TANC 2014 Andy Young Session 1: Anybody Remember Grammatical Historical Teaching?
Be Ye Holy for I am Holy
Ok, welcome to Session 1 on Understanding Sanctification.
In my opinion, the hardest part about doing any sort of topical study is finding a starting point. I would much rather take a passage of scripture and teach through that in context, and just let the passage say what it says. What makes a topical study of the Bible so difficult is that there is always a danger of proof-texting. We have to always make sure that we are aware that we unconsciously bring a bias with us, wherever that bias comes from, it could be from our parents, what out parents taught us, could be from a particular church denomination that we grew up attending, or maybe our worldview, whatever influenced that. There are things in our life that shape us and we end up having a particular bias when it comes to interpreting scripture. So when it comes to studying a particular topic or doctrine, we have this tendency to seek out passages that fit in with our bias. This is called proof-texting.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with proof-texting. In fact, many of the scriptural truths we hold dear we can directly site a specific verse or passage that teaches that. For example, if I were to ask you, what must a person do to be saved, what are some verses that immediately come to mind?
Acts 16:31
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
Romans 10:13
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Romans 10:9-10
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
John 3:14-18
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
Now these are all good verses, and the reason these are good proof-texts is because the context is pretty straightforward. And the big danger with proof-texting is ignoring the larger context. For example, if someone were to ask me about how to be saved, one verse I would not use as a proof text is Acts 27:31. Anyone know that verse? “Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” That’s a good salvation verse, isn’t it? Now I know that’s a silly example, but don’t laugh, I have heard of people teaching on this passage and making all kinds of metaphors out of the ship and trying to turn this into a salvation passage. But I use this to show you how easy it is to take a verse out of context. We have to make sure we are very careful to understand and interpret a verse or passage within the larger context.
So in these sessions dealing with sanctification, we’re going to be turning to a lot of scripture. We’re going to spend a lot of time looking up verses and passages of scripture dealing with sanctification, and I’m going to be very careful and methodical to make sure we keep the context straight, that we understand the larger theme of where these verses fit in with the rest of scripture, and so hopefully we’ll avoid this danger of proof-texting.
In this first session I want to lay the ground work for the other sessions, so I’m going to spend a lot of time defining terms. That will become our premise for the rest of the study on Sanctification. It is important to understand the distinction between Sanctification and Justification. It is important to keep that distinction. Sanctification is an act that happens to those who are already justified; those who are already declared to be righteous. No, not just declared righteous, made righteous by belief in God, belief in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the Biblical standard for righteousness; belief in God. So because Sanctification is subsequent to Justification, I am going to be specifically addressing those who are already saved. If you have already believed in Christ for your salvation, I am speaking to you today. These sessions will apply specifically to you. Nothing I have to say applies to someone who is unsaved. I am speaking directly to believers. In other word, little to nothing I have to speak about applies to Justification. Justification has already been accomplished in your life, now we’re moving on to Sanctification.
So having said all of that, I’m going to use this first session to define our terms. What is Sanctification? More importantly, what is a Biblical definition of Sanctification? Then our second session, we’ll explore sanctification in the Old Testament and it’s relationship to the Law, and I want to consider the idea, that if God wants me to be holy, then why do I still sin? And then in the last session on Sanctification we will examine the question of, is there any merit to good works, and we will even examine the Biblical source of assurance for the believer.
So let’s get started on some terms. What is Sanctification? What does it mean to be Sanctified? Before we can address those questions, we need to understand what Sanctification has to do with relation to holiness. We know that God is holy. The Bible teaches that holiness is one of God’s attributes. So as creatures made in the image of God, can we exhibit holiness? Are believers really holy? The verse that I’ve chosen to use, sort of as the theme for these sessions on Sanctification is 1 Peter 1:16. Why don’t we start there. Go ahead and turn to 1 Peter. And actually I want to start with verse 14.
“As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation [way of life, how you conduct yourselves]; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.”
And this last part here in verse 16 like I said is what I have chosen as the theme for these sessions. Peter uses the esxpression, “because it is written,” he is actually making reference to the Law. Peter is actually quoting the exact phrase found in Leviticus 11:44, 45.
Now some things I want you to notice about the grammatical structure of this passage here in 1 Peter. Please notice all of the verbs in this passage, all of the action words, they are all in the imperative mood. Imperative mood means it is a command. An order. Holiness is not optional. It is a command.
Secondly, not only are all the verbs, all the actions, not only are they commands, they are in the active voice. Active voice means that the subject performs the action. The opposite of active voice is the passive voice. In passive voice, the subject is the recipient of the action, or the subject has the action performed upon him. Notice the active voice in all of these commands
do not fashion yourselves – you don’t fashion
be ye holy – you be holy
Notice the subject performs the action. You. You are performing the action. This is different from passive voice. If these commands were in the passive voice it would read something like:
do not be fashioned – do not allow yourself to be fashioned. Or;
be made holy – allow yourself to be made holy.
Taking this even one step further, if we look specifically at this phrase, “be ye holy”. This phrase in the Greek looks like this. It’s pronounced:
αγιοιγενεσθε “hag-ee-oy gin-ess-theh”
The word I have underlined here is the imperative form of the word:
γινομαι – “gin-oh-my” – to cause to be; to become (reflexive)
This is a linking verb that is the equivalent to our English word “is”, and all the forms it takes- am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been.
So not only is this verb in the active voice, the word itself is causative in its very meaning. This phrase could actually read, “cause yourself to become holy.” Or, “make yourself holy.”
The third thing I want you to consider from this passage is, who is the audience? Who is to perform this command to be holy? Let your eyes go up to the beginning of the chapter. To whom is Peter addressing this letter? Who is supposed to be holy?
King James says – the strangers scattered throughout all these regions of Asia Minor. Who would that be? In the Greek this would read as pilgrims of the dispersion. That is an expression that is used other places in scripture to describe displaced ethnic Jews. These are Jews who did not return to the land of Israel following the Babylonian and Assyrian captivity. They dispersed, and settled here and there throughout this region. We also know from reading the books of Acts and from Galatians chapter 2 for example, that Paul’s ministry focused on the Gentiles, and Peter’s ministry focused on the Jews. Galatians 2 uses the expression the gospel of the uncircumcision vs. the gospel of the circumcision.
So what we have here is Peter writing this letter addressed to these Jews of the dispersion, but what’s more important is that they are believers. And that is what I really want us to see here. Peter is writing to believers. More than that, these commands here in verses 14-16 are issued to believers. He is exhorting believers to not fashion themselves after their former life. The believer is commanded to be holy. The believer is to cause it to happen, actively, make it happen, not to passively wait for it to happen to him. And I want this to be our underlying theme of these sessions.
As we go through these sessions, keep this in the forefront of your mind at all times, this is what we as believers are commanded to do. We are not to live our lives the way we used to. Not fashioning ourselves after the former life. And by the way, that is the exact same word the apostle Paul uses in Romans 12:2, where he says be not conformed to this world, “soo-scheme-ah-tid-zo”. This is where we get the word “schematic”. You’ve probably heard of a schematic diagram. For electrical engineers a schematic is a pattern to follow. And that’s what the word means, having to do with a pattern. We don’t pattern our lives after this world, we don’t follow the pattern of our old behaviors. As believers we are to be holy as God is holy.
And if God in His word is commanding us to do it, then we must be able to do it, because I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in a God who would tell us to do something that we can’t do. And if you don’t believe that, then I’m sorry, then you and I don’t believe in the same God.
Believers are called to holiness. Now what is holiness? That’s a word that has a lot of mystique about it. Very ethereal. We hear it, we think we know intrinsically what it means and we throw it around, but we have a hard time explaining it. Well, let’s define these terms. How does the Bible define holiness? Let’s start at the beginning. Surprisingly, the word “holy” doesn’t even appear in the book of Genesis. The first occurrence of the word “holy” in the Bible appears in Exodus 3:5.
Exodus 3:5
“And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.”
קדשׁ – qôdesh – ko’-desh
Strongs dictionary defines it as a sacred place or thing. Ok, well, that doesn’t tell us very much. There is a parallel word for holy in the New Testament. The first use of the word holy in the NT is
Matt 1:18
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”
A couple more places where this is found, and I’m not going to look all of these up, but
Matthew 4:5
“Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,”
Matthew 7:6
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
This word in the Greek for holy is
αγιος – “hag-ee-oss” – sacred.
Again, still a pretty abstract concept. Let’s set out to de-mystify these concepts. Bring it from the abstract to the tangible. Let’s see if we can nail it down a little more. To better understand what holiness is, let us examine the opposite of holiness. In scripture, the opposite of holy is profane. Now profane carries with it a different meaning than what we understand in our modern usage of the word. When we hear the word profane we usually think of profanity, like foul language. So in the modern usage of the word, profane has the idea of evil, or foul, or sinful. But that is not what the word means as it’s used in scripture. In scripture profane simply means, common, ordinary, or everyday. Run-of-the-mill. No-frills. Just like all the rest.
Now when you consider profane in this aspect, scripture presents all kinds of contrasts between that which is holy and that which is profane. The Old Testament is full of these contrasts. Here are just a few of them:
Holy vs. Profane
Leviticus 20:3
And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
Leviticus 21:6
They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.
Leviticus 21:7
They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
Leviticus 22:2
Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 22:15
And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the Lord;
Leviticus 22:32
Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the Lord which hallow you,
Ezekiel 22:26
Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference [discernment] between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.
Ezekiel 44:23
And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
Amos 2:7
That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name:
Over and over again we have this contrast presented to us. So if we understand then that profane is that which is common, or ordinary, or just like all the rest, and we understand that holy is the polar opposite of profane, then holy would be that which is not profane; that which is not common, that which is not ordinary, that which is not every-day, that which is not just like all the rest.
God said to Israel, when you profaned My name among the heathen, you made Me to be just like all the other gods. When you profaned my temple, you made it like any other ordinary building. I am no longer holy. You caused me to be patterned after just like everything else. I am no longer in that place where I deserve to be, because I am God, I am Jehovah. I am not like all the rest. I am higher than all the rest. In fact, there are no others. I am the only one. I am that I Am! I am the self-existent One! That’s what My name means. Do not profane it! Do not make it just like all the rest!
This distinction between holy and profane is very helpful when it comes to us understanding why holiness is important in the Christian life. Because if we are believers, then we are the adopted children of God. If we are believers then we have identified with Christ. We are righteous as He is righteous. Sin has been taken away. So then why would we live a life that profanes our Father? Why would we live a life, why would our behavior be common, ordinary, why would our behavior be just like everyone else?
God is out of the ordinary, and He wants His people to be like Him. In fact, He made it possible when He saved us. Sin was taken away. Our old man was crucified with Christ, and now we live in newness of life. Our lives should be out of the ordinary. Our lives should not be characterized by that which is just like everyone else in this world.
So, after we have gone through all of that, do we have a Biblical definition of holiness that we can work with?
Holy – a place or thing which is distinct from that which is common, ordinary, or just like everything else.
Now those are words we can understand. Those are words we can wrap our minds around and sink our teeth into.
Now that begs the question, what determines if something is holy? What is it that makes something holy? And this is where the relationship with sanctification comes into play. If we as believers are commanded to be holy, our holiness then is effected through the process of sanctification. In fact that could be a good starting place to define Sanctification. We could say that:
Sanctification – the process whereby the holiness in the life of the believer is effected.
But let’s not leave it there. Remember, our goal is to have a Biblical understanding of these concepts. So let’s go back to God’s word and see how the scriptures define Sanctification.
Now while the word holy did not appear until the book of Exodus, the word sanctify appears early on in the book of Genesis. The first instance of “sanctify” appears in
Genesis 2:3
“And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”
קדשׁ – qâdash – kaw-dash’ – to be clean; to make, pronounce, or declare clean.
Notice that, the basic definition of sanctification has to do with cleansing. If you wanted to substitute the word clean for the word sanctify in Genesis 2:3 it would read:
“And God blessed the seventh day, and cleansed it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”
Now let me put our word for holy back up here for a moment.
Holy – ko-desh
Sanctify – kaw-dash
There is a great similarity between these two Hebrew words. In fact they are both taken from the same root word. What we have here is a very close relationship between cleansing and holiness. The fourth commandment is what, remember the Sabbath day to keep it, holy. Remember our definition of Holy? Why was the Sabbath day holy? Why was the Sabbath day distinct from that which is common, ordinary, or just like everything else? It was holy because God cleansed it.
Ok, how about the New Testament? The first instance of “sanctify” in the NT is found in
Matthew 23:17
“Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?”
αγνος – “hag-noss” – clean
Now just like I did in the Hebrew, let me put up the word for holy in the Greek.
Holy – “hag-ee-oss”
Sanctify – “hag-noss”
Again, look at the similarity of the two words. And just like in the Hebrew, these two words in the Greek are taken from the same root. The same relationship appears in the Greek between these ideas of cleansing and holiness.
So now that we understand this relationship between holiness and cleansing, we can take the meaning of the word Sanctify, and combine it with the meaning of holiness, and we can come up with what I believe is an accurate, Biblical definition of Sanctification.
Sanctification – the process of cleansing for the purpose of making a place or thing distinct from that which is common, ordinary, or just like everything else. (or the purpose of making something holy)
So we have our definitions. We’ve established the ground work, the foundation from which we can build.
If you remember at the beginning of this session I asked the question, as creatures made in the image of God, can we exhibit God’s attribute of holiness? I would say that according to scripture, the answer is a resounding, YES! We are able to. We are able to be distinct from that which is common, ordinary, or just like everyone else. We are able to behave that way. We are able to pattern our lives that way.
So, now that we have a premise to build on, in session two, we’ll take a look at how this all worked out in the Old Testament under the law, and the relationship of Sanctification to the law. We’ll expand on this idea of cleansing and the relationship between cleansing and Sanctification and holiness in the life of a believer.
Do we have time for any questions or comments?
Musings on TANC 2014: Why The Wartburg Watch is Not a Solution, But a Source of Spiritual Tyranny
Preface: I have heard from most of our strong supporters on the spirited discussion between John and Bo, and the feedback seems to be…good discussion in the Coliseum. That was very encouraging to me as a sign that our supporters understand that TANC is about rethinking churchianity. More on that later in this post.
Dee Parsons is the co-author of The Wartburg Watch blog which reports on cultural trends within the Neo-Calvinist movement. Some Neo-Calvinists get it and have a cordial relationship with “Deb and Dee.” Others see them as arch enemies and the verbiage gets personal. This is disappointing as I prefer to see the masses deceived by clever politics rather than politics of the schoolyard variety. I have become fond of humanity and like to think the best of us. I would like to think that most Neo-Calvinists follow the leadership that plays well with Deb and Dee for a maximum deceptive benefit.
Let me set the table for the case against Deb and Dee.
This is why I no longer watch American Greed on cable television: it’s so disappointing to see all of those intelligent people duped by unimpressive Ponzi schemes. But, I also feel bad for the victims as many lost their entire life savings and have no way to get it back.
Yes, I feel bad for them, which makes me part of the problem as well. More table-setting ahead.
I have grown immensely as a person and Christian via my relationship with John Immel. We consider John our resident church historian and philosopher, not our theologian; that’s my department. John knows where Susan and I stand on Scripture as truth for life and godliness. Where does he stand exactly on that? I’m not sure, but that has nothing to do with TANC. We are a think tank, and our observers expect thinking to take place, not a solidifying of every element that we have believed all of our Christian lives as told to us by others.
TANC is trying to do something about the dichotomy between common sense and Christianity; viz, common sense is “not of faith,” but rather “of the material world.” When it gets right down to the nitty gritty, Christians may assent to the idea that the humanity part of us finds practical nourishment from the same material world, but we don’t function that way.
This is where it is difficult to read John, it would seem that he refuses to discuss the gospel until Christians come to grip with philosophy. Let’s say for sake of conversation that John has a different definition of the new birth than “Christians,” A; look around, few Christians among us can define the new birth biblically. Is the new birth a realm, or new creaturehood? “New creaturehood” you say. Well, that’s strange because easily 75% of evangelical pastors believe the new birth is a realm. B; if our “Christianity” is driven by philosophy that most don’t understand, why would John want to discuss it? Also, the spat was really my fault because even though I have a kinship with Bo’s view of Scripture, I forgot to tell him the following: you never use the word, “authority” when talking with John about truth. Christians by and large give assent to the idea that God owns truth, but clearly function as though God’s anointed own it by proxy.
This is the bottom line and a matter of irrefutable history: Western theological debate, when stripped naked, is a debate between Plato and Aristotle. If you don’t understand that debate, your local evangelical pastor can hang a Bible verse on anything he says and you will believe it. Augustine is the father of Western Christianity, and the fact that he integrated Platonism with the Bible is no big secret. Yet, there are discernment ministries that bemoan the integration of Psychology with… their interpretation of the Bible, which is a Platonist interpretation. Yes, I have read the unwitting treatises of a Platonist interpretation of the Bible, and its indignity against psychological integration which comes mostly from Socrates.
Also, when Jesus arrives on the world scene, Judaism was saturated with the theology of Philo who integrated the Old Testament with Platonism. Do you really think that is unnecessary knowledge for understanding the New Testament? Christ was the personification of the physical and good—this was an in-your-face pushback to the philosophy that has always dominated humankind from the very beginning of time.
What am I talking about? and why do Christians drive John Immel nuts? Well, a test: do you think that creation was representative of the gospel in that God brought light out of darkness? I have heard John MacArthur posit that idea more than once. That’s a Platonist interpretation. And…
…No, I am not going to tell you why that is a Platonist view of the Bible. For the first time in your Christian life, you need to study for yourself, and stop thinking the thoughts of other men. Like thoughts are different from your thoughts, and your faith should be your own, and faith is not separate from intellect.
No, I do not feel sorry for you. You fell into the trap of abuse because you were guided into a place of danger by thinking other people’s thoughts and not your own informed by good information. You are a lazy thinker who is guided by the chemical reactions in your brain ignited by the words of others. You are a vice, not a victim.
No, I am not obligated to recognize facts that lead to the tragedy of untruth. No, I am not obligated to say something good about facts used in the commission of a third degree theological felony leading to first degree bad fruit. No, your “story,” or “experience,” is not useful to me unless you have pinpointed the errant logic borrowed from others that led to your victimization. Yes, you are not much different from the man who attempted to rectify fuel line freeze up by heating a can of gasoline on his stove because his neighbor said it was a good idea. No, regardless of what happened, I am not obligated to discuss the goodness of gas cans and stoves. The goodness of gas cans and stoves does not partially sanctify the bad result. Yes, I will discuss the bad logic that led to the misuse of the gas can and the stove as a way to prevent the explosion of apartment buildings. No, I am not sorry that the man who had fuel line freeze up is dead. No, I will not discuss the fact that many who followed the same logic didn’t die, and were given a new home by Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.
Yes, you are right, you were wrong, and you do owe me an apology. This is why God refuses to cure Stupid with an Apology pill. I do not accept apologies from those who do not fear bad ideas. There is no antidote for stupid, only you can prevent apartment fires.
No, Susan will not apologize for having nothing good to say about the Puritans in her three sessions. No, I no longer feel sorry for those who are led to the slaughter like the dumb oxen.
Yes, I will lay down my life for you if you say the following: “I was formally a mindless fool thinking the thoughts of others and dishonoring God by wasting my mind. I now see that studying to show myself approved is a moral obligation.”
I might even feel sorry for you.
Yet another example: Let’s say that the thousands presently being slaughtered by ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) in Iraq could come back from the dead and tell their stories on the Wartburg Watch. These poor souls, they were lined up in large number and summarily executed with AK 47’s. They would post about that awful experience, and then many would wait with bated breath for Deb and Dee’s profound words of comfort.
I will embellish this motif a bit further: Deb and Dee host an online Echurch and the pastor is a Muslim cleric (actually, it’s the New Calvinist Wade Burleson). But he is a good Muslim cleric who thinks the mass executions are absolutely horrible. Hence, since all Muslims don’t condone mass executions of those who are other than Muslim, also known as infidels, NO connection can be made between the doctrinal logic and the behavior. And here is the crux of their argument:
“We don’t agree with everything they teach.”
If logic is not connected with behavior, no one can be held accountable, or accountability is selective which is the exact case with the Wartburg Watch. And as I will demonstrate, this actually facilitates tyranny. As I will demonstrate, Deb and Dee facilitate tyranny in a way that is as old as the world itself.
And this fact answers the following objective: “But Paul, you and John Immel don’t agree on everything either.” Precisely, and thanks for bringing that up.According to what John and I disagree on, we connect the logic of those elements to probable outcomes, and the probable outcomes are acceptable in context of the endeavor.
Now back to Deb and Dee and my ISIS motif. I want to feel sorry for the victims lined up in front of a row of AK 47’s, but I can’t because too many more lives are at stake. You see, the victims lived in a society accepting of soft Islam with different applications. Obviously, beforehand, mass slaughter wasn’t an application, but another tenet of the same logic was: laws banning the right for the people to keep and bear arms. If you have an armed public, bullies can’t just march in and slaughter people at will. When a logic is bad, many of its tenets can lead to your death. In a spiritual caste system, all of the tentacles lead back to the brain of the octopus. Even if an octopus doesn’t use all of his tentacles, it’s still an octopus, and a lazy octopus can be motivated to full octopusness at any time. The problem is the octopus, not the tentacles unless he doesn’t have any.
“By their fruits you will know them.”
Bad fruit is caused by false doctrine; therefore, bad doctrine will eventually cause bad fruit. In Africa presently, Muslims are killing Christians, but in many areas of Africa, presently, the Christians still burn witches. Why? Both are spiritual caste systems. The same basic logic that drives Christians to burn witches in Africa is the exact same logic that caused Calvin to burn witches in Geneva. Ideology is timeless, you can be sure of that.
This brings me to a discussion that I had with John at the conference. God’s design in regard to the balance of power is this: the people outnumber the government. If the people rise up in unison, the government is toast. This is why dictatorships are so afraid of ideas. Throughout human history, man has typically not connected logic with behavior. The logic eventually leads to fruit that incites the masses to take drastic action. This is a vicious cycle that has repeated itself throughout human history, until America happened.
For the first time in human history, a group of men got together and decided to form a nation that addresses the logic and not the symptoms. The results sometimes referred to as the American dream speak for themselves. There is a reason why there has never been a religious war in the United States. The founding fathers of America grew up under the tyranny of the Puritans, and when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they had the Puritans on their mind. The unseparation of Puritan and state on America’s east coast was duplicating the exact same tyranny that saturated human history up to that point. The framers were adamant in regard to separation of Puritan and state.
In defense of not making logic accountable to fruit,
Dee Parsons referred me to an article written by Roger Olson. Notice that her defense is the thoughts of someone else rather than her own. You can also add this attribute to her propensity for making lazy thinkers and mindless followers victims. At any rate, Olsen attempts to make a case for separating doctrine from behavior. Unlike what Jesus plainly stated, Olson argues for the following: those who teach without adding right practice should yet be regarded highly in the kingdom of heaven. This advocates the irrelevance of fruit in discerning doctrine. This makes a separation between doctrine and behavior. This is not eliminating the stagnant pool of water that will likely breed a disease.
I once knew of a pastor who had some sort of acid poured in his swimming pool by somebody. Every time for a week that his children wanted to go swimming, it rained, eventually resulting in a colored film floating on the surface of the pool. Experts say that the acid would have caused severe burning of the children’s skin and blindness. According to many, the logic of those who poured the acid in the pool is not all that bad because the children didn’t jump in. I disagree. The application of bad logic, for many reasons, does not always come to full volition.
Likewise, soft Calvinism is like cancer that is in remission, or a landmine that has not yet been stepped on. The attributes of the logic are present, and set the stage for a full expression to happen at any time. The tenet that disarms the public sets the stage that makes the full expression possible. In the same way, Deb and Dee proclaim that soft Calvinists provide safe haven for people while these same soft Calvinists remain conspicuously silent in regard to other Calvinists that express a more explicit tyranny.
Brigitte Gabriel of the American Congress for Truth is fighting the exact same problem in Muslim circles in regard to “moderate Islam” versus “radical Islam.” She points out that the ideology of Islam is the problem, and calls out the “moderates” for not speaking out against the fruits of the “radicals.” Political commentator Sean Hannity has said that the silence of those who have supposedly had their religion “hijacked” is…”deafening.”
This same debate is all too familiar in Evangelical circles regarding Calvinism. In addition, the fact that Islam and Calvinism both find their roots in Platonism is far from being obscure and the idea is promoted by renowned scholars past and present. Islam’s threat will continue to grow if the ideology is not rejected wholesale, and spiritual tyranny in the church will continue through Calvinism aided by those who claim to be the cure.
Another tenet:
In this year’s TANC conference, John Immel explained another tenet of Reformed ideology: socialism and the socialist disdain for capitalism. This is the idea that man doesn’t have the right to own property. John explained how this ideology bred class envy beginning with Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies, and found strong footing in Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Even during the time of Luther, Jews were prosperous, and were referred to as the “greedy Jews.” Oh my, how many times did I hear in the Reformed church that everything I owned didn’t belong to me—it belonged to God (being interpreted: the church by proxy). Per the usual, and without a second thought, I nodded like the Calvinist Bobblehead that I was.
Understand, this tenet of Reformed thought laid dormant under the auspices of mere economic theory for about 400 years, but was the seed that gave full bloom to the holocaust. According to the NSGWP platform, “profiteering” was a crime against humanity and punishable by death. Per the usual, John’s sessions sink in slowly over time with periodic, “Oh my Gosh.”
There is a solution for spiritual tyranny in the church. When you see bad fruit—find the ideology behind it and reject the ideology wholesale. Do not think that some tenets are harmless and therefore worthy of praise, because, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump,” and “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.” A note to Roger Olson: that’s Jesus again.
Calvinist elder-despots have a mantra that they use to deflect all accountability: “All the elders do not agree on that point.” Because one of them might be right, the lot of them cannot be rejected. If ideology is not connected to behavior, no one is accountable. The ONLY hope for justice is the secular courts. And let’s talk about that word “secular.” At this year’s conference, the baggage associated with the word “secular” was examined. Even though our founding fathers believed in God, the Constitution of the United States is primarily a secular document that prohibits the promotion of any particular religion. So, the first secular nation on earth also happens to be the greatest. And by the way, look around in our day, justice is only being found for victims of religious tyranny in the secular courts. “Secular” does not equal, “evil,” it just means the separation from any particular religion, and if something has to be religious to be good, which religion? “In God We Trust” doesn’t mean that God thinks practical governing is a bad idea.
Ok, so I could go on and on with this. There are lots of tentacles. The Calvinist idea that “secular” is antithetical to God’s authority has made the high tide of spiritual tyranny a virtual tsunami in the American church. But yet, Deb and Dee are hell-bent on advocating a moderate Calvinism. Their association with Wade Burleson gives the green light to thousands of followers to taste and see if any given Calvinist church is of the moderate form. I have direct association with people who have been double and triple victimized by this mindset. In other words, three churches later…the lightbulb turns on: “It’s the doctrine. It’s the fruit of a bad tree.”
Moreover, Wade Burleson is closely associated with the very forefathers of the New Calvinist movement that is the primary target of Wartburg and dubbed the “Calvinistas” by Deb and Dee. The irony and pure ignorance of it all is stunning.
Frankly, Deb and Dee ministering to the spiritually abused is like Dr. Kevorkian caring for someone who has a 50% chance of surviving some horrible disease. Deb and Dee, giving credence to a moderate Calvinism themselves, have bought into the whole sanctification by justification idea. That’s a slow spiritual death.
Moderate Calvinism will continue to pave the way for more and more misery—it must be rejected in totality.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment