Jenna Diprima and the Gospel of IF

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on June 24, 2023

As an LPN attending school for my RN, I have done a good job with not being distracted by everyday Protestant drama, a subject I have written about since 2007. Even today, with a full day of studying planned, I was not distracted by the usual trending nonsense on my Twitter feed while eating breakfast. That is, until I stumbled upon a certain article[1] on the TGC website. I can’t let this one go. For the first time in nearly two years, studying will take a backseat.

The article was written by Jenna Diprima, a graduate of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary with an MDiv. and the wife of a pastor. The article in titled, “Calvinism is Getting Me Through Cancer.” Diprima makes it clear in her article that she is completely dedicated to Reformed theology. Those of you who have been readers of my stuff since I initiated paulspassingthoughts on WordPress in 2009, know I don’t play games with the “Reformed” nomenclature. Protestants like lots of different categories they can defer to in order to escape accountability for being wrong. Labels are a very important deception tool for Protestants. “Oh, that sounds like…fill in the blank…we don’t believe that.” All Protestantism is Reformed, because, you know, it came from the Protestant R-e-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n. And per Protestant tradition, Diprima’s article is pregnant with illogical assertions, contradictions, lies, and false hope.

Her theology aside, as a nurse, I pray that she receives the best treatment possible and prevails against this awful disease. I suspect she is a wonderful person and mother; my issue is with her theology.

Before we address the article, I want to remind you that the elementary error that makes Protestantism a false gospel follows: justification by the law is ok because Jesus keeps the law for us. Nope. The law cannot give life no matter who keeps it and regardless of whether or not it is kept perfectly. And when the Bible says righteousness is APART from the law, “apart” means, just that…apart, or SEPARATE. In her article, Diprima cites Calvinism in particular. Calvin makes it clear throughout his institutes that the law is the standard for justification, not the new birth. Furthermore, so-called Reformed theology makes it clear that “believers” are not righteous as a state of being, but only “declared” righteous as a “legal (or forensic) declaration.” How is a “legal declaration” apart from the law? This makes the idea that we are children of God a mere manner of speaking rather than a literal reality. In order for us to be literal children of God through the new birth, we must be righteous as a state of being.

This is why the Australian Forum, the theological think tank that gave birth to the present-day neo-Calvinism movement and organizations like TGC rejected the evangelical concept of the new birth, and deemed it an outright false gospel. We hold that believers, as literal children of God, are righteous as a state of being apart from the law. Being born of God makes us righteous, not perfect law-keeping. Life is in the new birth, not the law; the law cannot give life. The true born-again believer fails to love God and others as we should because of weakness, but we are not under the condemnation of the law. The Bible is clear: we are either under law or under grace. If the standard for righteousness is the law, we are yet under law. Grace is not a covering for remaining under law; the two are completely separate.

Protestantism is wrong on many levels, but Protestants will not repent because they have too much invested in Protestantism to repent; it would cost many of them everything they know in this world. And now you are going to say, “But they harp all of the time about forsaking the present world.” Right. The hypocrisy of Protestantism knows no bounds. They are not going to challenge their present beliefs because of the investment. That’s not the humbleness Protestants are always advocating; that’s the assumption that they could never be deceived into investing so much into a lie; even a lie that is elementary, viz, the idea that true believers remain under law. And grace is not a covering for remaining under law. The new covenant is not a covering for sin, it is the end of sin and its subsequent condemnation. Christ did not come to cover our sin, he came to take it away.[2] “…having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.”[3]

It is interesting to note the Amplified version of Colossians 2:14; “having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of legal demands [which were in force] against us and which were hostile to us. And this certificate He has set aside and completely removed by nailing it to the cross.” The likes of Phil Johnson and others are constantly stating that believers are “under the righteous demands of the law.” In addition, the likes of Phil Johnson’s master, John MacArthur, and others, are constantly referring to the gospel as an “atonement” or covering for sin, when the Bible is clear that our sin has been taken away and the ordinances that determine sin “blotted out.” This doesn’t mean that believers under grace are not obligated to love God and others as taught by the law, but it does mean that there is not a single perspective on the law and sin. The Spirit has two uses of the law; one to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come, and the other to sanctify. The former involves condemnation, while the latter might involve chastisement by the Father because we are his literal children. Also, the former can only result in more or less condemnation, while the latter can only result in more or less eternal rewards.

Because Protestantism proffers the idea that “believers” remain under the law, we would expect a soteriology of progressive salvation; the idea that we must continually return to the same gospel that saved us for ongoing justification because of “present sin.” And that is exactly the case. John Piper, a theologian cited by Diprima in her article, constantly states that Christians still need to be saved, and need to make use of the same gospel that saved us originally to do so. To clarify, Christians need to be saved, and need to make use of the gospel to do so, according to Piper. Christians still need salvation? That is an astounding statement, yet, he has never been confronted by anyone. However, the statement makes sense if so-called believers remain under law, which is the biblical definition of a lost person. And, of course, lost people still need salvation. We contend that saved people no longer need to be saved, which would seem evident, unless you are a Protestant. In addition, the TGC crowd is consistently stating that salvation is a process. We contend that any salvation process taking place while a person is alive is necessarily works salvation by intentional omission, or intentional commission, or both. This is an unavoidable conclusion. We contend that salvation is a one-time and forever act of God that transforms the individual into a literal child of God. One cannot be unborn.

Contradiction and odd depictions of God are not missing in any sentence of her article. However, again, I want to respect her as a person and blame the theology. Whether John Piper, or John MacArthur, or other Calvinists, the call to altruism and general theological collectivism seems odd when you consider their lifestyles. John MacArthur constantly decries the prosperity gospel while hosting Bible studies via pricy Alaskan cruises and lavish conferences in Palm Springs. His luxurious lifestyle and multiple homes have been well publicized, which is stunning when compared to his sermons predicated on Martin Luther’s Theology of the Cross and its call to suffering.

After, apparently, sitting under Reformed teaching at least as long as it takes to get an MDiv., Diprima found her cancer diagnosis, unexpected, “the hardest seasons of my life,” causing sleeplessness, “haunting anxiety,” and an inability to pray. If one considers like testimonies from Paul David Tripp and Matt Chandler when they were faced with serious medical challenges, it must be assumed that this theology in no way prepares people for the inevitable pain and suffering that God has preordained for them. At the very least, the news should hardly be unexpected. And while pain and suffering supposedly promotes the gospel and God’s glory, they spare no medical expense to be cured or seek relief from the pain. At least the Puritans, who are Protestant folklore, were more consistent, and limited pain intervention during childbirth lest God be denied his glory.[4] And regardless of these odd contradictions, Protestants can’t get enough of this stuff. With that said, I hope this contradiction works well for Diprima and her pain management is beyond successful.

After her introduction, Diprima introduces three truths from “experiential Reformed theology that are helping me in my fight with cancer.” So, she is fighting against God’s will, a good thing, because, I guess, she must fight against God’s will because in the end it may not be his will, or something like that, I guess. The idea that she should fight the cancer because it is not God’s will might be a more logical approach. After all, the Bible is clear that death is God’s enemy, and his final enemy that will be destroyed.[5] At any rate, the point I want to reiterate follows: After sitting under teaching week after week that propagates a call to suffering; ie., Martin Luther’s Theology of the Cross that Protestantism is founded on, her church is “shocked” in regard to the diagnosis. Huh?

A short word here on what “experiential Reformed theology” is because it will set a premise for some other things we will be observing in this post. Basically, authentic Protestant soteriology can be split into three parts: beginning justification, justification experienced subjectively (what they call “progressive sanctification,” but is progressive justification), and final justification. Experiential Reformed theology has to do with the preaching and teaching that explains justification that is experience subjectively during sanctification. Calvin taught election in three categories that coincide with this division; the non-elect, the called (temporary elect), and those who persevere. Calvin taught that perseverance is a separate gift added to being called.[6] The called are legitimately enlightened or, in essence, temporarily elected. Therefore, NO Protestant sitting in church can know whether or not they have received the gift of perseverance, added to being called, before the foundation of the world. In fact, both Calvin and Luther rejected eternal security or assurance of salvation.[7] Keep all of this in mind as you consider some of Diprima’s statements in the TGC post.

Here, I am going to excerpt Diprima’s entire first point:

1. God is glorified in the suffering of his people.

The center of Reformed theology is the glory of God. Every person’s chief purpose, the Westminster Shorter Catechism tells us, is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. His glory is why anything comes to pass. This includes his elect people’s suffering—their miscarriages, difficult marriages, agony over unbelieving children, chronic fatigue or pain, sleepless nights, grief over loss—every single thing that afflicts his people.

Including my cancer. May God be glorified in it too.

The diagnosis shocked me, my family, and my church. It was no shock to God. He who knit me together in my mother’s womb (Ps. 139:13), who knows the number of hairs on my head (Luke 12:7), and who governs every cell in my body has ordained my cancer—he upholds the biological processes that created and sustain it. He ordained my cancer before I was born. We love to say “God is sovereign,” but it’s a mere platitude if he isn’t sovereign over my cancer.

To be blunt, God gave me cancer, and he gave it to me for his glory. I will live to see him glorified in my cancer, in this life or the next, because God is glorified even in the suffering of his people.

God gave me cancer, and he gave it to me for his glory.

As John Piper has famously said, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” God receives glory when I’m more satisfied in him than in my husband, my children, a healthy body, or anything death might steal. When God strips away everything and leaves me only himself—and my soul finds its deepest delight in him—he’s seen as sufficient, as enough. He’s made to look great because he is.

If my suffering will bring glory to God, I’ll embrace it. He is worthy.

[End excerpt.]

Indeed, this is Martin Luther’s Theology of the Cross doctrine, which is the foundation of Protestantism. It is a zero sum life doctrine much like Islam and other law-based religions. Of course, the doctrine gives you peace because it devalues life and makes one indifferent to life in general and life struggles in particular.

According to this doctrine, reality is divided into two spheres: the glory story, and the cross story. ANYTHING that gives people credit is the glory of man story, or the glory story, and anything that glorifies Christ is the cross story. This is also the historical redemptive hermeneutic that interprets all reality according to redemption, viz, history and reality are a narrative written by God about Christ’s redemption. And, all reality should be interpreted “through the gospel.” A lot of the sovereignty stuff is predicated on this hermeneutic. Therefore, God is sovereign and in control of everything because reality is a prewritten narrative God has authored according to every little detail, including what you decide to wear every day, and young children dying of cancer. And of course, all for his glory. The Bible is the general context of the metaphysical narrative, and whatever happens are the details predetermined by God…for his glory.

This is the same concept as the Hindu Lila: “…loosely translated as ‘divine play’. The concept of lila is common to both non-dualist and dualist philosophical schools of Indian philosophy but has a markedly different significance in each. Within non-dualism, lila is a way of describing all reality, including the cosmos, as the outcome of creative play by the divine absolute (Brahman).”[8] In the case of Protestantism, all reality is a prewritten narrative, or story about redemption, and all reality should be interpreted through that lens. Hence, a “historical redemptive hermeneutic.” No matter what a text states grammatically, it must be interpreted according to its “gospel context.” This ministry has written extensively on Protestantism’s connections to Eastern mysticism, especially in relationship to predeterminism.[9]

Since God wrote this narrative, as expressed in the Bible, for his own glory, it makes perfect sense that the focus of all reality would be his glory as stated by Diprima’s first point. This is also the point of the fifth sola, glory to God alone. Most Protestants don’t understand the full significance of the terminology, mantras, and truisms they hear, and when they hear things about the “divine drama,” they assume it is in a manner of speaking. Not so. This extreme reductionism that is the epitome of putting God in a box is a cheap sanctification shortcut that blames God for everything. Let’s not forget that. These people can’t have it both ways. Think of many things that happen in the world and ask yourself if God really preordained that for his glory. Come now, it’s absurd. With that said, here is a huge problem we have in our day: for more than 1500 years, the church has dumbed down God’s people with simple mysticism, and most Christians today do not possess basic philosophical principles needed to recognize and understand truth that will set us free to understand God in a meaningful way. This is a Protestant Dark Age.

As a nurse presently studying microbiology, I find this statement by Diprima interesting: “…and who governs every cell in my body has ordained my cancer—he upholds the biological processes that created and sustain it. He ordained my cancer before I was born. We love to say ‘God is sovereign,’ but it’s a mere platitude if he isn’t sovereign over my cancer.” Indeed, the systematic theology concerning the attributes of God, one of them being sovereignty, is blatant eisegesis rather than exegesis. While Diprima and others like to call their theology, big God theology, apparently, God isn’t big enough to not be sovereign in all things, and is enslaved to his own identity. Hence, scripture is always interpreted through that theological principle.

Some years ago, as a young pastor teaching on Luke 8:45,46 in a Reformed church, I suggested that Christ really didn’t know who touched him as suggested by the grammatical construct of the text. In the text, Christ clearly states why he didn’t know who touched him. In other passages such as Mathew 24:26, it is clear that there were things Christ didn’t know. Nevertheless, in the aforementioned bible study, the group called me out for denying the sovereignty of God and even became hostile.

Furthermore, it should be noted that Protestantism denies a literal new birth of the believer, which would entail the infusion of God’s attributes into the believer, like holiness. According to Protestantism, this must be denied because this would make the believer God himself. Note here that Diprima makes the same mistake: God is sovereign, therefore, he preordained her cancer, and because all things happen to glorify God, it is also for his glory. The logical conclusion of that hardly makes God a god of clarity rather than a god of confusion.

Another apt example involves my wife Susan when she taught at a Christian school. She suggested to a class of sixth graders that God is not omnipresent in all cases. Her example was hell. She suggested that part of the punishment in hell is the absence of God. Consequently, Susan was accused of denying the omnipresence of God and almost lost her teaching position.

Getting back to Diprima’s example of microbiology, that is a vast world of astounding truths known mostly by God himself and no one else. So, you have God orchestrating this vast war between incredibly complex organisms, for his glory, when almost everyone but him is completely unaware of what’s happening. But, this is indicative of how Protestantism operates. Talking points are only evaluated and considered for the moment and the present narrowing of a subject, while nothing is thought out to its logical conclusion. For certain, Diprima’s article seems pious and profound if you do not consider the logical conclusions and limit her assertions to the one topic of cancer. In fact, church is mostly a limited mental exercise that jumps from one elementary talking point to another.

Martin Luther called human reason a whore who should be relegated to a closet in the basement, and have dung rubbed in her face to make her ugly. Yet, whether Piper, MacArthur, or whomever else among the celebrity Reformed pastor club, you can bet they will utilize fact-based medical care to the fullest extent to save themselves from any medical woe, while simultaneously teaching that the woe is God’s sovereign will and for his glory or as Deprima states: “If my suffering will bring glory to God, I’ll embrace it. He is worthy.” Fighting a medical condition with every available treatment is not embracing the condition for God’s glory. And how does being cured accomplish the following? “strips away everything and leaves me only himself.” What am I missing here?

We need each other, and God is not in the business of stripping away our loved ones so that he can receive more glory; he is glorified by our love for each other. The Bible states that this is what identifies us as Christians. Loving God AND our neighbor is the fulfillment of the law. Deprima, like most Protestants, is fond of the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s rewording of Ecclesiastes 12:13. We are to glorify God by attending to his many-faceted word, not a reductionist interpretation that blames God for every event. That does not glorify God, it mocks him, albeit unwittingly.

2. God works all things together for the good of his elect.

Per the usual, in Deprima’s second point, Protestants must have it both ways. In this point, God is working all things together for our good. She uses this point to minimize the importance of our understanding. What a minute, I thought the sole purpose of everything is God’s glory, now we have God working for our benefit? What about soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone)? Doesn’t “alone” mean, alone? And what does she mean by the following? “Romans 8:28 is a promise we believe by faith, not sight. So I won’t demand God show me all the ways he’s working before I believe him. Instead, I’ll trust his promise even in the dark.” So, all things are predetermined by God because he is sovereign, and if you are a Christian, he works all of these things together for your good, or the good of others. Now, you can place any tragedy or event in that blank and whatever it is, God predetermined it for his glory and the good of others. Any reasonable person with any sense at all knows that is a problematic logic. However, the “biblical” counseling associated with the neo-Calvinist movement has been heavily criticized for taking that position, particularly in cases of sexual abuse and sexual assault within the church.

When the Calvinist theological construct is considered, there are NO promises to the so-called believer. According to Calvin and Luther, no elect person can know whether or not they have received the added gift of perseverance before the foundation of the earth. Clearly, Calvin believed that the elect who do not receive the added gift of perseverance are temporarily illumined. In addition, Calvin and Luther both considered fear of condemnation a primary catalyst for sanctification.[10] This makes sense if salvation is a process as continually stated by Calvinists. If, as John Piper states, “Christians” must continually make use of gospel in order to be saved, condemnation must necessarily remain in the life of the so-called believer. Consequently, Protestants cannot logically claim any promise from the Bible. If one has no fear of condemnation, they are not motivated to “continue in the gospel.” If you are once and forever sealed by the Spirit until the day your mortal body is redeemed, why would you need to “continue in the gospel”?

3. God will keep his people to the end.

The third point is sort of a cruel joke. Yes, God will keep his people till the end, IF they are his people at the end, and according to Calvin, not his temporary people. And yes, God will finish his work in everyone, whether it is the sovereign work to damn them to hell forever, or whether they are his temporary elect that do not have the gift of perseverance. Again, no Protestant sitting in church, according to Calvin, and for that matter Luther as well, can know whether they are God’s temporary elect or those who have the additional gift of perseverance. This is the gospel of IF.

Deep Roots

“Why does Reformed theology matter to me? Because I’m in the fight of my life, and only a sovereign God will get me through. I need doctrine with deep roots—doctrine that’s able to handle the profound paradoxes of pain. I need a good and sovereign God who will bring glory to himself through cancer, who will work cancer for my good, and who will never abandon me.”

In summary, and per the usual, they call the contradictions and illogical nonsense, “paradoxes,” while otherwise stating that there are no paradoxes in the discussion at all; God does what he does for his glory, end of discussion. However, fighting against what glorifies God might be a paradox. And again, Diprima has no way of knowing whether God will abandon her or not. If it was decided before the foundation of the world that she is his temporary elect, he will abandon her according to his sovereign plan. He won’t abandon her IF she was granted the gift of perseverance before the foundation of the world.

He will get her through IF she has been granted the gift of perseverance. There are no paradoxes; everything is God’s sovereign will and for his glory. God will work the cancer for her good IF she has been granted perseverance before the foundation of the world.

This is what they call a doctrine with deep roots—the gospel of IF.

paul

[1] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/calvinism-cancer/

[2] John 1:29.

[3] Colossians 2:14.

[4] https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/topic_display.cfm?tcid=70

[5] 1 Corinthians 15:24–26

[6] https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2014/07/07/romans-series-interlude-predestination-a-potters-house-journey-part-8-whats-in-the-word-perseverance-part-1-on-perseverance/ https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2014/07/15/romans-series-interlude-predestination-a-potters-house-journey-part-8-whats-in-the-word-perseverance-part-2-on-perseverance/