The Problem with Wartburg
“Deb and Dee” author one of the more popular discernment blogs in our day. They have always seemed fairly cognizant to me and I have always found their newsreel informative. They report and comment on Christian trends, primarily in regard to the Neo-Calvinist movement.
I began having problems with Wartburg when they selected Wade Burleson as the pastor of their online Echurch. Burleson, as I have often documented on PPT, is a rabid follower of Jon Zens who is a forefather of the Neo-Calvinist movement. While referring to the leaders of said movement as the Calvinistas, they embrace and give credence to the most rabid advocates of the movement. This has also resulted in the ignoring of the very victim-blaming by Burleson that they claim to disdain.
Hence, they have been called “hypocrites” by some. But don’t forget merciful either as they continue to give Burleson a stage when he is arguably the Barney Fife of pastors. PPT has documented his embarrassing teaching snafus such as drawing biblical principles from word analysis using words with 17th and 19th century etymology.
This post is about the definitive problem with Wartburg. I didn’t really know what it was until someone brought it to my attention a week ago. And that problem is their gospel. And that gospel is the same EXACT gospel that drives New Calvinism. It is antinomian, Platonist, and a doctrine of control. The first step of controlling a culture anyway you want to is gun confiscation. The first step of controlling people in the church is self-esteem confiscation. What I mean by self-esteem is biblical self-esteem which is simply a truthful assessment of oneself.
And total depravity is not a biblical assessment of man. Even a child can see this from Romans 2:14 ff.
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.
Even unbelievers at times clearly do what the law requires, a fact that Calvin denied. Calvin insisted that no man, lost or saved, has ever done any deed that was acceptable to God (CI 3.14.10,11). Augustine, Luther and Calvin were avowed Platonists, and total depravity finds its philosophical foundation there. It later became Gnosticism which was the primary ideology that wreaked havoc on the first century church.
Before I address the source of my conclusion in regard to Deb and Dee, let me first state what they are in league with while priding themselves as victim advocates: Burleson often brags about his admiration for the Puritans; some of their activities included executing people who reduced the pain of those bearing children. The Puritans were also the framers of the genocidal attempt to eradicate the American Indians from the face of the earth. International Religious Freedom Day was founded on the remembrance of three Quakers executed in Boston by the Puritans for believing in the new birth. Indeed, the ignorant hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Now the source of my conclusion. In the midst of the present-day tyranny tsunami in the church, Dee chose to criticize a virtually extinct rendition of biblical obedience. The post can be read here and is one of the best posts I have ever read since the conception of my blogstration. The piece practically shell-shocked me. This slice of steroidal sanity also came from a teacher of women which is also extremely rare in our day. I think the author is a member of The Village Church. Isn’t that Matt Chandler’s gig? Well, if it is, she needs to get out of there with what she has in her cranium case.
I find Dee’s commentary on this piece most telling. First of all, it would take a book to unravel Dee’s fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel as revealed by her commentary, so I am only going to hit the points that make her nothing less than a pure authentic New Calvinist. I will begin by using a slight criticism of the aforementioned post. In it, the author states:
The gospel sets us free from sin, but it does more than that. It sets us free to obey (Rom 6:16).
She uses Romans 6:16 to make her point and her point is a good one among MANY in the post, but that verse doesn’t say that we have been freed to obey, it in fact states that we are enslaved to obedience.
As TANC has been discussing lately, there must be three exchanges in true salvation:
1. An exchange of the old us for the new us.
2. An exchange of law.
3. An exchange of slavery.
Shockingly, the author actually touched on one and two, but gets three slightly wrong. ALL people on the earth are slaves. They are either slaves to unrighteousness or slaves to righteousness. AND, all people upon the earth are also free, and the freedom corresponds to the slavery. The unregenerate are enslaved to disobedience and free to obey (Romans 6:20)—the regenerate are enslaved to obedience and free to sin. No unbeliever sins perfectly, and no believer obeys perfectly. The author got it right: it’s not the perfection—it’s the direction.
That brings us to the necessary exchange of law which the author also gets right via other words. It is the exchange of the law of condemnation for the law of love, or the motives issue that the author spoke of. Before salvation when we are “under law,” yes, perfection is the standard that we would be judged by and it determines eternal destiny. But those “under grace” love the law, and therefore perfection is not the standard, but it is the goal. Yes, when Christ stated, “be ye perfect,” He was stating the goal of the Christian life, not a standard for salvation.
Also, this could be a play on words in regard to “be ye saved” as demonstrated by a change of life direction. Why? Because the saved are NOT “under law” and “where there is no law there is no sin” and “we know that the law has nothing to say to us” etc. The Deeian New Calvinist gospel will not even get a contractor hired if he states, “Well, no job is ever perfect,” and it will not impress the world either unless they want to be saved with their sin. Like all New Calvinists, Dee uses the following well-traveled argument:
She is correct when she says that we should not live a life of ecstatic disobedience. But, she also failed to discuss Paul who viewed his sins in this way in Romans 7:19 (NIV-Gateway)
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing.
Paul got it. We will continue to sin and we will continue to seek forgiveness. I do not believe that most Christians are ecstatic over their sin and disobedience. They are ecstatic over the great grace which has resulted in the forgiveness of sins. We do not need to live like many people in certain ministries loved by Calvinistas. Such people live in constant condemnation. Their sins are dissected and pointed out by both pastors and sin hounds who relish “making observations.”
In context, the passage that Dee uses makes the original point of the aforementioned author. In Romans 7:13-25, Paul addresses all three exchanges and states that he is persevering against his old nature that was under the law. The way that law formally provoked him to sin is still free to do so (Rom 7:5, 9). But the word for “wretched” in verse 24 is a Greek word that carries the idea of persevering or overcoming affliction. Paul is crying out to God to be saved from his mortal body so that he will no longer have to fight against sin that is presently part of his being. Unfortunately, until Christ comes for us, we have to carry the old us that is dead. We carry around with us the “death of Christ”; ie., those things imputed to Christ that He put to death. The old us died with Christ, but we were also resurrected with Him to new life. So, there is still a salvation left for the believer—salvation from our mortality and its sin. This is not to be confused with the salvation that is a finished work. New Calvinists make the finished salvation and progressive sanctification, and glorification the same thing.
And so does Dee; albeit, perhaps unwittingly.
In her misguided and out-of-school argument against the truthful post, she states:
We will continue to sin and we will continue to seek forgiveness. I do not believe that most Christians are ecstatic over their sin and disobedience. They are ecstatic over the great grace which has resulted in the forgiveness of sins.
That is the very doctrine that is a hallmark of New Calvinism known as mortification and vivification. Dee’s argument is classic Neo-Calvinism: we don’t rejoice over the sin, only the forgiveness that we experience when we are forgiven. Conspicuously missing is any kind of joy that we receive through obedience because there isn’t any—the New Calvinist’s life is a “lifestyle of repentance” and exemplified by being “repenters.” My point is made by adding Dee’s statements to the following well-traveled New Calvinist illustration.
To further the point, consider this statement by New Calvinist Paul Washer:
At conversion, a person begins to see God and himself as never before. This greater revelation of God’s holiness and righteousness leads to a greater revelation of self, which, in return, results in a repentance or brokenness over sin. Nevertheless, the believer is not left in despair, for he is also afforded a greater revelation of the grace of God in the face of Christ, which leads to joy unspeakable. This cycle simply repeats itself throughout the Christian life. As the years pass, the Christian sees more of God and more of self, resulting in a greater and deeper brokenness. Yet, all the while, the Christian’s joy grows in equal measure because he is privy to greater and greater revelations of the love, grace, and mercy of God in the person and work of Christ. Not only this, but a greater interchange occurs in that the Christian learns to rest less and less in his own performance and more and more in the perfect work of Christ. Thus, his joy is not only increased, but it also becomes more consistent and stable. He has left off putting confidence in the flesh, which is idolatry, and is resting in the virtue and merits of Christ, which is true Christian piety” (Paul Washer: The Gospel Call and True Conversion; Part 1, Chapter 1, heading – The Essential Characteristics Of Genuine Repentance, subheading – Continuing and Deepening Work of Repentance).
Moreover, Dee’s confusion regarding the fact she is a New Calvinist and doesn’t know it is reflected in this statement:
We do not need to live like many people in certain ministries loved by Calvinistas. Such people live in constant condemnation. Their sins are dissected and pointed out by both pastors and sin hounds who relish “making observations.”
Her argument regards the idea that “grace” makes all of that unnecessary, but where is her argument for untruthful assessment; viz, biblical self-esteem which circumvents tyranny and control? In Calvinism, the root of all sin is the refusal to recognize our sin ONLY. The express purpose of sin sniffing is to bring more joy to people through “deep repentance.” Dee is criticizing a method that enhances the very construct she endorses.
“Calvinistas” my…uh, foot Dee—look in the mirror.
paul


Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Self-awareness and the implications of whatever they state as a theological view is not the highlight of TWW. They are so unaware of themselves that it is little wonder you were able to diagnose and demonstrate the problem. And this among a number of other issues which has reduced them to not much more than the latest hysteria and histronics.
LikeLike
[…] From Paul’s Passing Thoughts, The Problem with Wartburg: […]
LikeLike
Paul, I think they, like many, misunderstand grace. I have run across this quite a bit lately in places where they are not self described Calvinists but don’t realize their understanding of grace fits into the Calvin mold. I saw the same thinking with the seekers. The idea is we ARE going to sin no matter what. But because of grace we are forgiven. This is the “covering” aspect instead of seeing Cross/Resurrection as “ending” sin.
“Grace” does not mean we continue in sin. That is ridiculous and makes Grace cheap and meaningless.
Another mistake they make is aligning what they think is Calvinism with legalism. In their view, Calvinistas are legalistic sin sniffers like SGM. And because they do not agree with that they think they are not Calvinistas.
But my question is a simple one. If we believers are sinning all the time, it is their “normal” and we have “mixed motives” (which is another thing they claim about themselves) but are forgiven then why the blog at all? How come it is not a blog about how it is normal CJ Mahaney sins against people? It makes no sense. Perhaps if Driscoll, Mahaney, Piper, Furtick, et. al, just said “sorry” they could close down the blog?
What do folks do with Hebrews 10? I once asked Wade this long ago and he said it did not apply to us today.
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Or how about 1 John (the whole book!!!)
“Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.”
If all this grace is so cheap then how do we know who the real believers are if they are no different than your typical unbeliever?
It seems so much of Christianity wants a “get out of responsibility card”. And they use cheap grace or total depravity to do it.
LikeLike
I disagree with Alex’ assessment of that blog. I think they cover a variety of spiritual abuse issues quite well when they stick to the subject and don’t try to interject their understanding/interpretation of Romans, grace, sin and such. I have enjoyed reading there in the past. I do think echurch was a mistake and especially because Wade is so confusing. One minute he is declaring your suffering brings God’s glory but the more folks questioned him on that, he started to back off saying he did not communicate well. That happens on a lot of subjects with him. I have noticed from what bits I have read they seem to have become more and more influenced by Wades interpretations. There seems to be an attitude of if you are nice, it does not matter what you teach.
There is a lot of group think there, too, and the collectivists pretty much run the show on comments. If you are not leftie big government, you won’t fit in. The commenters there seem to think all “small gov” types are fundys who want to tell you how to live but they don’t mind big government telling you how to live. I find that thinking confusing..
There seems to be an acceptance of governmental tyranny from commenters but a hatred of church tyranny. I find that short sighted and confusing. But that happens when folks really don’t want to get into the root causes of tyranny and how we as individuals help it along by refusing to get into the root assumptions. .
LikeLike
…and what is interesting is there isn’t a more scandalous piece than what Clearcreek Chapel did to me, yet, no discernment blog has told my story. Hmmmm. I mean, these bozo’s literally held me hostage for four months under threat of ruining my name, any future ministry possibilities, etc. When I finally walked away, in so many words, they told my wife she was going to hell if she didn’t divorce me. I was deprived of being with my son for the better part of his teenage years. Clearcreek has used the fact that my son and law and I are the only ones to write on what happened as a cover to abuse many, many, many other people.
LikeLike
Paul, I know what you mean. Your story is incredible and that always works in their favor, ironically enough. The worse it is, the less folks believe it.
And in my case, they are always careful not to have a document trail. And the bigger the church the worse it is because it is hidden within layers and yes men. I had a woman not long ago tell me that if I could not give her a reason why such and such was done, she would not believe it. In her mind, they needed a good reason or something is wrong with the folks who were thrown under the bus. (she loves the stage gurus). She does not understand one does not have to do something wrong to be thrown under the bus. It does not work that way. In the case of the seeker megas “not being a team player” to ruin others was enough.
I must say that these days, I am concerned I am sinning if I do attend church because I might be enabling evil. That is how bad I think it has become
LikeLike
Oh, and I was going to say at one of the mega’s I am quite familiar with, they have a full time person that does nothing but look for references to the church and the leaders in all mediums. Both positive and negative. And if negative, they deal with it right away.
LikeLike
Argo,
Even the Nazis did good deeds because all are born with the works of God written on their hearts with the conscience either accusing or excusing. ALL are free to follow their conscience. We are NOT “in bondage to the will.” A man may very well be lusting for his secretary, but restrains himself because he knows his conscience will accuse him after the fact. Nevertheless, their overall direction is away from God–loving God with all of their heart ,soul, and mind does not describe them. The Bible describes 2 major directions that makes the opposite the minor. Christians major in rightfulness and minor in sin. However, if they are unaware of this reality as many are, the world will often outdo them by following the law of their hearts better than Christians know their Bible or follow it. For sure, if the Bible is seen as a novel that is strictly about “what Jesus has done for us and not anything we do,” the world will soon outdo the Christians in righteousness while we are busy “preaching the gospel to ourselves.”
LikeLike
Argo,
Man is born with the knowledge of God written on his heart, therefore he is “without excuse.” He deliberately “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.” He “receives the spirit by faith” which is the new birth that enslaves him to love God. I strongly suspect it is man’s choice. Even in sanctification, God will bring an errant believer home to prevent him from being judged with the world. Susan came to me last night because while doing research, she was rather surprised that Calvin believed Adam was a sinner before the fall. My reply: “of course, if he wasn’t, that’s an argument for free will.” At any rate, the more I learn of the Bible’s systematic theology, the more I question Reformed metaphysics.
LikeLike
Thanks Argo, let me know.
LikeLike