In Regard to the Newest Neo-Calvinist Controversy: This Post is for Christians Who Don’t Want to be Confused
“Here is why these guys want to have a debate in order to keep people confused: the dirty little secret is; the Reformed false gospel is a matter of simple theological math.”
The Neo-Calvinist movement that has taken over this country has also created a hobby- like subculture via the blogosphere. This theological Entertainment Tonight subculture drifts from one controversy to the next with the WadeWatch blog leading the way.
It’s pretty obvious at this point that none of this is about truth and solutions, but rather a wallowing in confusion for the sake of drama. Neo-Calvinist leaders are all but deliberately keeping people confused, and to a great degree, that’s what Christians want. The Scriptures state plainly that in the latter days people will heap to themselves teachers with itching ears. And this is nothing new; Paul exhorted Timothy to avoid endless controversies. Come now, let’s be honest; “endless controversies” describes our church culture to a “T.”
The newest recycled “controversy” is more wrangling over the first, second, and third use of the law, or the law/gospel discussion. As a new Christian in the early 80’s I was perplexed by the fact that pastors don’t teach theology in the local churches, but of course now I understand exactly why that is and have written on the subject extensively. Knowledge empowers the individual, and Protestantism came out of the same power politics that dominated the Dark Ages.
One of the greatest misnomers of contemporary history is the idea that the Reformers wanted to make the word of God available to the masses. Personally, I believe the mass printing of Bibles was an unintended consequence of the Reformation. But regardless of where you stand on that, the Reformers rendered the Bible useless by making it a commentary on two things and two things only: the total depravity of mankind, including Christians, as set against the holiness of God.
This dualist interpretation of reality is the very foundation of Protestantism. In the same way that light defines darkness and darkness defines light, man and God are more and more defined by a deeper and deeper knowledge of each. This is the same old regurgitated metaphysics that has driven state as god from the cradle of civilization, founded all of Eastern religion, defined and given dignity by Plato, and integrated into the Bible by the big three of the Reformation; Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Luther laid the foundation in the Heidelberg Disputation, and Calvin expanded it into a full-orbed philosophical statement in his Institutes. Therefore, ALL of the Institutes flow from 1.1.1and the first sentence thereof:
Our wisdom, insofar as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and ourselves.
Of course, it is no secret how Calvin and Luther defined “ourselves.” This is not the least bit complicated, below is the most widely distributed illustration of the Reformed gospel in our day (click on to enlarge if needed):
Look, as a Segway into the latest controversy, let me point out that Tullian Tchividjian did NOT create that illustration. But yet, the same people who criticize him have used this illustration themselves to teach the Reformed gospel. And well they should, it is a concise and astute depiction of Calvinism.
Sigh. This is NOT complicated.
If we have any goodness in us at all, what gets smaller? “The cross.” Very good class. If we have any goodness in us at all, is knowledge of God’s holiness increased or diminished? “Diminished.” Very good class. If we have a less and less realization of how wicked we are, is our appreciation for the cross increased or diminished? “Diminished” Is that goody-woody? “No.”
Oh my, we are on a roll!
What in the Sam Hell is complicated about this? Yet, another clueless Christian starts the newest controversy by writing the following post:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2014/05/02/failure-is-not-a-virtue/
Tullian Tchividjian then rebuked her in a follow-up post using his usual red herrings: stuff about people believing that the power for change is in the written word; viz, law. The argument concerning power being in the paper, ink, and leather of a Bible is soooooo worn out that when I hear it, again, I just want to cry from utter disgust.
Now, the controversy plot thickens because some thirty something YRR comes riding in on a white horse of confusion to save the poor little Reformed damsel who doesn’t have a clue to begin with. Sure, it seems like she gets it to a point until you find out she sits under Matt Chandler who no whit, in principle, has any gospel disagreements with Tchividjian. He (Mark Jones) has challenged Tchividjian to a debate which will only serve to further confuse because that’s the goal. Apparently, the debate centers on the first, second, and third use of the law. This is the same old Reformed red herring that is one of the primary mainstays (other than the election debate) used to deliberately keep God’s people confused and dependent on these narcissistic Reformed hacks.
Confusion is the goal, and they know it. It’s deliberate for purposes of control. I stand behind that statement 200%.
But let me clear up the confusion on law because that is easy also. Here is why these guys want to have a debate in order to keep people confused: the dirty little secret is; the Reformed false gospel is a matter of simple theological math. Calvin believed that the law is the standard for justification as opposed to justification being APART from the law. According to RC Sproul, the third use of the law reveals the righteousness of God. That sounds completely reasonable, but is the very problem itself with Calvin’s false gospel.
“But Paul, what then is the standard for justification? ‘God’s righteousness.’” “Right, the law reveals God’s righteousness. ‘For justification or sanctification?’” “For justification. ‘No.’” “Then what is the standard for justification? ‘God’s righteousness imputed to us apart from the law.’”
See, the problem is, if the law is the standard for justification, a perfect fulfilling and maintaining of it must be sustained in order to keep God’s people saved; viz, justified. Justification is then not a finished work, a perfect keeping of the law must be maintained to keep us saved. And of course, we can’t do that, so we must live our Christian lives by faith alone so that the perfect obedience of Christ is perpetually applied to the law in our stead. The law is the standard and that not apart from justification. The apostle Paul made this point in several different ways throughout his epistles: there is NO law in justification. “Apart” means a-p-a-r-t. (Read the Brinsmead excerpt on pp. 10, 11 of It’s Not About Election http://www.7questions.org/its-not-about-election-read-here.html ).
And Tullian Tchividjian gets that. A perfect keeping of the law must be maintained in the Christian’s stead by a perpetual reapplication of the cross. Being interpreted: living by the cross via faith alone in sanctification. If we obey by “jumping from the imperative to our own effort,” we circumvent the ongoing works of the cross. Is justification finished or not finished? Read the title of chapter 14 in book 3 of the Calvin Institutes; that should answer your question.
I have a better idea. I hereby challenge Tchividjian and Jones to a debate at a place of their choosing even though I am just a dumb hillbilly from Portsmouth, Ohio. I don’t need to be smart—this is simple theological math. Calvin was fundamentally wrong on law; throw around all of your ganky Reformed phraseology all you want to—I will bring you right back to the difference between what Paul said and what the heretic John Calvin plainly said. I am sure that if one or both agree to the debate and will not come to Xenia, Ohio, PPT readers would be more than happy to donate to the cause.
Hide behind the whole idea that I am not worthy of your platform because of my lack of education if you will—that’s what James White did, and that’s all you have. And frankly, there are many Arminians strewn about who know this simple theological math is the issue, but like you, if they reveal that, they will no longer be needed as well.
Confusion and ignorance is what puts bread on your table: you are all a disgrace to the gospel of God.
paul
The NFL Joins the Institutional Church and its Judgment Wars
I try to make it a habit as much as possible to not comment on things that I haven’t educated myself on. One of those things is open-air evangelism or cold calling evangelism. It SEEMS to me that the biblical flavor is lifestyle evangelism; i.e., people see something they like about your life and ask what’s behind it. As a former business owner, I wouldn’t hire anyone who came in selling themselves as a Christian figuring they had to tell me because their life wasn’t going to tell me. I figured that to be bad for business. Besides, I learned that rule the hard way; professing Christians are among the worst employees that I ever managed hands down. The three best employees I ever had never told me they were Christians—it became evident over time.
Moreover, when I need services, I avoid the Christian Blue Pages like the plague; professing Christians are among the biggest crooks and business lowlifes that I have ever encountered. The apostle Peter nailed it: there is a tendency to use grace as a cloak for unrighteousness; especially in our day, when “real” Christians realize that we are to proclaim the gospel rather than attempt to “be the gospel” with our lives.
And here is another position of mine as far as where I stand to date: I don’t give a rat’s behind about how you live your life because I firmly believe that we will all stand before God to give an account face to face. I don’t go places and flaunt my beliefs; I don’t have a plastic fish on my car, and as far as your concern that I accept your moral equivalence, save it for God bubba.
With that said, let me reiterate the fact that a blog has an internet address; people are free to come here or not come here, and I write a lot about the big picture problem of forced participation. In countries like Russia and China, events like May Day (and in the case of China, public executions), are not voluntary in regard to attendance; they are mandatory.
America is the first country in the history of the world to separate religion from the state. The sole purpose of the state, according to the American experiment, is to facilitate the freedom of the individual to pursue life and happiness. It was founded on the principle that individualism does not lead to chaos and lawlessness. The principle recognized that governments are made up of individuals, so the problem becomes whose individualism rules? That problem, according to the tyrant side of us, is solved by determinism, or predestination; viz, a higher power of your choosing owns man and the truth, and has selected a few to rule over the many.
That is why I have abandoned my paradoxical view of election and am taking a much closer look; determinism’s role in history is conspicuous and scandalous. I seriously doubt any mass grave has been dug without the shovel of determinism, and anything deemed a higher power is religion—call it science till the cows come home if you must.
So, for the first time in human history, the rules have changed because of America; politics must destroy individualism so that we can once again return to our Neanderthal ways of the few ruling over the many. Behind the appearance of polished intellectualism and elitist religion is a caveman, club in hand, dragging a woman back to the cave by her hair.
I have never been comfortable with NFL players flaunting their Christianity on national TV. Why? The NFL is an institution of entertainment. I have been a rabid football fan for many years, and until recently, the institution knew its place in American culture. But now, it is church with its self-appointed Pope: Saint Bob Costas the First. I don’t watch football to get views on gun control, that’s Fox news. I don’t watch football to get the latest scoop on what fame and money does to some people, that’s ET.
Herein lays the problem of not keeping institutions confined to a specific purpose: judgment wars and political wrangling. Much of it starts with misguided Christianity that believes the power is in the mere proclamation of the name. “La, la, la, la, there is power in the name of Jesus.” No there isn’t, there is power in the life of Jesus, the one you live. TV viewers can’t see your life off the football field, so shut up, you’re stupid. This is America and its practical culture of freedom, now that you have said hurrah for our side, others begin to say the same, and now someone must judge as to who has the right to say hurrah and who doesn’t.
This is why Christianity was never an institution. It has always been an organic assembly of Christ. It is an assembly that does not get wrapped up in institutional politics. If Jesus liked sports, which one He likes is not stated in the Bible, and trust me, that is very deliberate. God does not grant any football team victory in any game because of their Christian players. You are not a great football player because it is your destiny. God is not going to take away your football powers or enhance your football powers depending on your televised verbal or symbolic displays, just ask Tim Tebow.
Now what we have is a big mess and many people like me who will probably stop watching football. Invariably, starting with Football Players for Jesus, we now have Football Players for Gay Pride as personified by a NBA player and a NFL player coming out of the closet. Let the Judgment games begin. This is America, once you start that game, there is no authority that can stop it, and it all started with Christians who prefer symbolism over substance, and are also arrogant per the presumption that being Christian is synonymous with the divine right of kings—the assumption that no other group would have the audacity to claim equal free speech bestowed on Christians by the gods. This is also part and parcel with the institutional church that has traditionally held to Dominion theology. It is the goal of the church to take over the world to the glory of God, football far from being excluded.
Football Players for Gay Pride have different ideas. Now, guess what? I can no longer watch football without Pope Bob Costas telling me that I am a bigot because I disagree with the gay lifestyle. Now, guess who doesn’t have the right to believe what I want to believe? Sure, I can believe it, as it stands for now, I just can’t watch a football game without being rebuked for it. We also have people losing their careers and means of livelihoods for things they said in private conversations. Why are such things newsworthy on sports TV?
My beef in all of this is the institutional church and its sectarian ways. “Sect” is a Bible word that means, “to divide by false doctrine.” Once again, the institutional church with its collectivism, determinism, dominionism, sectarianism, antinomianism, and symbolism over substance has started an unnecessary fight. For crying out loud, I go to a grocery store that has an excellent cashier who is also gay; am I going to picket the store and demand that she dress different or be fired? No, Jesus didn’t set any such example.
I believe Christians will suffer their fair share of genuine persecution, but I also believe that historical martyrdom has often been little more than political intrigue incited by a dominionist mentality. The world will have enough churches of its own making without ignorant Christians provoking new upstarts. The prime example is the new Gay Church of the NFL with Bob Costas as its first Pope. This is historically typical of how the institutional church divides people and has in fact started the majority of civil wars throughout history.
In contrast, Christ’s organic assemblies focus on making disciples and leaving judgment to God. That doesn’t mean that we don’t discern, nor does it mean that we don’t tell it like it is when somebody asks, but it does mean that we strive to be at peace with ALL men as much as it depends on us. Like Christ, we recognize that man is free to bear the fruits of his own life, and in the end, will not have anybody to blame but himself.
paul
As Predicted by PPT: Mike Fabarez and Compass Bible Church Chooses New Calvinism over Truth
Mike Fabarez has caved-in from the pressure to be like everyone else. He has sold out and prostituted himself in the worst way possible: his coronation into the New Calvinist cartel will be at a conference that is CJ Mahaney’s return to the New Calvinist limelight. Heretic Steve Lawson and Neo-Gnostic Rick Holland have decided to expend/risk political influence by standing with Mahaney at the same conference: Anchored 2014.
Undoubtedly, because of his former cause of “Aggressive Sanctification,” Fabarez has been drafted to go along with Jerry Wragg and Kevin DeYoung as the, We believe that believers have a roll in sanctification other than faith alone (wink wink) contingency of the New Calvinist cartel. Like Wragg, Tullian Tchividjian is the target for Fabarez as well because Tchividjian lacks nuance in teaching the exact same thing that they all believe: progressive justification. However, Fabarez was against Tchividjian before he was for him.
The Neo-Calvinists are so utterly vile that one is endeared to Tchividjian for his honesty about what he believes. This also points to his respect for others in regard to not teaching nuanced “truth” that the totally depraved herd is, “not ready for yet.” This also points to his bravery in, The truth is the truth whether folks are ready for it or not so I am going to teach what Luther believed plainly and let the chips fall where they may. Now see, that’s commendable. Furthermore, it would appear that Tullian refuses to hang-out with doctrinal vagrants that get caught in criminal acts and are unrepentant. You have to respect that.
Following is the article that predicted the apostasy that has unfolded:
“< Tweet, Tweet
Calvinism is a political animal of predestined rulers ruling over the destiny of the totally depraved masses.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments