian life and the “working out” of our salvation by the Spirit.

“By the Spirit” should be your first clue that something is amiss, but more specifically, Calvin stated the following in regard to the verse that this guy cites:

Then, when he bids us work out our salvation with fear and trembling, all he requires is, that we accustom ourselves to think very meanly of our own strength, and confide in the strength of the Lord (CI 3.2.23).

“All he requires” is our affirmation that we, as Christians are still “wretched” (sec. 22), and still deserving of condemnation (sec. 24), and unable to please God in any way (3.14.11). This statement by the guest writer is deliberate deception. Aggressive sanctification apart from justification is the clear implication, and he knows grade-A-well that’s not Calvinism.

Thus far, this guest writer on DeYoung’s blog has employed the following techniques to reduce cognitive dissonance:

1. The issue is not a truth linchpin, only a conversation about residuals.

2. Us against them.

3. Lying.

Next, the guest writer presents the cognitive element:

However, one position of the recent discussion is of concern. In some of the current conversation it has been advocated that sanctification purely flows out of our justification. With this tact the Christian is encouraged to merely look back to the reality of their justification in order to grow in sanctification or we are told that sanctification is just “getting used to our justification.”

Once again, this master cultist reminds his readers that this is merely a “discussion” of “concern” and not a linchpin of truth leading to legitimate cognitive dissonance. He also reemploys lying by stating that his rendition of the “discussion…of concern” is not the Reformed tradition. That’s a lie. Calvin advocates said description throughout the Calvin Institutes. I wouldn’t even know where to begin with the citations, but one may start with 3.14.11.

The writer then presents the consonant buffer:

But often missing in this pastoral advice or theology is the essential and necessary doctrine of union with Christ. This doctrine also has a long and robust history in the Reformed community. One only needs to think back  to Calvin to realize how important this doctrine has been in our circles. Dr. Richard Gaffin in a short article entitled, “Justification and Union with Christ” (which can be found in Theological Guides to Calvin’s Institutes edited by David Hall and Peter Lillback) states:

“…for Calvin sanctification as an ongoing, lifelong process follows justification, and in that sense justification is ‘prior’ to sanctification, and the believer’s good works can be seen as the fruits and signs of having been justified. Only those already justified are being sanctified. But this is not the same thing as saying, what Calvin does not say, that justification is the source of sanctification or that justification causes sanctification. That source, that cause is Christ by his Spirit, Christ, in whom, Calvin is clear in this passage, at the moment they are united to him by faith, sinners simultaneously receive a twofold grace (justification and sanctification) and so begins an ongoing process of being sanctified just as they are now also definitively justified” (p.256). (Made bold for our purposes)

The writer is restating the cognitive element which is the source of possible cognitive dissonance in a different way and saying it is different. This is a Reformed brainwashing technique that makes synonyms antonyms in regard to words, phrases, and concepts. If the common meaning of a word causes conflict with the doctrine resulting in cognitive dissonance, they will employ synonyms of that word and use them as consonant buffers. It’s deliberate cultic brainwashing. These are well-studied techniques that replaced the stake and the gallows after the American Revolution. In other words, manipulation replaced force. This was the beginning of cults which are predicated by control. “Cult” is an institutional concept, not an individual one.

The writer makes the “discussion…of concern” the anti-type using Gaffin’s statement, then claims that Calvin stated a contrary type, and then produces a consonant buffer that is no whit different than the anti-type; viz, the vital union: “and so begins an ongoing process of being sanctified just as they are now also definitively justified.”

The vital union is a “process” that sanctifies us “just as” (in the same way) that we are “now” (presently) “justified.” How is that any different than sanctification by justification? It isn’t. The finished work begins a progressive work that is the same work as the finished work, only it’s progressive. By the same reasoning, a cat isn’t really the same thing as a cat because it starts walking. The following chart may be helpful (click on to enlarge):

The writer then somewhat reinforces the original antitype causing the cognitive dissonance because he knows it is really a true depiction of the doctrine that is being stated in a way that many are not ready for:

Those encouraging us to purely “get used to our justification” or to “look back to our justification” are rightfully concerned about a “works righteousness” mindset among God’s people. They are fittingly holding up grace before the Christian’s eyes. I am thankful for that concern and share it. In no way should we diminish the centrality of grace and praise God that these voices are reminding the church. They are also rightly concerned that we acknowledge and know the freedom (Romans 6) that attends to the individual who has been justified. How essential it is that we know and dwell in this freedom of the Gospel. There is a true benefit to looking back to our justification. And yet we also want to be careful not to swallow up sanctification in the doctrine of justification (This appears to be the practical outcome for some as any exhortation or application to the Christian life which wanders outside of “look back to your justification” is met with the cry, “Legalism”)

The writer then sets this against the supposed proper type, the vital union, which he renames, “Christ”:

But of even greater importance is that in trying to safeguard grace and the Gospel it is possible that some are unknowingly diminishing the center of the Gospel: Christ. It is from our vital union with Him that not only our justification flows, but also our sanctification. It is the doctrine behind both.

So, the vital union encompasses, “both” while being the same thing as the anti-type. Justification “flows”—sanctification is therefore flowing justification; the type and anti-type are saying the same thing. The rest of the article reiterates the same premise with wordiness on steroids.

But while utilizing these kinds of communication techniques they are bound to trip on their own words. A reader at PPT made an astute observation in that regard:

At the end of DeYoungs article, he leaves the reader with this quote from Calvin.

“Not only does he cleave to us by an indivisible bond of fellowship, but with a wonderful communion, day by day, he grows more and more into one body with us, until he becomes completely one with us (Institutes, 3.2.24).”

Christ grows more and more into one body until he becomes one with us??

The scripture I read says we have been made one with him at rebirth and as we are sanctified we become more like him. I am the one who does the changing. I am already one with Him.

Right, obviously, the idea of Christ growing in some way as opposed to us growing is a serious anomaly.

paul