What is the Reformed/Calvinist “Noble Lie”?
This post wasn’t on my schedule this morning, but I am nevertheless compelled to start my day by commenting on a link that “Carmen” has sent me. Carmen comments on PPT publically, and I continually get emails along the line of, “Hey, did you see Carmen’s comment? She really gets it.” Not only that, Carmen sends me research that flavors what is written here, and frankly, I fear that a lot of it will be lost in PPT’s 1 TB plus archives.
Therefore, starting with this post, and because she comments publically as “Carmen,” we are going to attach her relevant input on the bottom of posts where applicable to the subject. This will prevent her efforts from being lost in PPT electronic files and my 58 year old mind. This might include one of her comments that often contain research, or research that she sends us.
Furthermore, the research she sends influences the writings here to the point where it is becoming a borderline plagiarism issue. We know that she probably isn’t concerned about this, but we are. Therefore, whenever Pearl or the other contributors want to pad a post with her research, it will be archived along with the post at the bottom starting with this post where you can refer to the link that she sent me.
Let’s now address the link sent: a post on the TGC blog by Colin Smith concerning “change.” Let’s also be clear: Reformed thought disavows the idea that people change. When they write books like “How People Change” by the habitual liar Paul David Tripp, they don’t really intend to teach that people change. This should be obvious, no? How many of these guys have publicly proclaimed on the one hand that, “I am done trying to fix people” while on the other hand speaking of “change.” So, what’s going on?
“Cognitive dissonance!” That was easy. We have to go further than that; we have to discuss the most important element of CD, which is a mental form of ED. CD is functioning by two contradictory ideas or a series of contradictions, and in the case of CD, there is what psychologists call the “consonant” or “buffer.” It is the ideas that attempt to reconcile the contradictions and relieve the anxiety that causes it.
In the case of Reformed thought, the consonant is orthodoxy. What is orthodoxy? It is a dignified form of mythology which shouldn’t need dignifying. Mythology is not a collection of ancient superstitions as many people suppose. Mythology is the teaching construct of spiritual caste. This is the most common philosophy of world history. It presupposes an epistemological pecking order between deity, or a natural force, and humanity. The deity, or force, preselects those who can comprehend reality to lead those who cannot comprehend reality. Sometimes, those who cannot comprehend reality don’t know they can’t comprehend reality and hinder the preordained from bringing order and wellbeing to humanity; we call that “war.”
So, mythology is simply parables written by the preordained to help those who cannot understand reality to understand why they should follow the preordained. Predeterminism is central to this common philosophy and dominates mythology in general. Plato articulated this construct in The Republic this way: philosopher kings, warriors, producers. The producers do not necessarily take mythology literally, though some do (now you can invoke “superstition”); they understand that it is a narrative tool to help the producers understand why they should function a certain way in society. It is no different than the concept of children’s story books, except mythology is for adults. We try to instill principles in children based on what we know they can’t completely understand through stories and narratives—it’s the same construct. Of course there isn’t really a “Little Blue Engine That Can.” The personification of a train is not to be taken literally.
Orthodoxy is the same thing. It is the traditional teachings of preordained “Divines” who write creeds, confessions, and catechisms for the great unwashed masses. In mythology, orthodoxy’s kissing cousin, we have what’s called the “noble lie.” It is the misrepresentation of something cognitive that the producers understand in an elementary way. People don’t really change, but most producers are unable to grasp that, so the goal is to teach “change” in a way that produces the functionality desired by the philosopher kings.
Hence, the meaning of words in the minds of philosopher kings rarely mean the same thing to the producers. Philosopher kings allow the producers to assume they mean the same thing, but they don’t. And it’s not a lie because words that producers understand, and the way they understand them must be used in orthodoxy in order to lead the ignorant to green pastures of wellbeing; it is the noble lie.
And, the break point: the consonant is “paradox,” viz, contradictions only seem to be contradictions because the producers cannot comprehend what the philosopher kings can comprehend. And, this construct is appealing to the producer class for a number of reasons. If you want to see this construct in historical living color, study Nazi orthodoxy during the WWII era. The Bible makes it clear that there are some things God knows that we cannot understand, however, the bible also makes it clear that we are responsible for what we can know, and what we need to do in order to know it. In this construct, people are not responsible for knowing anything and many people like that idea for many misguided reasons not excluding good old fashioned laziness.
So, now we know the definitions of mythology, orthodoxy, superstition, and paradoxy in their true historical context.
The Colin Smith post is just another example of all of this. If you examine his sentence structure carefully, you begin to suspect that he really isn’t saying what he seems to be saying, and that’s the whole idea; he really isn’t saying what he seems to be saying. It’s a philosopher king thing, you wouldn’t understand. Notice that he subtly defines “birth” as an idea that can’t be dichotomized from the growth process. To think of a man as different from a baby is to deny babies because the growth that made the man is dichotomized from the separate concept of “baby.” Reformed elders constantly practice this cultish form of metaphysical two- stepping communication. It’s subtle, and very evil. It is often done by eliminating conjunctions/transitions and thereby making two different things the same. Their deceptive communication techniques are an identifiable system and complex.
Look, I am not going to dissect all of his nuance in the post; there is no need as others in his camp make it clear that people don’t change. Obviously, he is not saying what he seems to be saying, and you are supposed to accept it based on the Reformed CD consonant.
Don’t but it. It’s nothing more or less than Nazi Light.
paul
Sent by “Ghostwriter”: Recipe for a Hostile Takeover
Originally published June 28, 2013
Preamble: An anonymous person sent me the following satire of New Calvinist Ernest Reisinger’s article on how to take over a church covertly. Reisinger left the Earth in 2004. He was one of the forefathers of the present-day New Calvinist movement. I detail Reisinger’s departure from Presbyterian circles for the sole purpose of taking over the SBC with the Australian Forum’s doctrine in my fifteen-page addendum to The Truth About New Calvinism: Volume One (TANC Publishing 2011). Reisinger and his brother John were part of a small group of men associated with the Forum who believed that they had rediscovered the true Reformation gospel. And they were right. But key was the fact that they were also armed with the Forum’s brilliant systemization of the doctrine for contemporary consumption—a feat that has given New Calvinism its staying power.
This small group of men set the precedent and procedure for covert takeovers. The protocol was further articulated in Dan Southerland’s book, “Transitioning: Leading Your Church Through Change” (Zondervan 1999). Ghostwriter is a member of a church in America, which means that it is in the process of being taken over by New Calvinists or the takeover is complete; hence, good reason to remain anonymous because these guys will utterly ruin your life if you stand up to them. How? Well, for one, most American Christian wives just want to be a member of a church and enjoy the community of it without any controversy. It’s just the way Protestants have been programmed over the years. This is one of the points of exploitation, among many that are used. And unfortunately, a change of membership will more than likely find the same problem.
The only answer is to reject the New Calvinist premise altogether and come out from among them. Unfortunately, much more carnage will have to be displayed before that happens to any significant degree.
paul
Recipe for a Hostile Takeover
It’s the “Little Red Book” of hostile Reformed church takeover, publically available for all to see. (My italics are the satire, obviously)
“Therefore He says: “Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light.”
“whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
REFORMING A LOCAL CHURCH
STRENGTHEN THE THINGS THAT REMAIN
by Ernest C. Reisinger
Rev. 3:2
“Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die…”
Rev. 3:4
“Yet you have a few people…who have not soiled their clothing.”
Chapter III
SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE- ( i.e. an unsuspecting, biblically sound free-grace preaching Church in need of radical reform )
Some who read this pamphlet are in, or will be in a reforming (hostile takeover) situation. And each situation has some different obstacles to deal with. The size of the church and the staff will make some difference in the approach as will the kind of membership, (discerning Christians- avoid these churches like the plague, or ripe-for-harvest mindless troglodytes already under the influence of Nicolaitanism, seek these for takeover) the spiritual caliber of the leadership (see above). I wish we had some little pamphlet with ten rules to success (we don’t now but one is probably forthcoming, every other dictatorship on earth has a pamphlet like the little red book, etc), but it is not that simple. There are not ten rules to guarantee success. There are some principles, however, that will always be helpful and will save some shipwrecks .
1. Don’t try any reformation until you have earned some spiritual credibility with the church (Pretend you are what you aren’t, hide your true views from the search committee and the congregation until you have suckered them in, be sure to throw in an old-time revival/gospel meeting every now and then to woo the wary).
2. The first suggestion is study the biblical principle of accommodation. There is a little pamphlet on this subject (The Principle of Biblical Accommodation as Applied to the Invitation System), (shows you how to pretend to be a free-grace preacher until you have your hand-picked elders and a quarter of the congregants under your sway) and an excellent message on tape by Thomas K. Ascol. This is available through The Christian Gospel Foundation, 521 Wildwood Parkway, Cape Coral, FL 33904, or Pastor Thomas K. Ascol, Grace Baptist Church, 204 SW 11th Place, Cape Coral, FL 33991.
3. Three questions should be asked, and carefully answered:
a) What is the right, biblical thing to do?
b) How should these changes be implemented?
c) When should they be implemented? Don’t try to do too much too soon. Many mistakes have been made by doing the right thing in the wrong way or at the wrong time (because even ignorant congregants were able to quickly see through the cloak.
4, The principle of priorities must be applied. You can’t change everything at once–first things first (go slow, it will take time to deceive).
5. The principle of two churches must be before us at all times.
a) The church as it should be, conceived from the scriptures (actually the Calvin Institutes, Westminster, various Baptist confessions of faith), in idealism–never abandon this.
b) The church as it is–the one you look at 11:00 on Sunday morning (you know, the one that has real people with real Scriptural beliefs in it?). One must realize that the two shall never meet on earth, but you will find joy and satisfaction in narrowing (weeding out the Arminian Free Grace miscreants) the difference between them, that is, when you see the one you look at on Sunday morning make some steps toward the (Calvinist) ideal one.
6. The principle of church membership. Don’t make church membership any narrower than the New Testament (suck in as many poor saps as you can before you uncork the bottle).
7. The principle of restraint. Don’t tackle the whole church at one time (this will never work for reasons stated above). Choose a few men who are sincere, teachable (unwary, biblically unlearned, unwilling to engage brains in coherent thought, nice guys but mindless) and spiritually minded (religious but not holding to any solid beliefs except that somehow Christ died for them) and spend time with them (indoctrinating them in your intellectually superior beliefs ) in study and prayer. They will help you to reform (because they don’t know any better). This principle is found in Titus 1:5: “For this cause left I thee behind in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” Acts 14:23: “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” Acts 1 1:30: “Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” Acts 20:17,28: “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Don’t get bogged down with what you call these men until they are trained (indoctrinated)–they are called overseers–elders (putty in your hands, yes-men).
8. Don’t get hung up on secondary matters (like preaching the Gospel, helping the poor, widows in the congregation).
9. Don’t use theological language that is not in the Bible, in the pulpit, such as, Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption etc. (duh, these aren’t in the Bible for a reason, moron. We are trying to take over a church here, not preach the truth). Most people will not know what you are talking about (because it is not found in the Bible and any discerning Christian will throw you out on your ear if they hear these terms, indoctrinate them slowly with simplistic language).
10. Use sound literature, not indiscriminately, but wisely. Little things at first, that is, pamphlets and books with some doctrinal and experimental substance (written by John Piper, RC Sproul, perhaps Jonathan Edwards… Those first two are the most important).
11. Don’t use the pulpit to scold people. You cannot scold people into reformation (you can only trick them into reformation).
12. Exercise common sense (see above. Don’t be an impatient idiot and get yourself canned).
13. Depend on the only weapons we have: prayer, preaching and teaching (wielding the newfound power of your inner circle of yes-men).
14. Be sure that you understand the foundational doctrines and how they are related to each other and to your situation (you freakin well better have completely aced the TULIP test).
15. I would suggest that you check the history of your church in respect to early constitutions or declarations of faith. Often you will find, particularly, in older churches, a statement expressing the doctrines which you desire to establish (in other words a Church that has already tried reform theology but it blew up in their face, don’t worry, our new brand will work). A gracious appeal to this document will help to give you credibility, at least they will know that you are not coming from Mars (just from infiltrated seminaries completely out of touch with reality and the laity and completely under the influence of the doctrines of men). Hide behind these articles of faith (I can’t even think of anything sarcastic to say to this, can’t believe it is so blatant). Hide behind our Baptist fathers, such as Bunyan, Spurgeon, Fuller, Boyce, Dagg, Broadus, Manly, W. B. Johnson, R. B. C. Howell and B. H. Carroll (because they will love you if you quote their founding fathers until you are ready to reveal your true colors).
Most of these suggestions come from experience, and, she is a queer old teacher. She first gives you the test and then the lesson. Unlike other teaching (which relies on Scripture to give the lesson).
Why Jay Adams Had to be Neutralized by the New Calvinists
Originally published March 11, 2012
Susan and I had a glorious fellowship with another Christian couple this afternoon. They are in a ministry of significant influence and will be unnamed. At some point, the conversation turned to New Calvinism. As Susan and I sat and listened to the husband’s testimony concerning what he valued in John Piper’s teachings, I was filled with an understanding in regard to why Piper’s teachings are so attractive. I might add that I was very impressed with his calm, articulate answer immediately following my comment that I believe Piper to be one of the premier heretics of our day.
What this brother described was the fact that serious Christians were looking for an alternative to the fallout from the first gospel wave in contemporary Christian History: raise your hand, sign a card, don’t drink, smoke, chew, or hang out with girls that do. Christianity had been reduced to living by a list of do’s and don’ts by people who didn’t have any life to show for it. Fair enough. Guilty as charged.
But the fact of the matter is that Jay Adams did offer a viable alternative. It was based on hearing the word of God and applying it to our lives according to the whole counsel of God’s wisdom and not just, “stop doing that.” I saw firsthand how this “first generation” biblical counseling movement changed lives in radical fashion, including my own. And the movement continues to do so today even though the fact of that matter is covered up by a whole lot of New Calvinist noise.
To me the crux of the matter is in this brother’s testimony. New Calvinists have effectively sold the idea that they are offering the only alternative to easy believeism in our day. That’s only true because they got rid of the other alternative through slander and persecution, and they know it. Jay Adams’ “first generation” biblical counseling was a threat to the emerging New Calvinist tsunami. Why? 1) Because it worked and God used it to change lives. 2) It was/is the antithesis of New Calvinism because the latter fuses justification and sanctification while first generation counseling doesn’t. Furthermore, this is what New Calvinist David Powlison said was the fundamental difference between the two while teaching at John Piper’s church:
This might be quite a controversy, but I think it’s worth putting in. Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for conversion. And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification. And actually even came out and attacked my mentor, Jack Miller, my pastor that I’ve been speaking of through the day, for saying that Christians should preach the gospel to themselves. I think Jay was wrong on that.
If we associate justification with “conversion,” and we do, Powlison’s statement can be reworded as follows for clarification:
Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for justification (justification cannot be separated from conversion). And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification.
Second generation counseling/New Calvinism is sanctification by justification, and that was also propagated by his mentor that he mentions. New Calvinists choose their words carefully. Imagine how far the movement would get if they didn’t replace “justification” with “gospel”:
The same finished work of justification that saved you also sanctifies you. Or, we must preach justification to ourselves every day. Or, sanctification is the finished work of justification in action.
I explained to the brother that the other alternative was relentlessly persecuted, and that’s why it would seem that there is only one alternative. He concurred that he perceives criticism of Adams taking place on a continual basis. Why? Because the truth he teaches is the competition. It’s a threat.
This is an approach that I have never used before: 1) Powlison admits a fundamental difference between first generation and second generation counseling; ie, sanctification by the cross (justification) verses sanctification by the Spirit apart from the finished work of justification. 2) An alternative is confirmed. 3) You only have the New Calvinists’ testimony that they are the only alternative. 4) Why not investigate and find out for yourself?
He agreed, and was sent off with a copy of The Truth About New Calvinism. Please pray for the situation. Christianity doesn’t need a second gospel wave. The first wave devalued sanctification by focusing on justification only; the second devalues it as well by making it the same thing as justification. Both are just as deadly, and when the novelty of New Calvinism wears off, the results will be worse.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment