Paul's Passing Thoughts

Calvinism’s Big Picture

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on January 30, 2014

tanc logo blockTANC dissects a lot of Reformed theology, but I want to take an opportunity here to remind people of the big picture. In the infancy of Christ’s assembly, Christianity was called “The Way.” There are only two beliefs in the world: those who facilitate God’s way, and those who divert from it. Following God is a way of life—it’s a lifestyle.

The kingdom of darkness employs many, many devices for diverting people from the way. Major devices, perhaps the primary ones, are false mediators, fear, compulsion, and philosophy.

But let’s not forget the major objective: diverting from the way. Man must be shown the way by God, and God has done this with man face to face, and through His written law. When we speak of “law,” we are really speaking of God’s full counsel to man. The law shows us how to be reconciled to God, or justified, and also instructs us on how to follow God—that’s sanctification. It is also God’s full philosophical statement to man including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.

This is important because people will interpret life through the prism of what they believe to be reality; for instance, what we believe about man will dictate what we accept intellectually in regard to mediation. Does God speak directly to man, or has God preordained a special class of people to interpret reality for the masses? Christ promised that those who seek Him will find Him; can you seek Him directly, or must you seek Him through men that have some gift for interpreting reality?

The salesman who sells a certain reality dictates outcome. And be sure of this: Calvinism primarily seeks to sell a certain reality that assures the outcome they want. Think not that Calvinism is primarily a doctrinal concern; the Reformers created a certain way to interpret reality itself. The Calvin Institutes is first and foremost a philosophical book.

The Bible offers very deep analysis on this, and also very simple analysis. You can look at the big picture and be satisfied with that, but if you want to go deep, the opportunity is there. This post is about the big picture, but the problem we have today in Christianity is the following: institutionalized  American Europeanized Christianity is so mindless that the doorway to understanding  the thumbnail is a “big theological word.”

We don’t need none of dim big fancy words cause we have Jesus. You hain’t anybody because you throw around 50-cent theo-ology words. Jesus said to believe like a little children.

And the Reformers smile. This kind of caste system comprised of ignorant spiritual peasants being led by an enlightened class is exactly what the Reformers had in mind. It is absolutely amazing: I have had people with doctorate degrees in some liberal art complain to me about using big theology words in my teachings; words like justification and sanctification that are actually IN the Bible! When you go to a Catholic Mass there isn’t a Bible in the place, and the Protestant fruit doesn’t fall far from that tree. Protestant Bible-carrying is more symbolic than substantive. The doctrinal illiteracy of our day is testimony to that fact.

I have friends who would say this reality was created by ignorance of philosophy itself, in other words, the Reformers were able to create this caste system because they were primarily philosophers. I would protest that point little. For those who didn’t buy that package, the Reformers utilized the force of state. This was a complete control package. The Reformers sought to control the masses by selling a certain caste reality, and had those who wouldn’t buy the package executed by the state. This is why America was founded by philosophers—not theologians. Sorry.

Nevertheless, this is about the big picture, and in order to understand the big picture, we will need to understand three big theology words that are in the Bible: justification, sanctification, and antinomianism. If you want to understand the very basics of spiritual warfare, you will need to understand these three words. Sorry.

Antinomianism is the English translation of a Greek word that is used throughout the New Testament, “anomia.” It means, “anti (against) law.” More specifically, it means against God’s law. Interestingly enough, in the book of Revelation, we find a church state ruled by “the man of anomia” (2Thess 2:1-12). The Bible pretty much begins with mankind being diverted away from the way, and ends the same way. It begins with a “mediator” who proposes to explain to us what God is really saying, and ends the same way. This is the big cheese of all sword wielding mediators, those who we affectionately call “philosopher kings.”

They will use every trick in the book to keep you from The Way. This necessarily entails separating you from the law of God. This necessarily entails making you an antinomian. This isn’t a difficult task in our day because most Christians don’t know what an antinomian is. Many are functioning antinomians, and have no time for the big word that describes them; the word in the Bible that the Holy Spirit uses to identify them.

And because they are also ignorant of the other two words, justification and sanctification, they can denounce antinomianism while being one, because the pastor says it’s a big word they can’t understand. They only need to take his word for it; it’s bad, and we are not antinomian.

Yes and no. Antinomianism is a good thing in regard to justification, but a bad thing in regard to sanctification. Let’s compare some Bible verses. First, Matthew 5:17…

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

And now Romans 10:4…

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

And Ephesians 2:15…

by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

Wait a minute, which is it? Christ said He didn’t come to abolish the law, and then Paul states that He did come to abolish the law. This would appear to be a direct contradiction—if you don’t understand the difference between justification and sanctification. Note in Rom 10:4 that Christ is the end of the law …”for rightousness.”

In the Bible, righteousness, justification, and salvation are practically synonymous. You can’t be saved without being justified, and in justification we are declared righteous. Christ is the end of the law for salvation. Antinomianism in regard to salvation is a good thing.

Now let’s go back to Matthew 5:17. Christ said He came to fulfill the law, and the following two verses tell us in what regard He is speaking of:

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Putting verses 17-19 together, we find that Christ came to fulfill the law through us…”in the kingdom.” One speaks of salvation, the other speaks of kingdom living or The Way. This is confirmed by Romans 8:1-8…

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Antinomianism is good in regard to justification because in justification the law condemns and is the “law of sin and death.” Now, to those who are in Christ, the law is the “law of the Spirit of life” and we are able to love Christ and please Him by keeping the law. Such will be “called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

But not only is antinomianism a bad thing in sanctification, it calls into question a proper understanding of the gospel. Why is this? Because it believes that the law is not changed from the law of sin and death to the law of the Spirit of life at salvation. Antinomianism in sanctification does not acknowledge that the believer’s relationship to the law has changed upon being saved. This proposes that the believer cannot please God (2Cor 5:9), and therefore does not fit the definition of a believer. Not only that, the law of sin and death is categorized with being under law while the law of the Spirit of life is categorized, under grace (Rom 6:14). No recognition in regard to a changed relationship to the law leaves the “believer” in the same category of the unregenerate; i.e., under law.

Calvinism gets around all of this via a different angle: Christ fulfills the law for us; that’s how He is the end of it (Calvin Institutes 3.14.9-11). Calvinists claim to be against antinomianism because the law is the standard for justification. They point to those who say the law has been done away with altogether as antinomians. “No” they say, “the law is good because it is God’s standard for righteousness.” So, the only change is the idea that Christ fulfills the law in our place, and we can therefore be declared righteous. The “believers” ability to obey the law is not changed in salvation, only his/her belief that we are considered justified because Christ keeps the law for us.

Therefore, any attempt by us to keep the law in sanctification is synonymous with keeping the law for our justification. What ensues is sanctification by faith alone as a “true” gospel that maintains our salvation. This is antinomianism in sanctification, and righteousness/justification based on the law. The Reformed negative definition of antinomianism is the idea that the law is not needed for justification. They refute that, but that is exactly what the Bible teaches—justification is apart from the law. That is the point Paul made to the Galatians in regard to Abraham being declared righteous 430 years before the law. “The Promise” was not based on any law keeping, and there is no law that can give life for justification regardless of who keeps it. The standard for righteousness is God Himself, not the law. Abraham “believed God” and that was credited to him as righteousness 430 years before the Law of Moses.

Calvinism makes justification’s standard the law and biblically defines believers as unregenerate due to their inability to keep the law in kingdom living. The position that saints are unable to keep the law in a way that pleases God goes part and parcel with the idea that believers are unable to participate in The Way. The Way is redefined as a life that lives out sanctification by the same gospel that saved us, and by returning to that same gospel over and over again, the perfect obedience of Christ to the law is imputed to our sanctification and we remain justified (Ibid, esp. sec. 11).

Hence, many verses that speak of Christ being our justification are applied to sanctification/kingdom living/The Way. Other verses speak of our success in sanctification only being possible because of Christ’s sacrifice, but are posited as proof that Christ obeys the law for us. This makes law the basis of justification—no matter who keeps it. It also leaves “Christians” by definition as biblically unregenerate—they are still under law and unable to keep it as The Way.

Calvinism is just another road leading to the gargantuan antinomian blitzkrieg predicted to occur in the last days. An inability to keep the law is an inability to participate in The Way, and the Bible is clear, those who don’t get it will be disposed of in the usual way. That is the Calvinism of the past, would be the Calvinism of the present if not for the American Revolution, and will play its part in the end time tyranny predicted in Revelation.

That’s Calvinism’s big picture.

paul

Tagged with: , ,

40 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 30, 2014 at 2:36 PM

    Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.

    Like

  2. Rick's avatar Rick said, on January 30, 2014 at 6:38 PM

    Hi Paul, When you get a chance please read this.

    Click to access Election.pdf

    Like

  3. Greg T.'s avatar Greg T. said, on January 30, 2014 at 9:08 PM

    Are you saying that Matt. 5:17-20 applies to our sanctification?

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 30, 2014 at 9:34 PM

      Absolutely. It obviously is not speaking of justification because it calls for us to observe the law. That only leaves sanctification. First, he states that He came to fulfill the law, then he calls on us to obey it–now go to the the citation in Romans 8.

      Like

  4. Greg T.'s avatar Greg T. said, on January 30, 2014 at 9:39 PM

    And what are you calling “the law”? How far are you carrying this?

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 30, 2014 at 10:23 PM

      How far did Christ take it? Did He only come to fulfill the 10 commandments? What part will not pass away until all is accomplished?

      Like

  5. Greg T.'s avatar Greg T. said, on January 30, 2014 at 10:32 PM

    Seventh Day Sabbath?
    Circumcision?
    No linen and wool garments?
    Animal sacrifices?
    Paul, this is your baby, I am just asking for clarification.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 30, 2014 at 10:42 PM

      You’re making principle, cultural politics, and application the same thing. If you don’t mind, I would like to keep the discussion within the realm of common sense.

      Like

  6. Greg T.'s avatar Greg T. said, on January 30, 2014 at 10:54 PM

    So asking for the practical application of your theory is not common sense? Really? You haven’t thought this through, have you?

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM

      Greg,

      You have a high level of cognitive dissonance, so don’t blame it on me. I have written several articles that address this issue, so I find your remarks annoying. I am going to indulge a little on this point, but I can tell I am nearing the end of the line with you. Yawn, really? I have to actually do this?

      Ok, we no longer stone rebellious teenagers. That was an OT application during that time for several reasons. However, this ministry has applied the principles that come out of that law and many many families struggling with teen rebellion have been helped. Actually, very severe instances were cured. We are talking about situations where the parent’s lives were in danger. We never had any one sent to a teenage boot camp, but let me add that many of them function on the same principles with much success. I will do one more. The Sabbath. Yawn. Among many other things, the Sabbath was an employee/animal rights law. That’s not applicable today because we wear different cloths? God’s thoughts on those principles are not needed today? Good grief, am I really doing this? Furthermore, the whole Saturday versus Sunday thing needs to be totally revisited.

      Like

  7. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on January 31, 2014 at 8:29 AM

    When Jesus spoke of the law, he was talking about every last detail. Are you suggesting
    we are to keep all 613 commandments?

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 31, 2014 at 9:52 AM

      Well Randy, in what regard? My neighbor doesn’t own any oxen, so are you talking about the spirit of all 613 laws, or specific application?

      Like

      • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 31, 2014 at 4:07 PM

        Yep.

        Like

  8. Greg T.'s avatar Greg T. said, on January 31, 2014 at 9:05 AM

    Paul, I asked you a straight forward question, but you won’t answer it. I’ll try again: how much of the law are we supposed to keep? Since you are appealing to a passage that says “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law”, I think it is your responsibility to flesh it out.

    What I suspect is that you are holding on to classic Calvinism’s Covenant theology, and their “third use of the law”, which re-interprets the law so much it makes a mockery of the “not one jot or tittle” concept.

    One other thing: did the Holy Spirit tell you I have cognitive dissonance? The reason I ask is that would seem to be something that would be impossible to determine from one open ended question.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 31, 2014 at 9:46 AM

      Greg,

      Did the Holy Spirit tell you that I haven’t thought this through? What’s with the double standard? Secondly, this is where I draw the line Greg. You see, you are posting these comments in an attempt to discredit me to my readers which I don’t mind; what I do mind is your assumption that they are stupid–that’s offensive and I will not tolerate it. I don’t agree with many of the folks that come here, but they are among the best thinkers on the blogosphere. You assume that they will think that I didn’t answer your question just because you say I didn’t. What is also very annoying is the following: “What I suspect is that you are holding on to classic Calvinism’s Covenant theology, and their ‘third use of the law’, which re-interprets the law so much it makes a mockery of the ‘not one jot or tittle” concept.'” This ministry has posted its Remnant Theology position on several occasions. Sigh, here it is AGAIN: http://www.freebereans.com/doctrinal-statement.html

      Thirdly, Do you really think God’s laws are strictly imperative? Law mutates according to increased knowledge, technology, and culture, but the principle cause for any law remains the same. Some laws have all three elements of literal application, general application, and principle, but over time a given law may only retain one of those elements. But all in all, God’s law reveals the personhood of the lawgiver: His opinions, His compassion or non-compassion, basically, the law reveals much about the mind of the lawgiver aside from the specific application for a given time. That’s why in some way, every law reveals life-giving information and cannot pass away. Matthew 4:4 still stands regardless of your narrow and ignorant understanding of epistemology.

      Like

  9. Greg T.'s avatar Greg T. said, on January 31, 2014 at 10:00 AM

    “Thirdly, Do you really think God’s laws are strictly imperative? Law mutates according to increased knowledge, technology, and culture…”

    Yet the Apostle Paul says:
    Galatians 3:15  Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

    And you have already quoted Jesus:
    Matthew 5:18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    19  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    But let’s assume you are right. So, whose reinterpretation of the Law is correct? You have created the need for an authoritative interpreter, which brings back the institutional church you claim you want to get away from.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 31, 2014 at 10:15 AM

      What “reinterpretation”? What the law teaches us about the lawgiver never changes. The principle never changes, but it may apply to a rototiller instead of oxen. Am I here right now?

      Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 31, 2014 at 10:37 AM

      …for instance: In Paul’s argument for paying teachers in the assemblies (or at least making sure their needs were met), he used OT laws pertaining to the proper treatment of work animals. The principle: If we give animals their due, how much more the teachers? In regard to Sabbath laws, do they apply to bringing our pets indoors when it’s 20 below zero? Sure they do even though we don’t have work animals anymore. EVERY law has a life application. That never ends.

      Like

  10. Greg T.'s avatar Greg T. said, on January 31, 2014 at 10:05 AM

    One other thing: what is the difference between what you are proposing and Covenant theology’s third use of the law?

    Like


Leave a reply to Rick Cancel reply