Tim Hawkins is a Funny Guy, But His Gospel is False
See the problem? This is the crux; the fusion of justification and sanctification requiring a sanctification by faith alone. Works in sanctification is the same as works in justification. It’s maintaining your justification in sanctification by “resting.” Unfortunately, these anti-gospel ideas brought applause from the audience. We truly live in perilous times.
I have always enjoyed the comedy of the tremendously gifted Tim Hawkins and never made it a point to find out what he believes about the gospel. If a good comedian who doesn’t need smut to make people laugh sticks to comedy, what he believes about the gospel is between him and God.
But if he is going to use his act to spread a false gospel, that is a whole other matter, and unfortunately, that’s the case. Frankly, I don’t care if Hawkins has to be like most in our day that chase after every wind of doctrine as long as he keeps it to himself; but unfortunately, he doesn’t. In the following video he promotes the New Calvinist progressive justification that dominates the present-day church. Hawkins makes several statements while presenting the gospel in the following clip (end of post) that are blatant scriptural contradictions.
Hawkins presented the gospel to a Christian audience in the clear stated context of sanctification, or worded another way: our Christian walk. He began by saying that God always works first in our lives; i.e., everything we do is first initiated by God. Of course, that’s not true. Throughout the Bible God states that he will act if we do certain things first. In New Calvinist circles, the following is in vogue: teaching that Christians do works that they are unaware are in the Bible because it is Christ doing the work and not us. Even John Macarthur has been teaching this recently.
Hawkins followed by saying that being a Christian means resting in what Christ has done, and he prefaced several like remarks with, “that’s the gospel.” Is that true? Our Christian walk is resting in what Jesus has done, and that’s the gospel? Many citations from the Bible that refute this notion could be stated—here are a few:
1Thessalonians 4:9 – Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, 10 for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more,
Romans 12:10 – Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord.
1Peter 1:5 – For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This “rest” concept can certainly be applied to justification, but like all New Calvinists Hawkins applies it to sanctification as well. Christians not knowing the difference is a huge problem in our day. After promoting the idea that Christians should rest in their Christian walk, Hawkins verbalized the familiar New Calvinist truism that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. No, our sins were imputed to Christ, and the Father’s righteousness was imputed to us. That’s the gospel, that’s biblical double imputation, not the New Calvinist’s version of double imputation where Christ’s obedience is imputed to our sanctification as part of the atonement.
Then Hawkins espoused the all-familiar New Calvinist “Jesus didn’t come so you can get your act together and be a good person—the gospel and Christianity is not about behavior modification.” Really, do I have to cite Scripture references to refute this idea? Is that where we are at in all of this? Such statements are not rejected out of hand by Christians in our day? And why isn’t Christianity supposedly about behavior modification IN SANCTIFICATION? Because that would be the same as behavior modification IN JUSTIFICATION. See the problem? This is the crux; the fusion of justification and sanctification requiring a sanctification by faith alone. Works in sanctification is the same as works in justification. It’s maintaining your justification in sanctification by “resting.” Unfortunately, these anti-gospel ideas brought applause from the audience. We truly live in perilous times.
But where Hawkins drives the New Calvinist spear through the heart of the true gospel is in the following statement:
It’s about life transformation. He didn’t come to make bad people good he came to make dead people alive….You’re living by the law—you’re living by works and it’s killing you.
This is a fundamental rejection of the law’s relationship to the gospel. It makes the relationship of the law to justification the same as its relationship to sanctification. This must necessarily exclude works of the law in sanctification. Such exclusion of the law in sanctification shows us what one really believes about justification: it’s not a finished work and needs to be maintained by OUR passivity in sanctification which is supposedly not a work—regardless of its REQUIRMENT to maintain the continued imputation of Christ’s works to our sanctification in order to maintain justification. Many New Calvinists refer to this as the “saving works” (note the plural rather than the singular act of going to the cross) of Christ. James and the apostle Paul warn that this is grievous error and a false gospel. It shows this comedian’s basic lack of understanding in regard to the gospel.
The gospel is a call to those under the law to be born again under grace. Those under the law are enslaved to sin, provoked to sin by the law, and will be judged by the law. Those under grace are no longer in bondage to sin, are now provoked to righteousness by the law, and will not be judged by the law. Hawkins, like all New Calvinists, insists that we not live by the very law that provokes us to righteousness or more specifically, love.
In his New Calvinist ignorance of the true gospel, Hawkins continued his treatise by adding the idea that God uses the law to “crush US” and show us our continual need for a savior….to which I will add, IN SANCTIFICATION. Hence, justification is perpetual. Hawkins then stated that Christ came to “fulfill the law FOR US” in sanctification. Not true. When Christ said in His Sermon on the Mount that He came to fulfill the law, how He intends to do that is clarified by the apostle Paul:
Romans 8:1-4 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
1 John 3:8-9 – Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Like all New Calvinists Hawkins defines Christians as unregenerate, as those unable to keep the law, and even if we could keep it, the standard is the same as before we were “released from the law (ROM 7:6)” as a standard for justification: perfection. Therefore, per New Calvinism, Christians are still under the law (and therefore defined as biblically unregenerate) because the old man that must meet the perfection of the law’s standard for those not under grace is still alive (ROM 7:1-3). They did not die with Christ and the penalty for all sin that died also with Christ. Instead of perfection being the GOAL in sanctification, it is the STANDARD for progressive justification; therefore, Christ must keep the law for us in sanctification. Again, this reveals what is really believed about justification by Calvinists: it’s an UNFINISHED work.
Hawkins completed his treatise by promoting the New Calvinist way to have assurance of salvation; i.e. look at what Christ states about our position in the Bible and not our behavior. Really? Again, do I have to give biblical citations here? Is our state really that bad to where I would have to point out biblical citations to refute this idea?
New Calvinists continually point to the agreed upon train wreck that is American Christianity and claim to have the cure in authentic Calvinism. But wait a minute here: they have had majority control of the House for ten years now—something isn’t adding up.
Like the blood lollipops with a knife blade as a stick that Eskimos use to kill wolves, the New Calvinists tell us to keep licking. It’s a trick that works so well on wolves that they are now using it on the sheep. They present the law to Christians in the exact same way that it is to be presented to the unregenerate. That’s why we supposedly need the gospel of the cross every day. Therefore, Tim Hawkins is no longer funny. Though his comedy is a wonderful work in Jesus’ name—he uses it to propagate works of anomia.
paul
Pedestrian Christian Run Over By Wartburg for Calling a Heretic “Sophomoric”
I consider Alex Guggenheim, the author of The Pedestrian Christian blog a good friend of this ministry. Every now and then, I find time to swing by and read his stuff. Wish I could do that more often, but this ministry is growing and I am doing the work of several people.
As Susan and I learn more and more about the Protestant tradition, the list of things to write about and the consideration of approaches is very long, so we have to work by priority. Low on the list is the tsunami of illogical functioning and reasoning by many discernment bloggers. However, after reading Alex’s report concerning the treatment he received over at Wartburg Watch, I am motivated to point some things out. Is this because I like Alex and am therefore offended by the treatment he received? Probably, but nevertheless, the point is worthy of a temporary jettison to the top of the list.
I will get to what happened to Alex specifically in a bit, but in order to lay some groundwork first, I will cite a paragraph from his account:
The Wartburg Watch blog, as I have observed, inaugurated itself with an emphasis on Neo-Calvinism, ecclesiastical malfeasance of many sorts but particularly with sexual misconduct or abuse and patriarchalism/complementarism excesses or even its existence. Something needed in general, though I certainly do not subscribe to all of their criticisms or theological persuasions.
And apparently, because of what happened to Alex, and what I have seen likewise among many discernment bloggers, there are good New Calvinists and naughty New Calvinists. I believe “Deb and Dee,” the Wartburg authors, call them the “Calvinistas.” New Calvinism is a doctrine; specifically, the false doctrine of progressive justification. This is just the FACT of the matter. Anybody who propagates New Calvinism is a heretic, plain and simple. I have been researching this doctrine for almost six years now, and as will be demonstrated in our upcoming June conference, there is absolutely nothing about this doctrine that is true. It denies the new birth, rejects the Trinity, rejects sanctification, and is vehemently anti-Semitic.
While referring to New Calvinists as “Calvinistas,” Wartburg strongly endorses and networks with none other than Wade Burleson. Burleson is a strong advocate of Jon Zens who is one of the forefathers of the present-day New Calvinist movement. Burleson propagates progressive justification in its purest form along with the accompanied belief that the Bible is a mystical gospel meta-narrative. What his preaching seems to project is of no concern of mine; the quality of the milk is determined by the cow. Furthermore, according to Burleson, he is enamored by the Puritans while posing himself as an understanding advocate for the spiritually abused. Wartburg, affirming such accordingly, sponsors an e-church that features his preaching live on every Sunday. Anyone who knows the history of Puritanism would find this ironic.
In discernment blogging, there is an illogical disconnecting between doctrine and behavior as if the two are totally unrelated. If you applied the same logic to Nazism, there would be good Nazis and bad Nazis because some Nazis where good Lutherans who didn’t work the ovens at the concentration camps. It is generally recognized that not every Nazi behaved badly, but that the ideology is the problem. Leave it to Christians to abandon common sense on that wise. I use the Nazi example because New Calvinists, though often dressed in the demeanor of Mr. Rogers, and their female counterparts that of Mary Poppins, are among the most vicious and heartless homosapiens walking the face of the earth. Trust me, if they had the marriage between themselves and the state that they seek, the behavior would be no different than it was in Geneva. This is a certainty. As it presently stands, they improvise through other means.
The thing that really gets me is the anti-spiritual abuse bloggers who hold to Reformed theology and even call themselves Calvinists. This is where the Nazi example is apt. This utterly disconnects history from reality and Christ’s declaration of, “By their fruits you will know them.”
Alex keyboarded into one of these illogical endeavors over at Wartburg. They were actually pitting the supposed virtue of New Calvinist Thabiti Anyabwile against the supposed racism of New Calvinist Doug Wilson. As an aside, let me mention that John Piper endorses Doug Wilson and Anyabwile endorses Piper but Anyabwile doesn’t endorse Wilson but Piper does because Wilson “has the gospel right” and he also endorses Anyabwile and so it goes. Somewhere in all of the discussion, the obvious is missed: Wilson is the one with the most virtue because he is consistent. The South was practically an unofficial Presbyterian theocracy during the Civil War. The theological endorsement of slavery during that time by the Presbyterian Church is confirmed by a cursory observation of American history. And Anyabwile is a Calvinist. And the Prebyterian church was founded on Calvinism, and yet, Anyabwile is taking on Wilson for merely connecting with their (singular) historical roots. And by the way, Wilson’s assessment overall is not far from the mark.
But apparently, this absurd contradiction is ok because Anyabwile is (according to Dee during her scolding of Alex), “walking while black.” I have news for Wartburg, Calvinism has a large share in two world Holidays: Martin Luther King Day, and the International Religious Freedom Day. Their share in the former is hefty, and their share in the latter is 100% as that holiday was founded after Calvinistic Puritans hung three Quakers in Boston for “walking while Quaker.” What is up with all of this? Why do Neo-Calvinists get a pass on their history while Nazi’s don’t—the connection between Nazism and Reformed theology another conversation notwithstanding to boot?
Alex Guggenheim is too damn nice: calling Anyabwile theologically “sophomoric” is like describing Jeffrey Damher as one over-curious about culinary issues. Anyabwile is a walking hypocritical heretic and his color has nothing to do with anything. I firmly believe that New Calvinists laugh about getting the church tangled up in these worthless discussions.
Wartburg did get something partially right in the article that Alex commented on, but it unfortunately adds to their grossly misinformed promotion of Anyabwile:
I disagree with Wilson in the matter. Slavery almost always involves racism since it is the forced servitude of people groups. The South’s slaves were black. Slavery results in the perception that said group is inferior and deserves to be enslaved. This attitude, after the Civil War, resulted in the separation of whites from blacks. “Separate but equal” was anything but equal and it took the Civil Rights movement to expose the ugliness of this entrenched view of the superiority of the white race.
The proper term is CASTE SYSTEM. And NO, it is NOT fundamentally racist. Racism is a result of the root: spiritual caste systems. Caste is not fundamentally racist—it is fundamentally spiritual. A dear friend of this ministry, church historian John Immel would argue that it is fundamentally ideological and philosophical. He would contend that theological doctrine is the result of the ideology. Well, I would agree because theological error is separate from the Bible anyway and a mere human ideology by default. Either way, racism is a mere residual consequence of the core problem.
And Calvinism is a spiritual caste spectacle. It is predicated on preordained enlightened mediators ruling over the unenlightened masses on behalf of God, whether perceived as a cosmic force or a person. This concept is the bedrock of ancient Paganism which gave birth to Hinduism, was integrated into Socratism by Plato, became Neo-Platonism and gave birth to Gnosticism and the Nicolaitanism (translated: “power over the laity”) that plagued the first century church, was adopted by Augustine and Gregory, and passed on intellectually to their mentorees Luther and Calvin. And the results are always the same. Nazism was a horrific brew of Hinduism and Augustinianism, and Calvinistic fruit does not fall far from that tree. The aforementioned spiritual caste system drives Calvinism and the Neo-Calvinistic movement of our day in particular. Patriarchy, racism, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., are all results of that fundamental ideology.
We are the laity; and Calvinistic elders, according to Al Mohler (a popular target of Wartburg), are “appointed” to save us from, “ignorance.” And our response is to act like we need it while whining about the spiritual abuse that always comes with it. For the most part, New Calvinists do not take discernment bloggers seriously for the following reason: like dumb fish that swim after every breadcrumb thrown over the bridge by children, we will chase every red herring thrown out the window by New Calvinists.
Like the racism issue.
paul
Once Again, Atrocity Showcases Biblical Illiteracy
Christians don’t have to be ignorant; it’s a choice. The Bible says that we have the mind of Christ, so it would seem that we would want to prove that. The Bible also says that we are heaven’s ambassadors on earth, so like it or not, countries are judged by their representation.
This post addresses two questions from a biblical perspective on the Boston bombing: why does God allow evil in the world? And, how could two young boys with so much going for them and leading exceptional lives do such a thing? After reading several Christian articles that always arise in these types of events, I have decided to weigh in.
First, God doesn’t allow evil in the world. The wrath of God is revealed against sin on a daily basis. Those who don’t suffer God’s wrath presently for their evil deeds are storing up wrath for the final judgment (ROM 1:18, 2:5). Those who ask why God allows evil in the world are guilty of doing just that. We are all guilty of allowing evil in the world to one degree or another. If such a question were posed to God face to face, He might answer this way:
“I will answer your question if you answer my question; why do YOU allow evil in the world?”
Then, perhaps God would answer the silence this way: So, let me tell you why I allow your evil;
ROM 2:3 – Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
In this case, God is the accused, and the question probably needs to be reworded: “I understand why God allows evil in the world that is no big deal, like when I say unkind things to my wife, but I am talking about, you know, the big sins like murder. Like, I am not talking about ‘mistakes’”
Secondly, from a biblical perspective, two young men who seemed to have it all together getting up one morning and partaking in mass murder makes perfect sense. This is because the Bible warns us in regard to the power of ONE—bad—Idea. Christians who then do not take the Bible seriously start writing stupid articles. Scripture states, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” What do we think that means? This is the dire importance of pure TRUTH, what Peter called “the pure milk of the word.” In Scripture, we are warned to “guard our hearts and minds.” Note this passage particularly:
2Corinthians 10:5 – We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
Why EVERY thought? Because it only takes one to get the ball rolling.
Authorities seem to think that the younger brother was following the older. Being a follower can wreck your whole life and is a powerful temptation, but deep down, many Christians disbelieve the idea that at one time there was only one righteous family living on earth and everyone else was following evil. This is evident because Christians turn themselves into pretzels answering the first question.
There was a flood because God doesn’t allow evil. Evil gets a temporary reprieve in hopes that God’s mercy will lead many to repentance.
paul
TANC Theology Test
Answers and discussion during Potter’s House PM Bible Study. Take test here: Test
Print test here: New Form 4_20_13
1 comment