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. Greg T.'s avatar Greg T. said, on January 31, 2014 at 10:52 AM

    “EVERY law has a life application. That never ends.”

    Exodus 35:2  Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
    3  Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

    Numbers 15:32  And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
    33  And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
    34  And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
    35  And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
    36  And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

    So what happens NOW if I don’t rest from my labors Friday sundown to Saturday sundown?

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 31, 2014 at 11:33 AM

      Greg,

      What happens if I don’t return my neighbors lost ox when I stumble upon it? Nothing, because my neighbor doesn’t own an ox. So, that law has no application to my life because my neighbor doesn’t own any oxen? The Pharisees dismissed much of the OT law and replaced it with traditions based on this same reasoning. A different application of this law due to the fact that my neighbor doesn’t own oxen in our day is not situation ethics–it’s godly principles that transcend time. Obviously, other than Sabbath principles that transcend time, there was a reason that the punishment was severe in that time and circumstance. Those reasons are no longer valid in our time, but applicable principles still apply. Recently, I haven’t heard of mother bears mauling any children. Why? Has God changed? Why? Is that passage no longer valid? Why doesn’t God maul children by bear anymore? Has that law passed? That’s your reasoning here.

      Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 31, 2014 at 11:46 AM

      …and how far can we go with this? In the OT God made conditional promises. However, the condition may be something that we don’t do anymore in this time or culture. Does that mean that the principles of God’s conditional promises don’t exist? Even though the terms of the conditional promises are different because we don’t go to the well to get water anymore, that passage doesn’t teach us anything about sanctification?

      Like

  2. Greg T.'s avatar Greg T. said, on January 31, 2014 at 11:51 AM

    So what are the applicable principles of violating the Sabbath now? What is the Sabbath now? If you should ever get around to defining the modern day equivalent of the seventh day Sabbath, is violation of your “application” grounds for dis-fellowship? Hey, I’ll admit to being your intellectual inferior (that is the jest of your responses so far), so will you explain this in terms dumb old Greg can understand?

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on January 31, 2014 at 12:03 PM

      Greg,
      Don’t get personal, people will think you are losing the argument. I have no idea who is smarter between us, but it would appear that you are more guilty than I of listening to the academics instead of studying the Scriptures and coming to our own conclusions with the Spirit’s help. I am guilty of that, so at this time I cannot answer your question about what the Sabbath as a day means to us in the here and now. I clearly understand some of the principles, but not the recognition of it on the calender. Not there yet, still climbing out of the Western traditions of men that we are all drowning in. Protestantism is a farce. I am still in recovery.

      Like

  3. Greg T.'s avatar Greg T. said, on January 31, 2014 at 1:03 PM

    Greg,

    You are unreasonable, and I am no longer obligated to post your insults here. We are done. The final straw is your assertion that I am teaching doctrine that I only partially understand because I understand God’s desire that employees receive a day of rest, but not the full significance of the calender day and how it relates to us in this day. I read that sentence and read no further. You are very unreasonable and a bad investment of time. Don’t come here again–you will not be heard.

    Like

  4. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on January 31, 2014 at 11:08 PM

    You seem to ignore the different uses of the word “law” in Scripture. There is a difference between God’s absolute law and his covenant with Israel. As a covenant with Israel, including the covenant sign–the Sabbath-, the covenant has been fulfilled and replaced by the new and better covenant. Though believers are the learn from certain general spiritual principles found in the law, we are no longer under it as a covenant.

    And yes, there were 613 commandments in the law and the Rabbis added many more. As to the Sabbath, it’s observance passed away along with the covenant of which it was the ceremonial sign.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 1, 2014 at 9:41 AM

      So Randy, when Christ said not one jot would pass away from the law, He was only talking about His absolute law? When Paul said “ALL” Scripture was profitable, that doesn’t include the law? What part of the Bible is something that God didn’t say?(Matt 4:4). Also, the New Covenant was made between God and Israel. Jere 31 makes it clear that its consummation is future. The Bible states that the OC is in the process of passing away. If you are not a Christian, you are alienated from the promises (plural) and covenants (plural) made with Israel (Eph 2:12).

      Randy–all you know is what Westminster told you to believe. Like all Reformed hacks, you vomit out orthodoxy written by anti-Semitic murdering despots.

      Like

  5. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on February 1, 2014 at 9:17 AM

    DELETED

    Like

  6. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on February 1, 2014 at 9:28 AM

    DELETED

    Like

  7. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on February 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM

    DELETED

    Like

  8. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on February 1, 2014 at 10:47 AM

    DELETED

    Like

  9. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on February 1, 2014 at 12:30 PM

    I guess you couldn´t handle reality.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 1, 2014 at 1:59 PM

      Randy,

      You must remember that you called me a glutton, and to that point, I am like a box of chocolates; you never know what you are going to get. Will he post my comment, or will he not post my comment?

      Like

      • gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on February 1, 2014 at 2:40 PM

        The reality that you are a glutton is clear to anyone who sees you. Your koolaid drinkers can tell you it isn’t true, but they are lying to you. Not sure when or if I told you that, but it is true.

        Like

      • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 1, 2014 at 3:51 PM

        The fact of the matter is the following Randy: I have been on a strict diet for 3 years and have lost 46 pounds. Unfortunately, due to the ministry I am in that requires a lot of sitting, I have gained some back, but am in the process of getting a new strategy. However, I have never swayed from controlling what I eat in the past 3 years. Many will testify to the fact that I keep myself from foods that I dearly love. Your statement shows that you as well as Calvinists in general have no fundamental understanding of the gospel. Your judgement is based strictly on outward appearance. You, like all Calvinists, are false teachers whose eternal future is ambiguous.

        Like

      • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 1, 2014 at 8:42 PM

        Actually, we had a guy who was a PPT regular way back in the day that dug up some interesting info on dandy Randy. Randy denied it was the same Randy, and frankly, I chose to believe him because it was pretty outrageous stuff. Now I wonder.

        Like

      • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM

        I in fact followed up on the info and it is an interesting coincidence, but not Randy. Some guy in Nevada.

        Like

  10. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on February 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM

    Your recent deletions brought to mind the following article I wrote about Joel Taylor. You guys all seem to be cowardly bullies.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on February 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM

      Randy,

      You must remember that you called me a glutton, and to that point, I am like a box of chocolates; you never know what you are going to get. Will he post my comment, or will he not post my comment?

      Like


Leave a comment