Paul's Passing Thoughts

http://goo.gl/4jBbgZ

“Here is why these guys want to have a debate in order to keep people confused: the dirty little secret is; the Reformed false gospel is a matter of simple theological math.”

The Neo-Calvinist movement that has taken over this country has also created a hobby- like subculture via the blogosphere. This theological Entertainment Tonight subculture drifts from one controversy to the next with the WadeWatch blog leading the way.

It’s pretty obvious at this point that none of this is about truth and solutions, but rather a wallowing in confusion for the sake of drama. Neo-Calvinist leaders are all but deliberately keeping people confused, and to a great degree, that’s what Christians want. The Scriptures state plainly that in the latter days people will heap to themselves teachers with itching ears. And this is nothing new; Paul exhorted Timothy to avoid endless controversies. Come now, let’s be honest; “endless controversies” describes our church culture to a “T.”

The newest recycled “controversy” is more wrangling over the first, second, and third use of the law, or the law/gospel discussion. As a new Christian in the early 80’s I was perplexed by the fact that pastors don’t teach theology in the local churches, but of course now I understand exactly why that is and have written on the subject extensively. Knowledge empowers the individual, and Protestantism came out of the same power politics that dominated the Dark Ages.

One of the greatest misnomers of contemporary history is the idea that the Reformers wanted to make the word of God available to the masses. Personally, I believe the mass printing of Bibles was an unintended consequence of the Reformation. But regardless of where you stand on that, the Reformers rendered the Bible useless by making it a commentary on two things and two things only: the total depravity of mankind, including Christians, as set against the holiness of God.

This dualist interpretation of reality is the very foundation of Protestantism. In the same way that light defines darkness and darkness defines light, man and God are more and more defined by a deeper and deeper knowledge of each. This is the same old regurgitated metaphysics that has driven state as god from the cradle of civilization, founded all of Eastern religion, defined and given dignity by Plato, and integrated into the Bible by the big three of the Reformation; Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Luther laid the foundation in the Heidelberg Disputation, and Calvin expanded it into a full-orbed philosophical statement in his Institutes. Therefore, ALL of the Institutes flow from 1.1.1and the first sentence thereof:

Our wisdom, insofar as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and ourselves.

Of course, it is no secret how Calvin and Luther defined “ourselves.” This is not the least bit complicated, below is the most widely distributed illustration of the Reformed gospel in our day (click on to enlarge if needed):

Look, as a Segway into the latest controversy, let me point out that Tullian Tchividjian did NOT create that illustration. But yet, the same people who criticize him have used this illustration themselves to teach the Reformed gospel. And well they should, it is a concise and astute depiction of Calvinism.

Sigh. This is NOT complicated.

If we have any goodness in us at all, what gets smaller? “The cross.” Very good class. If we have any goodness in us at all, is knowledge of God’s holiness increased or diminished? “Diminished.” Very good class. If we have a less and less realization of how wicked we are, is our appreciation for the cross increased or diminished? “Diminished” Is that goody-woody? “No.”

Oh my, we are on a roll!

What in the Sam Hell is complicated about this? Yet, another clueless Christian starts the newest controversy by writing the following post:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2014/05/02/failure-is-not-a-virtue/

Tullian Tchividjian then rebuked her in a follow-up post using his usual red herrings: stuff about people believing that the power for change is in the written word; viz, law. The argument concerning power being in the paper, ink, and leather of a Bible is soooooo worn out that when I hear it, again, I just want to cry from utter disgust.

Now, the controversy plot thickens because some thirty something YRR comes riding in on a white horse of confusion to save the poor little Reformed damsel who doesn’t have a clue to begin with. Sure, it seems like she gets it to a point until you find out she sits under Matt Chandler who no whit, in principle, has any gospel disagreements with Tchividjian. He (Mark Jones) has challenged Tchividjian to a debate which will only serve to further confuse because that’s the goal. Apparently, the debate centers on the first, second, and third use of the law. This is the same old Reformed red herring that is one of the primary mainstays (other than the election debate) used to deliberately keep God’s people confused and dependent on these narcissistic Reformed hacks.

Confusion is the goal, and they know it. It’s deliberate for purposes of control. I stand behind that statement 200%.

But let me clear up the confusion on law because that is easy also. Here is why these guys want to have a debate in order to keep people confused: the dirty little secret is; the Reformed false gospel is a matter of simple theological math. Calvin believed that the law is the standard for justification as opposed to justification being APART from the law. According to RC Sproul, the third use of the law reveals the righteousness of God. That sounds completely reasonable, but is the very problem itself with Calvin’s false gospel.

“But Paul, what then is the standard for justification? ‘God’s righteousness.’” “Right, the law reveals God’s righteousness. ‘For justification or sanctification?’” “For justification. ‘No.’” “Then what is the standard for justification? ‘God’s righteousness imputed to us apart from the law.’”

See, the problem is, if the law is the standard for justification, a perfect fulfilling and maintaining of it must be sustained in order to keep God’s people saved; viz, justified. Justification is then not a finished work, a perfect keeping of the law must be maintained to keep us saved. And of course, we can’t do that, so we must live our Christian lives by faith alone so that the perfect obedience of Christ is perpetually applied to the law in our stead. The law is the standard and that not apart from justification. The apostle Paul made this point in several different ways throughout his epistles: there is NO law in justification. “Apart” means a-p-a-r-t. (Read the Brinsmead excerpt on pp. 10, 11 of  It’s Not About Election http://www.7questions.org/its-not-about-election-read-here.html ).

And Tullian Tchividjian gets that. A perfect keeping of the law must be maintained in the Christian’s stead by a perpetual reapplication of the cross. Being interpreted: living by the cross via faith alone in sanctification. If we obey by “jumping from the imperative to our own effort,” we circumvent the ongoing works of the cross. Is justification finished or not finished? Read the title of chapter 14 in book 3 of the Calvin Institutes; that should answer your question.

I have a better idea. I hereby challenge Tchividjian and Jones to a debate at a place of their choosing even though I am just a dumb hillbilly from Portsmouth, Ohio. I don’t need to be smart—this is simple theological math. Calvin was fundamentally wrong on law; throw around all of your ganky Reformed phraseology all you want to—I will bring you right back to the difference between what Paul said and what the heretic John Calvin plainly said. I am sure that if one or both agree to the debate and will not come to Xenia, Ohio, PPT readers would be more than happy to donate to the cause.

Hide behind the whole idea that I am not worthy of your platform because of my lack of education if you will—that’s what James White did, and that’s all you have. And frankly, there are many Arminians strewn about who know this simple theological math is the issue, but like you, if they reveal that, they will no longer be needed as well.

Confusion and ignorance is what puts bread on your table: you are all a disgrace to the gospel of God.

paul