New Calvinism’s Contribution to the Church: it Reveals What Calvin Really Believed
“A question we often hear is, ‘What is the difference between an Old Calvinist and a New Calvinist?’ The answer: maybe the music style and dress code, but that’s about it, Old Calvinists that don’t know what Calvin really believed about soteriology notwithstanding.…. This is the one area where New Calvinists can recommend themselves: they have a firm handle on Calvinology.”
Once upon a time, there was a family in Christianville that was highly respected among all of the town’s people. They owned the town’s water purification plant and purified the town’s water with a formula that had been in their family for centuries.
Then a distant relative of the family moved into town. He was obviously a fellow of the baser sort. “Well, every family has a black sheep” the town’s people reasoned. But then they found out this relative had also purified water in other towns with the same family formula resulting in the death of thousands. Apparently, for the first few years, the formula appears to improve the health of people, but ill effects follow in the long term.
The prestigious family objected and insisted that the family member had tampered with the original formula. What will Christianville do now?
No doubt, New Calvinism must be exposed and stopped, but its unwitting service to the church should not go unmentioned: it has exposed the original family formula, the same formula that evangelicals have fustigated the Catholic Church for over the years. For some reason, we are willing to buy into the idea that three Catholics founded an anti-Catholic movement and never stopped being Catholics. Truly, our Enlightenment forefathers would be ashamed of us for believing such.
Supposedly, the “Reformers” modified the original formula enough to bring life out of death. Now there is debate between the New Calvinists and the Old Calvinists in regard to the originality of that formula. Old Calvinists say the New Calvinists modified the formula. That’s not the case. A question we often hear is, “What is the difference between an Old Calvinist and a New Calvinist?” The answer: maybe the music style and dress code, but that’s about it, Old Calvinists that don’t know what Calvin really believed about soteriology notwithstanding. This is the one area where New Calvinists can recommend themselves: they have a firm handle on Calvinology.
Old Calvinists are obviously very threatened by what the New Calvinists have brought to light. Those who proudly label themselves with something that they misunderstood to begin with fall significantly short of being impressive. But their dilemma is understandable to a point. The Reformers interpreted all reality through Martin Luther’s Theology of the Cross. This seeks to use the Bible as a tool for gospel contemplationism only. The sole purpose of the Bible is to show us our sin (mortification), and God’s holiness, leading to a gospel visitation afresh (vivification). The Bible aids us in perpetual rebirth experiences. This is known as the Redemptive Historical use of the Bible.
But that is not the normative in regard to how people interpret literature or reality. Naturally, we interpret literature grammatically. Intuitively, we are exegetical beings. The way words are arranged in a sentence interprets our realty. Until Adam named the animals, they had no part in reality. You say, “Yes they did, even though they were unidentified, they were there—they had presence.” No, the word “unidentified” gives them their meaning in reality. Words interpret our reality. In the Redemptive Historical construct, all the words in the Bible must serve to show us our need to be saved perpetually—those words must continually show us our ruined state so that we can experience salvation (vivification) rather than being a participant in it via sanctification. That would be works salvation according to the Reformers.
To simplify this, it is fair to say that the Reformers brought an Eastern way of interpreting reality into the Western religious world. So, as Christians throughout the centuries read their Bibles, they are/were naturally drawn away from the original Reformed epistemology. The New Calvinists basically rediscovered the original epistemology of the Reformers. Their interpretive construct is critical for living by faith alone in sanctification as a way to maintain justification.
The proof in the pudding is interaction with Old Calvinists who scoff at the idea that New Calvinism is the same thing as their vaunted Reformed heritage. I cite here a debate I recently had with Calvinistic pastor Bret L. McAtee on a social network. The debate represents something that the laity must overcome in regard to seeking out truth and standing for it: academic antagonism. This is a Reformed mainstay. Much of the populous is eliminated from the debate because of a standard set up by the Reformers themselves. This was borrowed from the Eastern concept of social caste. The Reformers established a whole other standard of truth through councils, creeds, and catechisms attended by, “Divines.” Notably, those who drafted the Westminster Confession of Faith are known as the “Westminster Divines.” This is no more or no less than the Hindu Sage. True, Hinduism looks inward to interpret reality beyond the five senses while Reformed theology looks outward. But both interpret reality through an anti-grammatical construct. New Calvinists state implicitly that a literal, grammatical interpretation must bow to the redemptive interpretive process and its mortification /vivification experience.
Point being, throughout my debate with Pastor Bret L. MacAtee, he resorts to this, you’re a peasant and I am a sage communication technique. He also tried to use the Reformed debate technique of assumptive metaphysics. What’s that? That is the assumption that the reality established by the Reformers is truth because they state it so. And this has worked well. Most Christians associate truth with “orthodoxy.” Orthodoxy is a truth established by men. The Reformers play word games here by calling documents such as the Westminster Confession, “subordinate truth,” but that is disingenuous. In fact, those who reject orthodoxy are referred to as “heterodox,” and as we shall see, MacAtee makes that synonymous with rejecting the gospel itself. Part and parcel with debating a Calvinist is their attempt to set the metaphysical parameters of the debate. I did not allow this to happen.
Let’s review these important points: a debate with a Calvinist will always involve academic antagonism and metaphysical assumption.
Note: Posts on social internet threads don’t always appear in the intended order because of varied response times to particular points. Also, it was a lengthy thread, and only the posts that articulate my summation here are included, and in the order that best clarifies the points that are being made.
McAtee got the ball rolling by using academic antagonism right out of the gate:
BM: And that New Calvinism is authentic Calvinism is a howler of a statement.
PD: Bret, It’s a “howler” because you get your information from men. I get my information from 6 years of research on the Reformation and the Calvin institutes. You are clueless.
BM: LOL … Your indicting the wrong Chap Paul. Want to compare our reading over the years in Calvin and Calvin studies?
You’d lose.
And … I’ve read your books as well.
Those well versed in Reformed theology need not bow to this antagonism. We are in the truth business and are not bound by the musings of men. One must bring the debate to one or more subjects where Calvinism is vulnerable; in this case, progressive justification:
PD: Oh, so you believe in Progressive Justification?
BM: Nope … I believe in eternal justification, objective justification and then subjective justification … rightly explained and understood.
PD: “Nope”? Really? So tell me what book and chapter in the Calvin Institutes where Calvin talks about Progressive Justification.
PD: You there Brett?
BM: Yes yes Paul … I’ve read your open letter. An open letter that suggests you don’t know what you’re talking about and are a theological novice.
Two things here. First, his description of what he believes about justification is in fact New Calvinism to a “T.” New Calvinists, like Calvin, believed that grace remains completely outside of the believer and is only objective truth outside of us. Justification during our Christian life continues and is experienced subjectively. “Eternal justification” could refer to election or final justification which he seems to have left out. Nevertheless, note his description in relationship to the New Calvinist mantras, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us and the subjective power of the objective gospel. The illustration below shows the kinship between New Calvinism and what McAtee stated:
One Achilles’ heel for Calvinists is while denying that they believe in progressive justification, the title of book three and the fourteenth chapter of the Calvin Institutes is, “The Beginning of Justification. In What Sense Progressive.” This is what I was trying to get McAtee to explain. He once again resorted to academic antagonism by calling me a “theological novice” while this is one of several questions that he wouldn’t answer.
PD: So, when Calvin said that justification is progressive, he really didn’t mean that justification is progressive. Is that what you are saying?
BM: I’m saying you don’t know the difference between progressive and perpetual.
PD: Both move forward in time.
PD: No? Am I missing the definition in its “gospel context”?
PD: Both move forward in time—yes or no big guy.
This is the whole motif that Calvinists are on some higher plane of understanding to the point where what seems obvious to the peasantry really isn’t realty. Hence, “progressive” and “perpetual” are supposedly different concepts that the common man is unable to understand. Again, I ignored the academic antagonism and asked him if both words have the idea of moving forward in time. He wouldn’t answer the question; instead, he posed a question based on Reformed pseudo-church history:
BM: Only an idiot could believe that Cardinal Sadolet and Rome hated Calvin because he agreed with them on Justification.
This response combines academic antagonism and metaphysical assumption. The assumption is that, according to the Reformed motif, there was a great gulf in the view on justification between Rome and the Reformers, and the only reason Rome hated the Reformers is because of their diametrically opposed views on justification. This is not reality at all for a couple of reasons. First, Calvin got his theology from St. Augustine who is a celebrated spiritual hero in the Catholic Church till this day. Secondly, Augustine, Luther, nor Calvin ever renounced their own membership in the Catholic Church. Here is how I sated it further along in the debate:
PD: Bret, let me also say that a cursory observation of church history shows that Augustine, Calvin, and Luther never left the Catholic Church. Yet, you are incredulous that their take on justification would be basically the same. So is it, A. You just don’t know any better, or B. You know, but you are deliberately keeping your flock dumbed down? Augustine was a die-hard Catholic till the end while Calvin cites him more than 400 times in the Institutes. And the idea that they had the same basic approach to justification as Rome is an over the top idea?
McAtee continued to bear down with heavy doses of academic antagonism and metaphysical assumptions with this statement:
BM: Like all idiots you are reading Calvin through a keyhole and then reinterpreting him through the Keyhole instead of letting his whole corpus of thought inform you. You are an example of someone that got in way over his head into areas he was not yet ready to think about. You may yet return to Biblical Christianity Paul and leave your heterodox ways and thinking.
Please remember at this point that he refused to answer the simplest of questions: did Calvin mean progressive by “progressive,” and does both perpetual and progressive have the idea of moving forward in time? Instead, he suggests that all of Calvin’s massive literary droning would have to be read and studied to properly understand what Calvin meant by the very use of specific words. Of course, that is a ridiculous notion, but not a rare argument among the Reformed. The same argument is often used to defend John Piper who has also written a huge mass of literary droning. Note also that my “heterodox” (other than orthodoxy) is likened to a departure from “Biblical Christianity.” The mode of operation is to demean and argue from a reality that results in the desired outcome.
McAtee then introduces another Reformed technique of debate that we will call, drowning by orthodoxy. He then began to copy and paste a mass of Reformed orthodoxy that would take two days to read. The assumption is that I am not familiar with what he pasted into the stream. It assumes the response, “Oh my! I don’t understand any of this deep orthodoxy! And there is so much of it! Hark, I know nothing! What to do? His mind is so far above me!” Actually, I am very familiar with the information posted, especially his references to articles in the Trinity Review. Ironically, if that is a strong enough word, the founder of the Trinity Review bought into New Calvinism during the 90’s. I stated the following later in the thread:
PD: Furthermore Bret, you said you read my book, but yet you quote John W. Robbins’ Trinity Review above to make your point. As clearly documented in my book on pages 63-65, I show that Robbins bought into the Forum’s teachings via the SDA theologian Robert Brinsmead in 1995. As you know, New Calvinism came out of the Forum and Graeme Goldsworthy is popular in the movement till this day. Robbins reprinted Brinsmead’s magnum opus on justification in the Trinity Review, yet, you cite The Trinity Review as proof that Calvinists are not New Calvinists. Now if anything is funny, that is.
One of his several references to the Trinity Review follows:
The Trinity Foundation – Calvin on the “Pernicious Hypocrisy” of Justification by Faith and Works
http://www.trinityfoundation.org
That some serious slippage has occurred away from the classical Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide has been well documented in many religious publications. Certain teachers – Douglas Wilson.
Furthermore, his excerpts copied and pasted from the Calvin Institutes contained things like the following:
…a great part of mankind imagine that righteousness is composed of faith and works [but according to Philippians 3:8-9] a man who wishes to obtain Christ’s righteousness must abandon his own righteousness…. From this it follows that so long as any particle of works-righteousness remains some occasion for boasting remains with us [Institutes, 3.11.13].
This is yet another technique used by Calvinists to confuse those who are trying to nail their false doctrine by making distinctions between justification and sanctification—they continually refer back to justification and Sola Fide. Any attempt to make theological distinctions between the two is answered with more and more Reformed sanctification by justification orthodoxy. Even his Institute pasting was in context of what the Trinity Review said about it. This elicited the following responses from me:
PD: Brett, smothering me in all of this orthodox propaganda isn’t answering my question. Have you read CI 3.14 on what Calvin said about progressive justification or not? Why are you citing other people? I asked you as someone who says he reads the CI. You deny that your information comes from men, and then you cite a bunch of men. I want to know your specific evaluation of CI 3.14
[Note: all of his citations avoided the aforementioned title of CI 3.14 which resulted in the following reply: “I’m citing Calvin Paul. Read the quotes from the Institutes. You can’t make CI 3.14 disagree with the rest of what Calvin said on the subject. Good grief man … this is elementary hermeneutics” ( i.e., progressive doesn’t mean “progressive” because of other things Calvin wrote)].
PD: Right, he is applying justification truth to sanctification, so what’s your point?
PD: No Bret, I am not confused by your discussion of sanctification in a justification way.
I will shortly pause here and introduce yet another debate tactic of the Calvinist: the divine unction by a philosopher king declaring me to be unregenerate. Simply pronouncing a curse on your opponent has to be the quintessential easy button:
O Foolish Dohse … who has bewitched you?
Like all good Calvinists, McAtee believes in Calvin’s “power of the keys” that gives Reformed elders the power to loose or bind sin on earth. I have received several veiled threats by Reformed elders to bind my sin on earth. Some not so veiled.
McAtee’s comment about “elementary hermeneutics” was also addressed:
PD: “Elementary hermeneutics” ? Which hermeneutic? You act like there is only one.
BM: I’m talking about the place of Hermeneutics in interpreting literature. You’re hermeneutic on Calvin sucks.
PD: Redemptive or Grammatical Bret? Which one?
BM: Paul … I’m not talking about hermeneutics in terms of reading Scripture. I’m talking about hermeneutics in terms of reading Calvin which should be Historical Grammatical.
Here, McAtee seems to infer that there is a different hermeneutic for interpreting literature, and a different hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible. I will let that statement stand on its own and move on to the part of the debate where McAfee concedes that perpetual forgiveness, the same kind of forgiveness that saved us, needs continued application in the church:
PD: (Quoting BM) “Do you really want to advance the idea that Calvin and Rome agreed on Justification? Is that really your position Paul?” (Answer) Both held to a linear gospel which is progressive justification. They disagreed on how to get from justification to glorification.
But when it gets right down to it, BOTH by ecclesiastical absolution. Citations from CI available upon request.
BM: LOL!
PM: Bret, may I list the very fair questions you have not answered yet?
BM: Paul … purple.
BM: Paul … should I post again the very fair quotes from Calvin’s own pen indicating that he did not believe in progressive justification and so did not believe that one had to be sanctified before one could be justified?
PD: Of course not, he believed sanctification was progressive justification. But here is the better question: Why did he believe a justifying forgiveness of sins needed to be continually sought IN the church?
After all of his vehement denial that Calvin believed in a progressive justification, he begins to concede that a perpetual forgiveness for sin in the church for the purpose of keeping us justified is needed:
BM: “Not by righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us”; that being justified by his grace, we might become the heirs of everlasting life, (2Ti 1: 9; Tit 3: 4, 5). By this confession we strip man of every particle of righteous, until by mere mercy he is regenerated unto the hope of eternal life, since it is not true to say we are justified by grace, if works contribute in any degree to our justification. The apostle undoubtedly had not forgotten himself in declaring that justification is gratuitous, seeing he argues in another place, that if works are of any avail, “grace is no more grace,”
(Rom 11: 6). And what else does our Lord mean, when he declares, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance?” (Mat 9: 13). If sinners alone are admitted, why do we seek admission by means of fictitious righteousness?
BM: Why do we expect corn plants to be irrigated outside a corn field?
PD: So, the point you are making here agrees with Calvin in context of sanctification. Justification must continually be sought in sanctification to retain a just standing before God.
BM: Section 11. In addition to the two former arguments, a third adduced against the Sophists, to show that whatever be the works of the regenerate, they are justified solely by faith and the free imputation of Christ’s righteousness….[Finally, BM quotes from the infamous 14th chapter of book three from the Institutes. Curiously, he only cites the section. Calvin’s point in sections 9-11 (BM’s long copy and paste is omitted here) is that Christians are not capable of doing any meritorious work before God. Therefore, they need “perpetual reconciliation” in the church. BM cites theses sections from the Calvin Institutes to make the very point that he denied throughout the whole debate].
PM: Bret, why did Calvin believe that a justifying forgiveness had to be continually sought in the church?
BM: The Church is the body of Christ where Christ is proclaimed. Where else would one go to be reminded that they are forgiven? [Do Christians need to be “reminded” that they have been forgiven? Peter said that we only forget that we are forgiven when we fail to ADD works to our faith (2PET 1:5-11)].
PD: Bret, he wasn’t talking about being “reminded” he was talking about perpetual “reconciliation.”
PD: What does “reconciliation” mean Bret?
PD: Do we need continual reconciliation?
BM: Paul … does Christ ever live to intercede for us?
Why?
PD: So, you are saying that is to keep us justified?
BM: Are you saying that we could be justified without His ongoing Intercession? Could we be justified by a Christ who was not at the right hand of the Father as our continual advocate? If Justification is merely in the death of Christ then there was no reason for Him to have been resurrected, ascended and set apart for the continual Priestly work of Intercession.
PD: Then why did Calvin teach that we have to continually seek that forgiveness in the church? If Christ is doing all of the work in heaven?
BM: Why do we expect corn plants to be irrigated outside a corn field?
[Note: We have to keep ourselves justified by staying in the cornfield of justification. He is conceding what he denied throughout the whole debate].
BM: The Church is the body of Christ. The minister the voice of Christ pronouncing the reminder of sins forgiven.
[Note: We have to be continually reminded that we are forgiven in order to stay justified].
PD: So, there is a continued need for forgiveness of sins to remain justified?
BM: Ask Jesus,
5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” 7 Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” 8 Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” 9 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean.
PD: You make my point for me. Calvin clearly said the whole washing of the body is continually needed.
PD: Jesus said it isn’t needed, Calvin said it is. That is, “the washing” which Calvin called “ablution.”
McAtee unwittingly cited John 13:5-10 in an effort to make his point. Jesus’ point in the passage is that once a person is washed (justified: 1COR 6:11) they are clean and have no further need of washing. There is a need to seek forgiveness for daily sin that disrupts our family relationship with God. That is probably what Christ is talking about in regard to the washing of feet. I would probably include 1John 1:9 here as well. This is further seen in what Christ told the woman at the well. When one drinks the water of salvation, they will never thirst again. In other words, there is no need for a perpetual returning to the well of salvation/justification.
paul
TANC Strategic Plan: From Identification to Solution; a Thesis on the New Testament Church Model
TANC (Truth About New Calvinism) is a research organization that seeks to thoroughly understand Reformed theology and its effect on the church and culture. We believe that enough information has been accumulated to draw conclusions, and there are enough conclusions to begin the formulation of solutions.
It is our conclusion that Reformed theology is an ill-advised doctrinal construct for the church and has had a detrimental effect on culture in general. Currently, American church culture is in upheaval (note innumerable discernment/abuse blogs); yet, the new resurgence of Reformed theology began in 1970 and has dominated the American church for the past twenty years. Where are the results that supposedly always spring forth from the Reformation’s Post Tenebras Lux (After darkness….light)?
Though research will continue on the WHAT, there is enough information on the WHY to begin setting the solution in motion. The solution is the New Testament church model. The assumption has always been that the New Testament model was transitional, informal, and deliberately ambiguous to allow morphing for changing times. We now think that this is not the case at all. We think the Bible sets forth a specific model in detail. We think this model is the answer for the present condition of the American church.
1. The general form.
The New Testament church was made up of home fellowships and each church was designated by a geographical area, usually a city. Perhaps the clearest example of this is Acts 20:
17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. 18 And when they came to him, he said to them:
“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. 24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. 34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. 35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
It was ONE “church” in Ephesus made up of several households. Paul taught the Ephesian church (singular) from “house to house.” “Public” doesn’t necessarily mean a building where they met corporately. In fact, in all cases where epistles are addressed, it would have to assume that each geography or city only had one church building—this is unlikely.
There were a group of elders who led the home churches in a particular city. This is who Paul calls together to give his last charge before his departure. One of the qualifications of an elder is “given to hospitality,” probably because many of the house fellowships were the homes of elders.
While many point to the seven letters in Revelation for proof regarding one pastor/ one church, again, this assumes there was only one place of gathering in each city. The “messenger” of each city was probably just that: a messenger responsible for delivering letters and other correspondence to each home fellowship in a given geography or city. In the case of Revelation, this could have been an actual angel assigned to each city church as well given the apocalyptic nature of the book.
Remember also that Titus was given the responsibility of appointing elders in “every town.”
2. Leadership structure and purpose.
The New Testament model combines strong structure with free fellowship. It rejects institutional authority while implementing strong planning and order. It focuses on the gifts of believers in order to execute the Lord’s strategic plan for the ages. We see this in Ephesians 4:
11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
I am not sure what could be clearer. There is equipping gifts and ministry gifts given to every believer for the building up of Christ’s body. Institutions, by virtue of their very nature begin to devalue individual gifts. Posit the idea if you will, that an institution can function like a body, but it has never been done. That is because caste systems and a body of believers are mutually exclusive concepts. The fellowship of the saints is focused on a purpose that requires all parts to be well equipped and functioning properly while building each other up in love.
Teachers equip an army of ministers with innumerable categories of ministry, love and good works. The floodgates of possibllity are opened. Administration and organization would be the focus of deacons and deaconesses. One must get past the present cultural conditioning that dichotomizes structure and fellowship. It is the same mentality that sets different standards for the church and homes. We act different in each setting; e.g., many would not attend a church that functions like their own home. But in contrast, “an elder must order his household well, for if he cannot manage his own household, how will he manage the household of God?” Homes are as informal as you get, but they need order. Instead of keeping homes separate from church, the New Testament model brings church to the home. In the book of Ephesians, Paul starts with the fellowship in 4:1, addresses the home, and then behavior in the secular realm.
This is not some weird communal concept; it merely puts strong emphasis on planning and order for the informal fellowship of the church. The unique concept is the fusion of informal fellowship with strong planning while eliminating the caste system inherent in institutions.
3. Expected problems.
Where humans are involved in any model, even born again creatures in mortal bodies, problems will arise. That is exactly what the letters to Corinth are about. When you have numerous fellowships led by teachers, the whole FAVORITE TEACHER thing arises followed by competition between the households. In a Reformed church where I was one of the pastors, we had midweek home fellowships as a replacement for Wednesday night services. I saw these Corinth-like problems develop firsthand. The congregants would gravitate to the households where the charismatic teachers taught, leaving the rest of the fellowships to their humble little huddles.
Of course, being ignorant Protestants, we fixed the problem through authority. Rather than not being jaded by tradition and correcting the problem by example and a study of Paul’s letters to Corinth, we implemented a rule that each congregant had to attend the home group in their vicinity. That is not how Paul dealt with the same exact problem at Corinth. By the way, note that the baptisms Paul mentions were unique to the home fellowships where their favorite teachers taught. These epistles shouldn’t be read as if the church at Corinth met together corporately. The problems were inherent throughout many of the home fellowships save a few. Apparently, a fellowship in the home of a woman named Chloe (literally, “them of Chloe”) sent word to Paul about what was going on in the other fellowships at Corinth. The following has also been suggested:
There are three interesting names to consider that come up in the closing of Paul’s letter: Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus were from Corinth and visiting Paul (who was in Ephesus at the time) when he wrote this letter containing Chloe’s name. It seems very plausible that Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus were “Chloe’s people.” It is also possible that these three returned to Corinth to deliver Paul’s letter to the Christians there (Theresa Doyle Nelson: Chloe and the Corinthians).
At any rate, the letters to the church at Corinth supply a painstaking detailed account concerning Christian living within the church and the procedure of it as well.
4. Authority and Fellowship
The only authority is Christ and His word recorded in the Bible. This guides the fellowship of believers whose unity is determined by the “one mind in Christ” found in the Bible. Churches have been given authority as Christ’s ambassadors on earth. We represent the kingdom that is presently in heaven and we have been given authority to make disciples on behalf of that kingdom. However, there is no authority among the ambassadors, only fellowship. The assemblies function in a fellowship construct. Elders are to lead by example and equip. The purpose of this treatise is to lay a basic thesis, so I am not going to take room here to build this case, but will touch on the most popular argument for authority in the church:
Hebrews 13:17 – Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
The word for “obey” in this verse is πείθω (peithō) which means to persuade by argument. The word “submit” is ὑπείκω hypeikō which means “to surrender.” Here is the best rendering according to a heavy paraphrase:
Be persuaded by your leaders’ arguments from Scripture and don’t be stubborn in regard to the truth for this is no advantage to your own spiritual wellbeing. Besides, they have to give an account for how they led you, and let that account be a joyful recital to the Lord rather than a sorrowful report.
There is no authority, but rather fellowship modification in specified instances; for example,
A. We can’t hang out with you if you won’t let us help you with this problem.
B. You’re my brother in Christ, but I can’t have you over for dinner if you won’t work.
There would be no formal membership role. You either fellowship with the group or you don’t. You either recognize your gift and apply it within the body or you don’t. You identify with the group by fellowship, service, and obedience to the word of God, not church leaders.
I might add that almost all of the New Testament epistles are addressed to the church as a whole and not just the elders. Apostolic authority was a charge mandated to the whole assembly—that’s where the authority is, not with the elders.
5. Gatherings
The examples are consistent throughout the New Testament. The saints met in homes for a meal, general fellowship, a time of teaching, a time of encouraging others unto good works, the singing of hymn’s, and an informal breaking of bread and drinking of the cup to remember the Lord’s return. In the house churches of Corinth, the aristocracy that didn’t work were eating all of the food before the slaves got there. So, the salves were showing up hungry and tired after work and there was no food left. This is one of the issues Paul addressed.
6. Practical Considerations
The Protestant Reformation was predicated on a false gospel with a Gnostic application and has no authority. No Protestant linage of authority can be traced back to the apostolic church. Moreover, the father of the Reformation, St. Augustine, never repented of being a Catholic and never vacated the Catholic Church’s spiritual idolatry or murderous ways. The tyranny of Catholicism and Protestantism is only tempered by the rule of law spawned by the Enlightenment Era. The remnants of its tyranny in our day only has use for threatening to withhold absolution. Its authority model mires the so-called church in all sorts of legal red tape required of institutions in a secular society. In church state societies, its construct does little more than spawn civil wars and inquisitions.
The fellowship model focuses on strong sanctification and wise living. Practically, this New Testament model could begin with one fellowship in a city. This is what we have done here at the Potter’s House. The church is “The Fellowship in Xenia,” and we consider the Potter’s House the first household of faith thereof. Others who would like to join this movement could simply begin by joining us here, or start their own fellowship. The two groups would then work together to refine the movement’s mode of operation moving forward. The applications are without end.
There is no room here to list all of the controversies in the formal church that would become non-issues in the fellowship model. Controversy among fellowships would be resolved within each city. The successful model would then be duplicated in other cities, but issues within those fellowships would be resolved within that geographical fellowship. Of course, the evangelism angle here has deep ramifications.
7. Conclusion
This model is based on the authority of God’s word and fellowship. The authority is vertical, not horizontal. Its focus is aggressive sanctification leading to a natural outflow of evangelism, and a strong emphasis on individual gifts.
Calvinism: The Root of All Evil in the American Church
Show me the Money.
Why has New Calvinism taken the American church by storm? Because the American church was already primed for it. Before authentic Calvinism was rediscovered by a Seventh-Day Adventist in 1969, America was, and always has been half-pregnant with the Puritan form of Calvin’s Geneva.
Calvinism makes everything about justification while excluding sanctification for a very simple reason: control. If justification is a finished work, and all that is at stake is eternal rewards in heaven, the church would not be nearly the institution that it is today. Why is there big money in religion? Why is there a church every two miles in America with a 500,000 dollar annual budget? Why did 3,000,000 people show up on a beach to see the new Pope? Why does the Catholic Church have so much power? Because salvation is big business my friend. If salvation is found in an institution, it will all but rule the world.
Plain and simple: the Reformers taught that the same forgiveness for sin that saved you needs to be continually sought out to maintain salvation (justification), and that forgiveness can only be found in the Protestant church. Sola Fide indeed, there is no money in sanctification; the big bucks are in justification. From a worldly perspective, Christ had a horrible business plan:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
There is no money or power in making disciples; the money is in making saved people and requiring them to be faithful to the institution in order to stay saved. In business, we call that RMR (reoccurring monthly revenue).
A finished justification and focus on discipleship empowers the individual, not the institution. Who the Master is—is a settled issue and the focus is preparing for His return by making maximum use of the individual talents given by grace. But when keeping our justification is the focus, individual responsibility to the Master is relegated to the closets. Come now, let’s be honest, how many Christians in the American church even know what their spiritual gifts are? How often do we see church “services” where we “encourage each other unto good works” as opposed to being there to “receive more Jesus.”
The Parable of the Talents is teaching about a servant who sought to only give back to the Master what he had originally received. And that is exactly what the Reformers promoted. Calvin et al believed that sanctification replaced the Old Testament Sabbath. We will make it to heaven if we “rest” in our salvation.
Enter a conversation I had with a brother not but two days ago:
Ya know Paul, this New Calvinism stuff is supposedly so great, but I have been a member of this church for ten years now, and what? Maybe five people have been saved in that time.
Exactly. Let’s face another fact, people aren’t being saved, if anything, they are just being shuffled around or convinced they were never saved to begin with. The reason for this is simple: Christ said to let our good works shine before men so that our Father in heaven would be glorified. That concept was anathema to Calvin. The fact that sanctification is a Sabbath rest should speak for itself.
The double myth of Arminianism.
Arminianism is another Protestant myth. It centers on the election debate, a doctrine that Calvinists don’t even believe to begin with. The Arminian/Calvinist debate is a double myth. Start thinking for crying out loud, what power and control would there be in election? There is no money in election either. Election portends a settled eternal destiny. If there is election, what do we need the institutional church for? “Election” only gets you into the race for “final justification,” but the race must be run in the church so that you can get your perpetual forgiveness that keeps you in the race. My friend, always follow the money. Always.
While arguing for free will versus total depravity, Arminians have always functioned like Calvinists. Since the Pilgrims Puritans landed on our Eastern shores, we have had Calvinism Lager and Calvinism Light. Arminianism is closet Calvinism. Both devalue sanctification. Calvinism completely rejects sanctification as “subjective justification.” Arminians give tacit recognition to sanctification while completely rejecting it by the way they function. The lager form proudly shows forth Calvin’s doctrine of ecclesiastical justification while Arminians live by John Calvin bumper stickers:
We are all just sinners saved by grace.
This is Calvin’s view of Christians remaining totally depraved while receiving justification in the present-continuance tense.
Just this week, I saw the following John Calvin bumper stickers posted by people who would vehemently deny that they are Calvinists:
This is based on Calvin’s Redemptive Historical hermeneutic and Luther’s Cross Story epistemology. The idea is that the Bible was not written for the purpose of grammatical exegesis, but rather to contemplate the redemptive narrative only leading to subjective, perpetual justification that is necessary to achieve “final justification.” Knowing the Bible factually is Luther’s Glory Story, knowing the Author is Luther’s Cross Story. In other words, every verse in the Bible is about justification and not wisdom for sanctification, the proverbial, “living by lists” and “do’s and don’ts.”
And….
Right, because sanctification is “subjective justification.” Any concern with our outward behavior is, as Calvinist hack Dr. Michael Horton states it, “trying to BE the gospel rather than preaching the gospel.” This fosters the very thing that makes Christianity contemptible to the world—preaching the gospel and not living it. It is the Sabbatical sanctification fostered by John Calvin himself and promoted by Arminians wholesale.
Calminianism is the real reality.
Sanctification?
So ok, the Bible has much to say about justification by faith alone, but where is this standalone subject of sanctification that is a different matter of Christian living altogether? One place among many would be 1Thessalonians 4:3ff:
3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;
Obviously, sanctification is all about KNOWing HOW to control our bodies. And even more obvious is the fact that justification has nothing to do with that at all. And also obvious is the fact that the two aforementioned Calminian metaphysical bumber stickers totally reject this biblical definition. Let’s have another moment of honesty. How many Christians know more about controlling their body today than they did yesterday? And does that affect how the world sees us, and God?
Fusion and dichotomy.
Sanctification is a continued endeavor to learn more and more how to control our bodies from the Scriptures. Calvinism rejects that as the Glory Story. A focus on controlling our own bodies makes life about us and “eclipses the Son.” It fuses justification and sanctification together while dichotomizing anthropology. The opposite should be true in regard to both categories. Calminianism is an upside down Christian life.
Anthropological concepts; i.e., what makes people tick, are deemed pragmatic and unspiritual. Rather than seeing these subjects as wisdom where Christians ought to be outdoing the world, they are rejected as “living by lists” and “living by do’s and don’ts.” I like what one pastor had to say about those truisms:
They are telling us the following: “Don’t live by do’s and Don’ts.”
A prime example is something that everyone is born with: a conscience. The only Psychiatrist in history that really had a track record of helping people was O. Hobart Mowrer. The main thrust of his therapy was an emphasis on keeping a clear conscience. He believed that most mental illness was caused by a guilty conscience. He cured people by insisting that they deal with unresolved issues of guilt. Mowrer, once the President of the APA along with a long list of distinguished awards and appointments, wrote The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion. The book rejected the medical model of Psychology and fustigated Christianity for relegating the care of the “mentally ill” to Freudian Psychology. Mowrer was not a Christian.
Nevertheless, he is the one who most inspired the father of the contemporary biblical counseling movement, Dr. Jay E. Adams, who applied Mowrer’s practical approach to biblical counseling. Adams did this because he observed Mowrer’s astounding results while doing an internship with him in the summer of 1965.
This only makes sense. The apostle Paul instructed Christians to “keep a clear conscience before God.” The Bible has much to say about the subject of conscience. Christians should use the Bible to be wiser in all areas of human practicality and should excel at it far beyond those who live in the world. Let’s have another honesty moment: how many sermons do we hear on the importance of practicality in the Christian life? Subjects such as, planning, accountability, etc. Unfortunately, these biblical subjects are dichotomized from the “spiritual” and deemed pragmatic.
At the same time, justification and sanctification are fused together in an effort to live out a Sabbatical sanctification; i.e., sanctification by faith alone. This is nothing new, James rejected the concept in his epistle to the 12 tribes of Israel that made up the apostolic church. It is also a Gnostic concept that sees the material as evil and only the spiritual as good. Therefore, since anthropology is part of the material realm, any practicality thereof cannot benefit the spiritual. Supposedly.
Another concept, along with conscience, is that of habituation. Through discipline, habit patterns can be formed that lead to change, ask anyone who has been in the military. People who inter the military come out as changed people. Because of our Protestant heritage and conditioning, these concepts seem grotesquely pragmatic. But according to the Bible, we are to make use of them.
Sanctification is a many-faceted colaboring with the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit’s power is unleashed through wisdom and obedience (James 1:25). We must know assuredly that justification is a finished work, and absolutely nothing that we do in sanctification can affect it for better or worse. This is what purifies our motives in our love for Christ in sanctification. “If you love me, keep my commandments” has absolutely nothing to do with our justification. It’s for love only, not a working for justification. We are thankful for our justification, but that thankfulness doesn’t save us or keep us saved. Only Christ saves—the new creature now loves Christ because that’s who he/she is. Christ’s love made it possible for us to love Him in sanctification, but nothing in sanctification keeps us saved. Sanctification looks not for a “final justification,” but readies itself for the Master’s return and longs to hear the words, “Well done faithful servant!”
When I was a young boy, I often lived with my grandparents during the summer. My grandfather was a real-life John Wayne type. He worked as a construction foreman for a large company. And he was my hero. Before he left for work in the morning, I would sheepishly await for him to depart before beginning a flurry of tasks around their small farm. I would always have the tasks done well before his arrival home and waited at the end of the drive to hear his truck’s humming wheels come down State Route 125. I would then take him around the property and show him the finished tasks. His smile and compliments were my reward. These are tasks that I didn’t have to do; our love for each other was always something totally different from those tasks. I knew assuredly that he would love me whether I did those tasks or not because I was his grandson—his pride and joy. Some idea that the withholding of serving him in order to elevate the reality of his love for me would have been a ridiculous notion.
Justification and sanctification must be separate. Anthropology and the spiritual must be fused. Our bodies must be controlled and set apart for good works. This will lead to the showing forth of our good works and the glorification of the Father leading to salvation for others, not sheep redistribution.
Spiritual abuse and disdain for justice.
A devaluing of our own holiness for fear that it will eclipse the holiness of God, coupled with salvation being sought in the institutionalized Calminian church, has led to the same indecencies seen in the mother of the Reformers; the Roman Catholic Church. Rome has never repented of its abject thirst for blood, and the fruit does not fall far from the tree.
The family split for the time being, but the Reformers never departed from Rome’s ecclesiastical justification found through absolution by church leaders. When this is the case, any vehicle going to heaven will suffice for heaven’s sake alone. The institution will never be threatened for the sake of the few. To the leaders, their existence and power is threatened, to the parishioners, their salvation is threatened. The institution must be preserved.
This is no new thing, in the minds of the Jewish leaders; Jesus Christ was sacrificed to preserve the Jewish religious system. If even Christ Himself was expendable in this mentality, what will be of the molested and raped? Besides, we are all just sinners saved by grace anyway, right? Is justice therefore anywhere on the radar screen in this discussion? Hardly. Besides, the raped and spiritually abused should be thankful because what they deserve is hell anyway, right? Once this is understood, the landscape we see today in the American church should be no surprise whatsoever.
What is the answer?
The church is a sanctified body and not an institution for final justification. We are in the business of making disciples and not keeping people justified by faith alone in sanctification. The sanctified body doesn’t justify, it is God who justifies. Men must stop worshiping at the altar of ecclesiastical justification. Justification is free to us and finished, sanctification isn’t. Sanctification is where we show our love to the savior as servants, not leaches. Evil men like Paul David Tripp who posit the idea that the Christian’s whole duty is to “rest and feed” and wait for “new and surprising fruit” because Christians only “experience” fruit and don’t participate in it must be rejected with extreme prejudice. Their evil seed was spawned in 1970, but they have been in firm control of the American church for 25 years while proclaiming each year a “resurgence.” What do we have to show for it?
It is time for men and women to recognize their calling, their new birth, their indwelling counselor, their gifts, and the authority of Christ and His word alone. There is NO traceable lineage back to the apostolic church like the genealogy documents burned by Titus. Murdering mystic despots have no claim on any authority of the church.
Godly authority is continued wherever a spirit-filled Christian picks up a Bible and obeys its words. A church is a sanctified, obedient fellowship, not a justified institution drunk with its own visions of grandeur.
paul
What is it About that Song?
I was recently introduced to a song performed by the rap duo Dani and Lizzy. The song was inspired by the passing of people close to them in recent years. Though I do not know for certain, I would say the song was not written from a Christian perspective.
I found myself captivated by the song, but didn’t know why. After some thought, I concluded that I am drawn to the song by its hopeful questions. I will never be persuaded that there is any other biblical message than that of hope for the living.
I think the song also strikes a chord in my heart because of the ministry that I am in. It is my job to understand the hopeless metaphysics of Gnostic fools dressed in priestly garb. In a life that constantly dogs us with tragedy and death, I see the resurrections in the Bible performed by Christ and the apostles as shattering this world’s paradigm with the blinding light of hope while my subjects see it as a statement on mankind’s worthlessness and possible winning ticket in the lottery of election. I think I am drawn to the song’s yearning for hope, a hope that can always be found in God and His word.
But more than anything, I think I am drawn to the song because of it’s hopeful, intelligent questions about what really matters. This is striking to me because in our day Christians don’t know how to ask questions. Not only are Christians theologically dumbed down, they don’t even know what questions to ask, much less how to answer any. So, the song asks questions that most Christians can’t answer.
That needs to change. We should be able to adorn the gospel with beautiful answers to these beautiful questions.
Enjoy:
Lyrics:
The original:
paul
5 comments