New Calvinism’s Silent and Dramatic Reshaping of American Politics
Pundits of American politics are likely missing a major philosophical shift among the voting public. Traditionally, it has been safe to assume that the evangelical vote tends towards American values. After all, the Pilgrims first settled in America seeking religious freedom and much of American heritage is rooted in that narrative. The ultra-conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has even written a children’s book about the Pilgrims (Puritans) presumably to preserve this rich heritage that underpins American values.
Hence, evangelicalism is assumed to be one in heart with freedom and liberty for all. Furthermore, they are responsible folks with deep convictions, viz, a large percentage of them vote, and vote conservative. The who’s who of American conservatism openly proclaim their love for God and country. When election time is near, this paradigm is a given for the political prognosticators.
But it shouldn’t be. The silent equation that everyone seems to be missing is the New Calvinist movement. This movement has all but completely taken over American evangelicalism, and will result in two things regarding the evangelical vote: low turnout and a shift towards socialist leaning candidates.
Consider: who are the New Calvinists? One is Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Theological Seminary which is the flagship seminary of the largest evangelical denomination in the world, the Southern Baptists. Consider, in 2009, Time Magazine named New Calvinism as one of the top ten ideas changing the world in our time. That was almost six years ago, and the movement’s tsunami-like growth has not relented in the least.
And consider, there is an ever increasing theme emerging in their massive publication machine of blogs, radio, pulpit, conferences, and books: anti-American sentiment with the primary whipping post being “the American Dream.” Why?
New Calvinism is a return to the Reformation basics—they are Reformation purists, and few really understand Martin Luther’s worldview that founded Protestantism in its authentic form. Luther, like his Reformation compatriot John Calvin, were rabid followers of Saint Augustine who was an avowed Neo-Platonist. Luther was a friar in the Augustinian Order, and Calvin quoted Augustine over 400 times in The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Let’s skip the specific worldview shared by Plato, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, and instead point out the inevitable social prescription that it demanded as articulated in Plato’s Republic.
Plato denied that the common people could perceive reality, or what Reformation purists refer to as “total depravity.” Therefore, this idea called for elitist philosopher kings to rule over the masses with a standing army just in case citizens get the idea that they can actually know something. The sole purpose and sum value of a citizen is determined by ability to contribute to the “common good” and society at large. A comment regarding a blog post on New Calvinism stated it well:
In fact Calvinism strikes me as being antithetical to American cultural norms; such as, the notion of the American Dream and all men being created equal…I can see how Calvinism would have been bred in a European society with its history of class [caste system], but it would be a hard fit for America.
The reader rightly assessed with that comment. When the Puritans (who were Calvinists) came across the pond, they brought a European caste mentality with them. The primary goal was to start their own theocracy, what they called “New Zion.” This is why the first Bible to land on the eastern shore of America was the Geneva Bible. Geneva is the place where John Calvin earned the nickname “Pope of Geneva.” Nearly every detail of life was regulated there, including mandatory church attendance where Calvin’s elders tortured people with linguistic drones that lasted for hours. In addition, people were jailed for talking or sleeping during sermons, and Geneva law enforcement patrolled the streets searching for those not in attendance. Penalties for bad behavior were harsh as demonstrated by the fact that a public execution occurred at least once per week.
Please take note that the “elder statesman” of New Calvinism, Dr. John Piper, recently went to Geneva to produce a video announcing the newest phase of his ministry; i.e., to spread Calvin’s Post Tenebras Lux (after darkness light) throughout the whole world. Like the socialism of the ages, there is always an excuse why the light has never worked—this time it will be different and mankind will finally be saved!
Much could be written on this wise and there is not sufficient room here to do so, but for purposes of this post, we should focus on the question of individualism. The American Dream is a construct that limits government to the task of freeing the individual to pursue all that they can be or want to be. Materialism is a mere result, the American Dream is not materialism—it’s an idea. Another natural result is the collective wellbeing of society. Happy and free individuals make a happy and free society.
This all boils down to the question of individual competence. We know how socialism answers that question while aggressively foisting a nanny state upon the American people more and more. They want to control how we travel, what we eat, and even how we wipe ourselves after using the bathroom. This is more than an annoyance; the horrifying and real question becomes, “Who owns man?” Does man own man, or does the state own man? If man cannot self-govern, and needs government to rule over his being via elitist philosophers or religionists, man becomes property of the state by default.
Is this not the crux of the conflict that we see in American politics? Regardless of the obvious, “you didn’t build that” because “you” are not competent. It only looks like you built it because the government made it possible. And even more horrifying is the idea that all wars would end if the masses would just finally agree to be owned. Yes, then all of Plato’s children could come together and agree on the best way to manage people. Terrorists are really not bad people; actually, they know something very important that Ronald Reagan never figured out: people cannot self-govern.
But yet, there is something even more horrifying: the masses who have bought into the idea of their own incompetence and the incompetence of mankind in general. This is fear of chaos. This is looking to the elitists to protect us from ourselves. Though the recent riots incited by socialists in America over whatever excuse was stumbled upon at the time seem to be pointless, really they are not pointless. The riots serve the following purpose:
See! See! See what happens when people own themselves? Chaos! Oh my! The streets are aflame! What will become of us?
Riots are designed to incite fear and send people scrambling for hasty answers—terrorism likewise. This is all an epic battle for the ownership of mankind. And where evangelicalism stands in that fight is now abundantly clear; they stand with the religious version of socialism: Post Tenebras Lux.
This is a huge reality lurking behind the curtain of America’s political stage. The New Calvinist movement (circa 1970) has created a massive religious subculture with significant sway over millions of evangelicals and has crossed all denominational lines to some degree. Presently, the movement is producing a mass of anti-American propaganda depicting the American Dream as steroidal selfism that is destroying the fabric of our society. Many notable New Calvinists, not excluding the aforementioned Al Mohler, are even writing articles defending terrorism and stating, one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot. In one article, Mohler equates Nelson Mandella with George Washington. Other articles posted by notable New Calvinists object to the “exaggeration” of atrocities committed by ISIS. If you think this eerily similar to Hillary Clinton’s latest call to better understand terrorists, you rightly assess.
And this article cannot be concluded without mentioning New Calvinism’s latest wave of socialist propaganda: the virtues of slavery. That’s right. In fact, mega evangelical and New Calvinist Dr. John MacArthur Jr. wrote a book in 2010 titled Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ. The theme, also posited by numerous articles flowing from the gargantuan New Calvinist propaganda machine, is that man is metaphysically enslaved and the concept of freedom is a misnomer. In the reality of being, there is no real freedom. Hence, according to the general theses, Christ didn’t see slavery as a bad thing per se because men are enslaved anyway, but probably took exception to naughty slave owners. Trust me, Hillary Clinton would go to church to hear that sermon and would be in the amen row to boot while promising to be one of those good slave owners that Christ thought well of.
So, what is the new mentality of the evangelical in the voting booth? First things first: vote for who gets it—vote for the candidate that understands man is enslaved by his own incompetence whether he knows it or not. The New Calvinist philosopher kings can go to the negotiating table later with their sphere of influence as a bargaining chip. Remember, the people always outnumber the philosopher kings and the warriors by significant margins. The New Calvinists bring a significant sphere of influence to the table. With any nation, it’s ALL about what people believe, and people can believe particular things that render government force powerless. Ultimately, ideas win wars.
The New Calvinists deem Capitalism little different from that of Islamic terrorists. Job one for them is to get rid of the American Dream by any candidate possible who understands the total depravity of man and the incompetence of the masses.
And political pundits of the patriot stripe would do well to adjust their evangelical equation accordingly.
paul
The Truth About Predeterminism: A Historical and Biblical Evaluation
Friday 12/19/2014 @ 7PM
We will discuss the historical and philosophical foundations of predeterminism. Also, does the Bible make a case for freewill?
The Problem with Church: Your Pastor Doesn’t Think You’re Righteous
“We are saved by the new birth, not the blind following after confused scholars. Why are you submitting yourself to people who declare you unrighteous in practice when God states otherwise? Why are you submitting to people who deny your literal kinship to God?”
Most Christians, and more pastors than we would like to think, don’t even know who we are. However, in our day, the vast majority of pastors view justification as a forensic declaration only while the individual remains fundamentally unchanged, or unrighteous after “salvation.”
So, did salvation make us righteous, or are we only declared righteous? Most Christians don’t know, and even if they think they know, they can’t defend it from the Bible. If your defense is the words “new birth,” those with the prevailing view can cite a plethora of Bible verses that will seemingly prove you wrong because said verses are not defined in context of sanctification or justification, two subjects that Christians have little or no knowledge of to boot.
Why is it ok that the debate regarding justification rages in conservative evangelical circles? In his review of the book Justification: Five Views, Matthew Barrett states,
This review has only touched the surface of the debate, which is not likely to stop anytime soon. The ongoing centrality of the debate also demonstrates Luther’s maxim, namely, that justification is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. This being the case, it is essential that we think hard about the biblical text lest we fail to understand properly how we are made right before a holy God.[1]
Barrett is a Southern Baptist scholar, and posits a comfortable mentality in Christian circles: how we are saved is such an important topic that we should continue to debate it. Why is this acceptable? Because deep down, most Christians think they are saved by showing faithfulness to a Christian institution of their choice. Secondly, the laity, per what they have been taught for decades, don’t think they are responsible for knowing the truth because they aren’t capable of knowing what the spiritual elite know (as if they have come to any conclusions after 500 years of post “Reformation”).
Therefore, “Christians” en masse, follow those who offer nothing definitive regarding the gospel we claim to be saved by without even blinking an eye. And we think Eastern mysticism is illogical? Renowned Southern Baptist pastor Paul Washer has even said that the truth of the gospel has an eternal depth that we will never fully know[2] which brought objection on that point from likeminded Calvinist Joel Taylor[3].
One of the views of justification offered in the aforementioned book is that of Dr. Michael Horton. He is the host of a Reformed radio show titled The White Horse Inn. In one show, he critiqued the position of scholar NT Wright regarding justification, and remarked that his show continues to discuss the question “What is the gospel?” In the critique, even though it concerned justification, Horton pointed out the positive aspects of Wright’s teachings, even though one must conclude that Horton was complementing the use of perceived facts in the commission of theological felony. It’s befuddling to say the least.[4]
In regard to justification, Barrett stated his agreement with Horton in the review. And what is that view of justification according to Barrett?
Horton shows that the righteousness imputed is not a substance or commodity but a legal status. Additionally, Wright has neglected a third party, namely, Christ the mediator. It is the active and passive obedience of Christ, not “the essential divine attribute of righteousness” in God that is credited to believers…
Third, Horton gives a needed defense of imputation, reminding us that this doctrine is indispensible since it is the way “God gives this righteousness or justice to the ungodly through faith.” Horton shows that while the exact term may not be used, the concept of imputation infiltrates Paul’s letters at every turn. I leave it to the reader to take an in-depth look into the passages Horton examines, but Horton is correct when he writes, “These passages unmistakably teach that the righteousness by which the believer stands worthy before God’s judgment is alien: that is, belonging properly to someone else. It is Christ’s righteousness imputed, not the believer’s inherent righteousness—even if produced by the gracious work of the Spirit.” If Horton is right, and I think he is, then the other views need some serious adjustment.
This confusion regarding the gospel is unacceptable and there is only one answer: the laity must retake their rightful position as God’s priests in his called out holy nation. In that nation, we must be unequivocal in our understanding of the gospel; we are not only declared righteous, WE ARE RIGHTEOUS born again beings after the nature of God. His attribute of righteousness is imputed to us because we are born of Him and His seed resides IN US (1John 3:1-10). When we were saved, we were made the righteousness of God (2Corinthians 5:21).
We are justified by faith alone, but that faith includes believing that something has actually happened that we desire: the death of the old us with Christ and the resurrection of a new us with Christ. The old us was under the law of sin and death, the new us loves that same law because it guides us in loving God and others. We are saved by the new birth, not the blind following after confused scholars. Why are you submitting yourself to people who declare you unrighteous in practice when God states otherwise? Why are you submitting to people who deny your literal kinship to God?
The contention always presented is that of present sin. This, in and of itself is a smoking gun. This argument makes NO distinction between justification and sanctification. Therefore, it makes no distinction between sins against justification and sin against family relationship. This is a denial of the new birth. It also makes perfect law-keeping justification’s standard.
The apostle Paul spent most of his ministry refuting that idea from many different angles.
paul
Endnotes:
1. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/justification_five_views
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mMQ12nmDow
The Potter’s House: Romans 14:1; Should We Invite Unbelievers to Church?
We come now to the first verse of chapter 14 in our Romans study. I want to begin by reminding us of a very important issue in regard to studying the Bible individually and understanding it. What I have found in the last few years is that most of what you need to understand the Bible is in the Bible itself. Yes, I am a big grammatical historical guy, and a study of history and culture is helpful in regard to Bible study, but the grammatical is most important. Just let the words say what they say. Take the words at face value.
Let me give you the prime example of that in my own life. I approached Romans with this principle: forget all of your presuppositions, and just let the words say what they say. I began to notice the use of the word “law” a lot in the book of Romans; the law of this, and the law of that, etc. What did Paul mean by the different references to law and was he speaking of the literal written law, or realms, or spiritual laws, or laws of nature?
Upon investigation, I discovered that the simple literal evaluation demanded these references to law to be a literal written law. In all cases, the word used was nomos while there are other Greek words for realm, a force of nature, etc. You don’t need to be a Greek scholar to determine that by any stretch of the imagination. This revelation has made the whole Bible fit together for me. Prior to that, presuppositions taught to me by others was an extreme hindrance to understanding the word of God.
Also, in our study of Romans, context is extremely important, so what is the context of Romans 14? Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles. His calling was the “mystery of the gospel.” What is that? Well, let’s see:
Ephesians 3:1 – For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
The mystery of the gospel is God’s desire to bring Jew and Gentile together in one body to God’s glory. Think about what kind of power is displayed in a wisdom that brings two diverse cultures together in harmony? As we learned early on in our study, the Christians at Rome obviously understood the gospel of first order; i.e., the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul wanted to come to them and teach the full-orbed gospel or the full counsel of God to them face to face.
But, he was continually hindered in coming to them, so he decided to write them this treatise instead. Now, why did the Holy Spirit hinder him? It’s obvious; so that Christians in future generations would have this written treatise on the full orbed gospel. We also looked at Paul’s apology in the letter to the Christians at Rome for not being able to come. The Gentiles were deemed as second class citizens in the Judeo Assembly of Christ, and Paul feared that his tarrying in coming would feed this mentality. This is why the first chapters of Romans are a passionate body of doctrine that refutes it. However, by chapter 11, Paul senses that he has made his case very well, and warns the Gentiles against reverse discrimination.
Now listen, the verse we are addressing today may be what incited Paul to panic and the writing of this letter to the Romans. That’s right; we may find ourselves at the issue that sent him running for his quill. Apparently, the Romans had written Paul from time to time about certain issues, and the issue here is what to do about Jews coming into their fellowships. Because of their diversity in the recognition of dietary laws and laws concerning days, should they be allowed in their fellowships? This certainly panicked Paul because this is the crux of the what? Right, mystery of the gospel.
“But Paul, the verse says ‘weak in faith’ not ‘Jews.’” True, but Paul is referring to the Jews. Though the Jews have great advantage in being the overseers of God’s law and His chosen people, the transition from the Old Covenant to the New and its relationship to law has an inherent tendency towards weakness. Paul uses the nomenclature of “weak” in order to not label all Jews accordingly. Many Jews understood the proper relation of law to the New Covenant.
In fact, even though circumcision was no longer required under the New Covenant, Paul had Timothy circumcised in order to get an audience with Jews who still had the conviction that circumcision was required:
Acts 16:1 – Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.
And what letter (“the decisions”) did they bring with them? The letter from the apostles in Jerusalem concerning the circumcision issue (Acts 15). I must say that Andy’s study in the book of Acts has helped me greatly in understanding what is going on in Romans 14 (see ttanc.com). The judgment of the Apostles was not to burden the Gentiles with being circumcised in order to get along with the weaker Jews, but did tell them to observe some Jewish dietary laws.
The weaker brother is to be “welcomed” and connects with Romans 15:
We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.” 4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. 8 For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, 9 and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,
“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles, and sing to your name.”
Who are the “you” in this text? It is the Gentiles that Paul is writing to in the letter. Clearly, Paul addresses the wisdom needed for Gentiles to WELCOME the weaker Jewish brothers into the assemblies WITHOUT quarreling about issues of liberty in accordance to the law. At issue is the very mystery of the gospel. AND, without a doubt, the same principles apply to a myriad of other contrary convictions that can come between people.
Just this week I read an article about a church split over the recognition of Christmas. Yes, it’s true, Christmas was founded on a pagan holiday and we are never commanded in the Bible to recognize Christ’s birthday. But is this an issue of separation? Granted, Halloween is a pagan holiday. Granted, I am not sure that Christian children should dress up like the Devil and werewolves. Nevertheless, should that be an issue of separation resulting in Christians not being welcome?
This has major implications for the home fellowship movement. If we want to see God glorified in the mystery of the gospel, one of the things we can emphasize is unity. Wisdom will be key to seeing the results God wants. Let’s start with another basic principle that can be derived from this text. Those welcome should be believers. Home fellowships should indeed be for the express purpose of fellowship between saved people including those who have a weak view of law.
The assembly of believers is not a place for evangelism. All evangelism should take place outside of home fellowships. The gathering of believers for fellowship and edification is never advocated as a place for evangelism in the New Testament. Where did the idea of invite people to church to get them saved come from? Where did the idea of church “revivals” and alter calls come from? It all came from the advent of the 4th century institutional church and the idea that salvation comes through church membership.
This approach has brought many difficulties into the institutional church. Many church leaders bemoan the fact that unsaved people populate the church in large numbers, but what does one expect when inviting lost people to church has been one of its institutional mandates for more than 500 years? I think the mindset that the assembling of believers together for encouragement and edification is exclusive would make a huge difference in Christianity in and of itself. This approach also removes a lot of, “What if…?” scenarios. When you start trying to apply matters of liberty in a group setting where the born again and unregenerate are meeting together—what you have is a mess!
Look at verses 2 and 3:
One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
Stop right there. Have you ever thought of who God welcomes as a standard for fellowship? The context of what Paul is writing about is Christian fellowships. The question posed to Paul previously was who should be welcome or not welcome. The standard is whoever God welcomes. Do you know what this tells me? God sees Christian fellowship as sacred and very important, and anybody and everybody is not necessarily welcome. This answers a lot of “What if…?” situations, no?
This speaks to a public purpose building in which anything but the kitchen sink can come walking in. It would seem that one of the primary purposes of a Christian assembly is unity along with encouragement and edification. The purpose of unity is at a distinct disadvantage with unbelievers present and defies the primary purpose of Christian assemblies.
This puts the rightful burden of evangelism on the individual Christian. This also necessitates the equipping for evangelism in the assemblies. The focus becomes what individual Christians do outside of Christian fellowship, not bringing people to church to get them saved by an expert evangelist. The focus of assemblies is strengthening and equipping each other for the work of the ministry.
That’s verse 1, next week we will further develop Paul’s prescription for unity in the assemblies regardless of varying convictions.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments