How Political Landscapes Lead to Spiritual Oligarchy
It may not seem like the present Obama administration could ever have anything in common with the present-day New Calvinist movement. But not only has there been stranger bedfellows in the past, there are always reasons for such alliances.
I’m not much of a political animal, but I also recognize that throughout history politics and religion are never strangers to each other, and again, there are reasons for that. America was an experiment, and the founders of our country had the Reformers on their mind. Why? Because historically, and as coined by philosopher Ayn Rand, faith and force are the destroyers of the modern world. Putting the government in charge of truth has always been a really bad idea, and the Reformers were not the least bit shy about enforcing their truth with a burning stake or hangman’s noose. Let us remember, the Puritans compiled the Westminster Confession at the behest of European government. It was primarily a government document.
Biblically speaking, what is more apparent than the end of the world culminating with a marriage of “church” and state? Hardly anyone disagrees on that point. And a cursory observation of Revelation showcases the slaughter of dissenters that comes part and parcel with such marriages. Always. That information intimidates Reformed types more than their jealously for the numbers who follow Joel Osteen—who they really fear is Ayn Rand types; i.e., thinkers that could be used mightily among the sanctified.
Also, I believe that the final form of faith and force that will destroy the modern world will have feet of iron mixed with clay (per the prophet Daniel), indicating a weaker control over the world than past oligarchies. And the reason for this? Plain and simple: the Information Age. Despotism has always been nourished, and will always be nourished by a tight control of information. That is why our brilliant founders were big on saturating America with information, and the advent of computers and other super-information devices will prevent the former glory of tyranny from experiencing its full potential.
President Obama is obviously not that crazy about the philosophy of freedom that America was founded on. Neither is he crazy about the philosophy of competence in regard to the masses also propagated by the founders. And neither are the New Calvinists. They believe the masses need philosopher kings. Obama believes the masses need welfare and thoughtfare. This is also the philosophical tie that binds Catholicism to the Reformers—a different doctrine to obtain the same results notwithstanding.
Per the usual, when the climate is just right, political tyrants of the day and spiritual despots get together for pizza. Political tyrants need the primary topping that spiritual despots need. Who orders a pizza without pepperoni? Who does that? And the primary topping for spiritual tyrants and dictators is, control. All religious movements bring their numbers to the table for a piece of the action and to use the government to tighten the control over their people that they already have which is never enough. This is the way it has always played out. The exception is followers of God who reject caste systems. Spiritual caste and political/social caste have never passed on dining together and never will.
And what is unique about Reformed theology is its attitude towards secular rule. Actually, the more it humbles man, the better. Humbleness is the only means to grace, and the more, the better. More humbleness, more grace. Who is better at humbling man than the array of tyrannical dictators of the ages? So, what I am saying is that people often get confused about strange alliances; say for example, Rick Warren and Barack Obama.
Look for the pepperoni.
paul
Jerry Bridges: We Must Reaffirm Our Salvation Daily
“The realization that my daily relationship with God is based on the infinite merit of Christ instead of on my own performance is a very freeing and joyous experience. But it is not meant to be a one-time experience; the truth needs to be reaffirmed daily.” – Jerry Bridges, Transforming Grace, pp. 11,12
“….my daily relationship,” obviously speaking of the daily Christian life and our relationship to God; it has to based on Christ’s merits alone and not any kind of “performance.” Therefore, he is saying that their is no difference in a performance FOR JUSTIFICATION and performance IN SANCTIFICATION. Also, a reaffirmation of Christ’s work as a replacement for our work in sanctification is prescribed “instead of” anything we do.
Just another example of progressive justification in our day.
paul
Received Email Exemplifies the Crux of Reformed Heresy
“Clearly, this person speaks well for the whole Reformed community that posits the idea that perfection must be maintained in sanctification for the purpose of meriting God’s declaration in a final judgment. We must have a righteousness in sanctification that ‘rises’ to the level of perfection in order to ‘merit’ God’s declaration.”
Look, this isn’t really complicated. And even if it is—suck it up, God gave you a brain—use it! You persevered in thinking to get your degree in whatever, and I have a newsflash for you, this is much more important. Another newsflash: your pastor isn’t going to answer for you. Yes, this may be a shocker for you, but in the end, it is just going to be you and Jesus face to face. You will not be able to blame your pastor, your mommy, your daddy, your sister, your brother, etc., etc., etc. And be sure of this: you will not be able to blame John Calvin either.
Is our just standing finished or not? Will Christians stand in a future judgment that will coronate; or said another way, officially manifest our just standing? Does what we do in sanctification determine whether or not we will be found just at a future judgment? Or, is our just standing (righteous standing) already determined, and we will therefore stand in a judgment for rewards rather than a final coronation of righteousness? Therefore, is there a separate resurrection and judgment for sanctification because our just standing has already been determined? This is the crux of the issue.
And why is that important? Because the paramount eternal questions follow: we were saved by faith alone and declared righteous, but does that mean we must continue to live by faith alone in order to maintain our just standing? And if we can add works to our faith, is there a certain way that we have to do it in order that it is considered to be faith alone by God? Or, is our justification settled, and caution concerning obedience to God’s counsel unnecessary? Is justification settled and no longer the issue, but rather blessings and other issues? Is the declaration alone enough? Or do I have to be just in this life as well? And if I need to actually have righteousness in this life, is it perfection, or something else?
By faith alone, we believe that Christ died for our sins. Our sin was imputed to Christ, and then He bore the punishment. Our sin, and the old nature that was enslaved by sin, died with Christ. Then, the righteousness of God the Father was imputed to us APART from the law. We were then raised with Christ in His resurrection, and given all of the power and blessings of salvation through the new birth.
We are presently righteous for three reasons in our present state: there is no law to judge us for justification purposes, and where there is no law, there is no sin. We have the seed of God within us, and the mortal body that we live in suffered death with Christ, and we are therefore no longer under the covenant of the law for justification. So, we presently live apart from the law because like the death of a spouse that frees us from a marriage covenant, our death with Christ frees us from the covenant of the law….FOR JUSTIFICATION. We are NOT under law, but UNDER GRACE. And we ARE righteous because we ARE born again of God, and there is no law to judge the sin of our mortal body….FOR JUSTIFICATION. That part of us that “delights in the law of God” in the “inward” part of us is in fact holy and righteous. We are therefore enslaved to righteousness, and free to sin. Formally, we were enslaved to sin and free to righteousness. Therefore, the direction is different. We now move from sin to what we are enslaved to; formally, we were enslaved to sin.
We are holy and righteous in our inward being, that is why the “law of our mind” is in conflict with “the law of flesh and sin.” Before, there was only conflict between our conscience and the works of the law that God writes on the heart of everyone who is created, but now our conscience is set on fire and we are empowered to follow it and God’s specific, full counsel for life and godliness.
Now, consider an email I received today from a notable Reformed person who I will not name:
Paul,
Would you, or a member of your group, please comment on whether you believe a person´s “righteousness” in sanctification ever rises to the level of perfection that it merits God´s declaration of justification? This is really the issue.
Yes, that is absolutely the issue. Notice, in true Reformed fashion, our practical righteousness in sanctification (the Christian life) must rise to the level of “perfection” in order to “merit God’s declaration of justification.” In other words, law is still the standard for our just standing and the imputed righteousness of God is not “apart from the law.” Law is still the standard. Also, in regard to dying with Christ, it is no longer like a spouse who is no longer under a law covenant (Paul used marriage as the example), but the covenant of law must be maintained.
Clearly, this person speaks well for the whole Reformed community that posits the idea that perfection must be maintained in sanctification for the purpose of meriting God’s declaration in a final judgment. We must have a righteousness in sanctification that “rises” to the level of perfection in order to “merit” God’s declaration. And therefore, the old self did not die with Christ, and the works of the old man are therefore held against us.
Therefore, in the Reformed gospel construct, that must eliminate our works in sanctification. We must continue to live by faith alone. We must continue in the same gospel that saved us. Sound familiar? Any wonder that we must, “preach the gospel to ourselves every day”? Supposedly, when we live by faith alone in sanctification, Christ’s perfect righteousness is progressively imputed to our account, and we will thereby be found perfectly righteous in the final judgment. That is why the following two questions are really gospel questions: “How many judgments?” “How many resurrections?” That is also why premil, amil, and postmil are also gospel questions.
But, what shall we say about having to continue by faith alone in order to maintain our just standing? Is this not a form of works salvation because the works of justification are only finished if we continue our sanctified lives by faith alone? Supposedly, if we do not add works to our sanctification by faith alone—it either means that we never had salvation or we can lose our salvation. Either way, works must be added to our Christian life by faith alone.
How in the world would you do that? This would seem to lead to all kinds of complicated introspection and fear that we are working by faith alone, and not “in our own efforts.” You would be correct by noting that. That would be works in sanctification which in the Reformed gospel construct is obviously the same as works in justification. For all practical purposes: progressive justification; what they call, “progressive sanctification” because our sanctification is progressing towards a final proclamation of our just standing—if we do sanctification by faith alone—the same way we were saved.
Answer to the prior question: it is done through gospel contemplationism. Meditation is not considered to be a “work.” As we contemplate the works of Christ in every verse of the Bible, ie., “what He has done, not anything we do,” “the perfect works of Christ are presented to the Father, the law is satisfied, and we are justified.” Progressively, that is.
This is the Reformed gospel plain and simple. And it is a false one.
paul
5 comments