Moses Indicts Luther and Calvin on the Reformation’s False Gospel
Originally published January 28, 2013
Fundamentally, there is no difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Both see salvation as linear. In other words, sanctification finishes justification. The Reformers were hell-bent on seeing salvation as linear—probably because of the Romanism that gave birth to them.
Therefore, the Reformers accused Rome of “infusing grace” into the believer which made them, in the linear gospel construct, a participant in building the road from justification to final justification named Sanctification. Rome’s “infusion of grace” (the new birth) “enabled” believers to participate in the finalization of our just state. Gee whiz, that’s not “justification by faith alone.”
So, the Reformers had to come up with something different: Jesus does all the paving of the road named Sanctification as long as we live our Christian life the same way we were saved; by faith alone. Hence, this required an “alien” righteousness that is in heaven, NOT IN US. A Reformed think tank devised the following illustration to demonstrate this idea:
The true gospel sees justification as a finished work and completely separate from sanctification. We are free to aggressively pursue fruit in sanctification because our justification is a settled issue. The infusion of grace within us does not contribute to the finished work of justification, only the progressive work of sanctification. Sanctification is progressive because it involves us—justification is by God alone and not confined to time, mortality, or any kind of weakness. That’s why it was completed before the foundation of the Earth and guarantees glorification. This is a parallel gospel. Our progress in the Christian life and the completed work of justification are separate.
The Reformers believed in an “objective gospel completely outside of us.” Anything inside of us always leads to subjectivism. Supposedly. This wasn’t even true in the Old Testament. This is what Moses preached to the Israelites:
Deuteronomy 30:11- “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
Not only did Luther say that keeping the commands is too hard for us to do as believers, he stated that it was impossible. So did Calvin. “It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’” In fact, that’s exactly what Luther did say: God’s righteousness is an alien righteousness that is in heaven.
And the crux—Moses taught an infused grace: “It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.”
Choose ye this day who you will follow, Moses or the Reformed crowd. Moses or Luther? Moses or Calvin? An easy choice for me.
paul
There is NO Such Thing as “Legalism”
Originally posted March 21, 2013
We live in a unique era marked in its beginning by Christ paying the penalty for our sin (HEB 1:2). We are in the last days. We know that because it’s post cross. We live in this specific era which is also biblically described as a time of unprecedented deception (MATT 24:3,4; 2THESS 2:10-12).
Therefore, we must be careful to use specific biblical words in our communication of the truth. Those who define the language win the argument. Redefining the meaning of words to deceive is literally the oldest trick in the book; e.g., Satan redefined what God meant by death. “Surely, you will not die.” Depending on your definition of death, that was true—Eve didn’t die on the spot.
“Legalism” is a word that is not in the Bible anywhere. The concept/term was made popular by Martin Luther’s interpretation of law and grace. The term, “legalism” lends strong foundation to authentic Reformed doctrine. If you use the term, you are being a good Calvinist whether you know it or not. The Reformers were anti-sanctification because it suggests enablement and some room for self-esteem. The Bible does not call us to eradicate all concept of self for the sole purpose of the group, it calls us to evaluate ourselves truthfully (ROM 12:3). That’s why there is a severe lack of sanctification in the church today—we are all just good Protestants.
So, legalism is in, but the word for the primary nemeses of righteousness throughout the ages is out: “anomia.” The English word is, “antinomianism.” It means, anti (a) – law (nomia). And I assure you that manmade law is not in view. Ignorantly, Christians deem the word as just another 50-cent theological term even though it appears throughout the New Testament and defines the core of human woes. While anomia is ignored, a word that doesn’t even exist in the Bible is thrown around more often than we change clothes.
Because the ramifications of anomia pushback against Luther’s law/gospel theology, the word is translated in English Bibles as “wickedness” and “lawlessness” giving the idea of general bad behavior. The real idea is anti-truth, anti-God’s full counsel, anti-God’s wisdom, anti-sanctification, anti-kingdom living, anti-clear conscience, anti-life, anti-goodness, etc., etc. Christ points to it as the primary cause of lovelessness and cold-heartedness (MATT 24:12; PS 119:70). John indicts it as the very definition of sin (1JN 3:4).
Perhaps the greatest deception in all of this is the Reformed motif that the Pharisees are the poster children for “legalism.” Supposedly, they strived to keep God’s law as a way of earning His favor for both justification and sanctification of which are the same to the Reformers. The opposite is true; the Pharisees were full of anomia and voided the law with their anti-truth (MATT 15:1-9; 23:23-28). The Pharisees were not “legalists,” that’s a lie, they were antinomians.
Nothing cripples sanctification more than the Reformed idea that Christians can sincerely seek to obey God by following their born again new desire for the law and thereby unwittingly partaking in works righteousness. There is no more detestable evil under the sun because it causes a conflict between the new desire God has put in our hearts (ROM 7:25; PS 119:1ff.) and instruction that propagates a relaxed view of the law (MATT 5:19). This is why Calvinism has crippled the American church. They propagate a doctrine that sets us against the very desire that God has put in our new hearts.
Satan did not come to Eve in the garden as a “legalist.” He came to her as an antinomian. In regard to the time of the end, the apostle Paul refers to the antichrist as the man of anomia at least four times in his letter to the Thessalonians. From the beginning, and through the middle embodied in the likes of Baalam’s error and Korah’s rebellion, and culminating in the end, the doctrine of anomia is the primary beast that devours the souls of men. But yet, New Calvinist queen Elyse Fitzpatrick likens anomia to the Loch Ness Monster, and is celebrated accordingly for her supposed biblical insight.
It’s time to eradicate “legalism” from our Christian vocabulary and replace it with a description of the New Calvinist breed of beasts among us: Antinomians.
paul.
Love is a Choice, Hope is a Choice, and so is Salvation
Why are we commanded to love others in the Bible? Why are we commanded to be the masters of our emotions? Because love is a choice and right feelings follow right doing. That also gives hope.
Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
Let love be without deceit. Be haters of what is evil; keep your minds fixed on what is good.
These are the words that we do not want to hear from any doctor at any time: “There is nothing we can do.” Why would life be any different?
In a conversation with the father of the contemporary biblical counseling movement, he stated that as he traveled the country speaking in various churches, his assertion that Christians can actually do something was responded to like a “strange new doctrine.”
This is where Christians should come to grips with THE two prisms that interpret reality in today’s evangelicalism. The primary prism is…
The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.
This method of interpreting the Bible which is uniquely of the Reformed tradition posits the following interpretive method: the Bible is made up of an interpretive duo from beginning to end. The first part of any given body of text describes the salvific works of God, and is followed by the fruits of those salvific works. Hence, the primary purpose of the Bible is to meditate on what God has done, and the fruits that we merely experience that flow from God’s salvific works. Reformed teachers like John Piper have described the Bible as a record of God’s “saving acts” [plural] from beginning to end. As we meditate on those acts, using the Bible, fruits that flow from that mediation are described via biblical imperatives (commands).
So, biblical commands demonstrate what flows from justification, and are meant to demonstrate to us what we cannot do—Christ has already done it for us. Christ died for our justification, and lived for our sanctification. Therefore, according to this tradition, biblical commands are justification’s “fruit catalog” (Paul David Tripp), and must be seen in their “gospel context” (Id). To “jump from the imperative directly to obedience” (Reformed mystic and NCT guru Chad Bresson), is to circumvent the saving works (again, plural) of Jesus. Stated plainly, works salvation.
How does this work according to the Reformed crowd? For example, note that Romans 12:1 states “therefore,” followed by a string of imperatives. Supposedly, the first 11 chapters show God’s saving works (the indicative), and 12:1 following shows the manifestation of works that we should expect to see in our lives as a “mere natural flow” (Id) from the indicative. These manifestations are a subjective experience that give us as much cause for assurance as possible because we are actually experiencing a small portion of the exact same glory that we will experience in heaven.
Know this: 80% of all pastors in the U.S. interpret Scripture in this way, and another 15% function this way without realizing it. This method of interpretation fits with two other doctrines of formal orthodoxy; double imputation, and mortification and vivification.
In other words, the antithesis of cause and effect; in more words, the idea that God will keep promises to us if we do certain things first, is indicted as works salvation. The indicative must always precede the imperative to demonstrate that the obedience is not ours, but a fulfillment of Christ’s righteousness and not our own—that would be works salvation. “What does that look like?” (lest we go to hell for living according to a verb): any obedience that we “experience” is assumed to be flowing from some exposure to the indicative. The primary endeavor for the Christian is to stay connected to the “vital union” through gospel contemplationism; this will result in the righteousness (obedience) of Christ being imputed to our Christian life in order to keep us saved.
By the way, observe a Catholic Mass sometime, it’s the exact same principle.
When it gets right down to the nitty gritty, the vast majority of religions and denominations function on this principle. Hence, choice must be necessarily exchanged for determinism. If we can’t do anything, lest it be works, that only leaves one doer. Moreover, HOPE must then be defined as something that God may or may not do for you. Likewise, PROMISE cannot be contingent on anything we do, it must be qualified by a different “if.” Not “if” you will do this, that, or the other, but rather “if” God has decided to do it for you.
So, our only hope is in what God might do for you or someone else. A “sure” promise or “certain” promise is something that God will certainly do, but as far as you…maybe, maybe not, regardless of anything you do—you have no ability to choose, and if you do, it’s works salvation.
Where there is no real choice there is no real hope. Hope is redefined as a promise that you can only hope was made to you because what you choose has no bearing on receiving the promise. “Reward” must also be redefined as a “prize” that you get for winning a cosmic lottery because God decided to call your number. You do not know for certain that you were picked until the “final tribunal.” The best assurance you can have is experiences that God may, or may not have decided to give you in your Christian life.
But let’s close with one last thought on our subject at hand: interpretation. If God really meant something totally different from how we normally interpret “choice,” “hope,” “promise,” “reward,” “command,” etc., why wouldn’t He simply state it plainly?
paul
Calvinism and New Calvinism: When the Black Lamb of the Family is the Patriarch
Originally posted August 27, 2012
“Nevertheless, it is interesting to see the tacit admissions that Calvinism has a history that makes some Calvinists, ‘uncomfortable.’”
There are a lot of Presbyterian pastors that I have much respect for. And I understand their dilemma: Lutheran = Luther, Methodist = Wesley, etc., and Presbyterian = John Calvin. I mean, this is tough: “Hi, my name is Fred. I have been a Presbyterian all of my life, which is a denomination founded on a murdering mystic despot.” Geez, I feel for them—I really do.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to see the tacit admissions that Calvinism has a history that makes some Calvinists, “uncomfortable.” This is where New Calvinism is like a distinguished family getting a visitation from a long lost relative with a long dark past. It’s like already having several dinner parties planned in a small town where a past relative is new in town, and meaner than a junkyard dog, and starts blabbing about family roots. That’s when you cancel the dinner parties or preplan your responses: “Well, many of our relatives are uncomfortable with that part of our family tree.” It is then hoped the guests will be polite and not mention that it is the root of the tree.
As will be thoroughly documented in The Truth About New Calvinism: Volume 2, New Calvinism has the history, doctrine, and character of authentic Calvinism down pat—they are the incarnation of the original article to a “T.” This is a simple thing; the present-day church being awash in spiritual abuse is merely Calvin’s Geneva: act 2. It is what it is. And thanks to the Australian Forum, all of the heavy lifting in regard to the research has been done.
These thoughts bring me to an article that was sent to me by a reader. It was from The Aquila Report which is “Your independent source for news and commentary from and about conservative, orthodox evangelicals in the Reformed and Presbyterian family of churches.” Recently, Aquila reported on a family forum held (I think) in Dallas TX where the Reformed family tried to get some understanding between them and the part of the family tree that showed up again in 1970—wreaking havoc on the rest of the family in the form of Sonship Theology and New Calvinism. Unfortunately, in regard to Powlison, Keller, and Duncan, et al, these are your daddy’s Presbyterians. Presbyterians that have truly grown in grace, but kept the name, are in a quandary to say the least.
The article was reposted on The Aquila Report by Matt Tuininga, a blogger of the United Reformed stripe. It is a commentary on an article written by sociologist Phillip Jenkins who, in the original article written by him, states uncanny parallels between early Reformed clans and Islam. Tuininga begins his post this way:
In a fascinating column in RealClearReligion the famous sociologist of religion Philip Jenkins compares the radical Islam of figures like Sayyid Qutb (author of Milestones and an intellectual father of modern day Islamism) with 16th Century Calvinism.
Well, that’s not good!
But then Tuininga adds this:
Jenkins’s overall point is to demonstrate that a religion often evolves in positive ways only by first passing through dark times.
I’m not sure that’s Jenkins’ overall point, but hey, let’s roll with it. This would then indicate that the “dark” side of the family tree is back with a vengeance in the form of New Calvinism. And be sure of this: the only difference between the behaviors is the filter of American jurisprudence. I have dealt with New Calvinists first hand (some well-known), and trust me, they would light me up with the green wood in a heartbeat if they could get away with it. What they actually did wasn’t much less.
Incredibly, Tuininga then makes the exact same point that author John Immel has been making for years and propagated on Spiritual Tyranny .com and in his book, Blight In The Vineyard. Tuininga quotes Jenkins with conspicuous undisagreement:
In the case of the West, he suggests, the Enlightenment followed the radicalism and iconoclasm of the Reformation; Protestants had to destroy much of what came before them in medieval Christianity in order to forge new ways to the future.
The fact that America’s founding fathers were children of the Enlightenment which was a pushback against European spiritual despotism was a major theme of our 2012 TANC conference. Immel presented the thesis brilliantly, and left little room for denial in regard to the fact that the Reformers were separated from Rome on doctrine (both false, by the way), but not the underlying philosophy that leads to spiritual tyranny. Overall, knowing beforehand that people are not lining up to hear this proposition, we are happy with how the conference turned out and are looking forward to next year.
Hence, “Protestants had to destroy much of what came before them in medieval Christianity in order to forge new ways to the future” focuses on iconic superstition and conveniently leaves out superstitions like the truth test to determine if someone was a witch: if you can swim, you get hung or burned at the stake; if you can’t swim—you drown. Suspicion equaled certain death, so I imagine woman of that era were particularly well behaved. The present-day replacement is the Patriarchy Movement.
ADMISSION
Tuininga continues:
In the process of making this argument Jenkins accurately portrays a side of 17th Century Calvinism that most present-day Calvinists would find troubling. Speaking of the Dutch Reformed iconoclasts of the 1560s, he writes,
“Beyond smashing images, the insurgents had other ideas that look strikingly familiar to anyone familiar with radical Islam today, with thinkers like Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Mawdudi.
The Calvinists of the 1560s sought to remodel society on the basis of theocratic Old Testament law strictly interpreted, with the role of the sovereign measured by how far he or she submitted to God’s will. Some thinkers devised a pioneering theory of tyrannicide, justifying the removal of any allegedly Christian ruler who betrayed Christ’s true church. Protestant radicals pursued a harsh policy of reading rival believers out of the faith, defining the followers of images as utterly anti-Christian, deadly enemies of God.…
In the English-speaking world, the heirs of 1566 were the Puritans, the radicals who dreamed of an austere New England. When Puritans seized power in England itself in the 1640s, their agents toured the country, smashing statues and windows in every parish church they could find. By the 1640s, at the height of Europe’s death struggle between Protestants and Catholics, Calvinist ideas that to us seem intolerably theocratic dominated not just the Netherlands, but also New England, Switzerland and Scotland, and were struggling for ascendancy in the whole British Isles. Religious zeal often expressed itself through witchcraft persecutions.”
DENIAL
….To be sure, what Jenkins describes here was not true of all Calvinists. John Calvin himself, living in an earlier century, explicitly rejected the sort of strict allegiance to the Old Testament civil law that Jenkins here describes, and he absolutely rejected the theories of tyrannicide and rebellion articulated by some of his followers. But Jenkins nevertheless accurately describes a strand of Calvinism, and his description of the violence and disorder that was sparked by radical Calvinist notions of what allegiance to God in the public square demanded is truthful, if not representative of the whole tradition.
In regard to Calvin himself, this is blatant denial in the face of historical fact that is not even difficult to find, but he finishes with this head-scratcher:
But Jenkins nevertheless accurately describes a strand of Calvinism, and his description of the violence and disorder that was sparked by radical Calvinist notions of what allegiance to God in the public square demanded is truthful, if not representative of the whole tradition.
The “whole tradition”? Is it a “strand” or the “whole tradition”?
THE DINNER PARTY
….One question we might ask here is to what extent was this old militant Calvinism different from the Islamism with which our nation is in conflict today. If Calvinists today were advocating theories of resistance and revolution, or if they were suggesting that the current U.S. government of Barack Obama is illegitimate such that Christians do not owe it allegiance, would the state have to launch a campaign against them as well? What if they were defending tyrannicide, based on the belief that Barack Obama is a tyrant?
Actually, this is not so theoretical. If there is one thing I have learned since starting this blog, it is that there are a number of Calvinists out there today who would espouse virtually all of these views (perhaps even tyrannicide? I’m not sure …). I don’t think most Reformed Christians give the time of day to these thinkers, but there is a minority that is with them all the way…. But I would like to ask those who find these arguments persuasive, do you really want to go back to the heyday of Calvinist revolution and theocracy? Is it the American project that you reject – with its commitment to religious liberty and the separation of church and state? And if so, how do you distinguish your own cause from that of the Islamists, especially the more respectable groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, or the intellectual followers of Sayyid Qutb? To those who, like me, find this brand of Calvinism profoundly troubling, how do you reject it without some sort of distinction between the two kingdoms, between the kingdom of Jesus, and the political institutions of this age?
Well, obviously, Tuininga has no intentions of cancelling his dinner parties. And hopefully, the guests won’t bring up the new family in town who claims kinship: while the children of other families build snowmen and sandcastles, the children of the new family in town build guillotines and gallows. And the New Calvinist’s constant haranguing of the “American dream” has become a constant drumbeat. The particular video of a New Calvinist stating that “every corner of the Earth belongs to us” is also particularity chilling. Just two weeks ago, Susan and I sat under the teaching of a well-known college professor at a Christian University (who is a New Calvinist). His message was absolutely nothing short of a Communist manifesto. Recently, I have received emails from people who attend a Southern Baptist church that is strongly influenced by David Platt. His social socialist gospel is beginning to give people the creeps big-time.
John Immel is way ahead of the curve on this stuff. I recently heard John Piper say that he didn’t believe in a marriage between church and state; I DON’T BELIEVE HIM. In fact, I am going to attempt to meet with people who have information on this for my upcoming book project. More and more, a formula is emerging that seems to explain everything: a united front of denominations (think: John MacArthur hanging with CJ Mahaney etc) who can all agree on a central theme/doctrine: the total depravity of all mankind including Christians, and the need for philosopher kings to save humanity from themselves with the use of the sword if necessary. And by the way, agreement with a knowing nod from Communists and Muslims lingers not far behind. This formula begins to make sense of perplexing love affairs; such as, MacArthur/Mahaney, Horton/ Warren, Piper/Warren, Piper/Wilson, Obama/Warren, Mohler/United Nations, Dever/United Nations, etc., etc., ect., add cold chills.
A SORT-OF ADMISSION
But lastly, to bolster this point, Tuininga’s conclusion is to die for:
Jenkins appreciates the fact that the violence and revolution associated with early Calvinism was an important part of the story of how the democratic liberties and political structures that we take for granted came to exist. Calvinism had its own growing pains, and the best political theological insights from its earlier years need to be extracted from a number of assumptions and applications that were inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture. But not every Calvinist views things this way. That’s why we need to keep making the point.
Can we say, I-m-m-e-l? John has shared something with me that I agree with: in my own words; America’s founding fathers were humming Willy Nelson’s “You Were Always on My Mind” while framing the Constitution, and the “you” pertained to John Calvin in particular. While I think that Tuininga would give tacit merit to that assertion….
The Dinner Party:
Host:
….Calvinism had its own growing pains, and the best political theological insights from its earlier years need to be extracted from a number of assumptions and applications that were inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture. But not every Calvinist views things this way. That’s why we need to keep making the point.
Guest: (polite silence).
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment