Romans 12:11-13; Tithing?
Romans 12:11-13; Tithing?
Thank you for joining us tonight as we continue in our verse by verse study of Paul’s letter to the Romans. We have been in Romans for fourteen months now and have arrived at chapter twelve, and verse eleven:
Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.
In these verses, Paul states some Christian living basics, perhaps the most fundamental: zeal, service to God, rejoicing because of the hope we have, patience that builds endurance from tribulation, prayer, and giving. In chapters 12-15, Paul states many different Christian living principles with a very short commentary on each. Is this the Cliff Notes on a comprehensive catalogue of Christian living topics? I suspect it is. Paul plunges the depths of justification in Chapters 1-11, and now states the most important principles of Christian living in the rest of the letter along with a short commentary on each. Much of the New Testament canon, especially the Pauline epistles, address these topics in more detail. Our main focus tonight is giving, but I will first touch on the other principles.
Paul says to serve the Lord with zeal. You see, the first eleven chapters are the what of justification which is completely God’s work. Chapter 12ff. is the how of our work. Someone might say, “Oh yes Paul, our works flow from our understanding of chapters 1-11.” No, that is not what I am saying at all and that is a lie from the pit of hell. The first eleven chapters are a definition of justification; 12ff. is instruction concerning WORSHIP which is the same thing as Christian living. As Andy Young so aptly taught in lesson 8 of our Acts series, assembling together on Sunday or any other day is not worship, Christian living is worship. I once saw a sign above the entry doors of a sanctuary that stated, “Enter Here to Worship.” That’s really, really bad theology. That’s the woman at the well theology Jesus corrected in their Sunday school lesson at the well.
Therefore, you would expect worship as Christian living to introduce chapter 12ff., and that is exactly the case:
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
“But Paul, it says ‘I appeal to you therefore,’ which means 12ff. is predicated on 1-11.” But in what way? I will tell you: 1-11 defines a finished work of God that cannot be affected in any way by us—it’s a settled issue out of our control, “therefore” we can zealously pursue righteousness in the Christian life. To the degree that 1-11 is intrinsic with 12ff., our zeal must be tempered with caution, for how we interpret 12ff. can then reflect on 1-11. The two must be radically separate; one is a definition of God’s finished work, and the other is instruction for work yet to be accomplished by us. This reality speaks directly to the zeal of our worship (g2999. λατρεία latreia; “service”).
This also speaks to the giving issue when we arrive there and the whole consideration of “tithing”—the subject of our work versus God’s work. This question of dichotomy and difference between the two is in fact a biblical hermeneutic. We can also borrow more understanding on the subject of zealous service in this same chapter:
2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. 3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.
If our thinking is conformed to the world, will that hinder our zealous service? Yes. As we experience discernment and growth, will that provoke a zealous spirit within us? Certainly. Will we be hindered if we are unaware that we have a spiritual gift specifically designed for a particular function in the Christian body? Absolutely. Perhaps these are some things Paul had in mind when he instructed the downtrodden Timothy to “stir up the gift within you” (2Timothy 1:6). It is not uncommon to see commands to master our emotions in the Bible. Feelings are an extremely important element of life quality, and we are given hope that there is a way to experience a happy life in service to God. A most important principle follows: right feelings follow right doing; we command our feelings by what we think and do (Gen 4:6,7, Phil 4:9).
For the most part, “rejoice in hope” speaks for itself, but I will add that an ambiguous definition of our eternal future will dampen hope. We will have more rejoicing in a hope that is well defined versus some ambiguous idea of eternity in heaven.
What does “patience in tribulation” mean? Again, 12ff. is an extensive list of topics in regard to Christian living, and further research is assumed. James wrote of how tribulation can be used to strengthen our resolve and endurance in the Christian life (James 1:2-18). Many important facts about trials can be found in the first chapter of James’ letter to the twelve tribes.
Then we have “constant in prayer.” We can be constant in prayer because prayer has many applications to the Christian life. I am only going to address one. Worry should always be replaced with prayer. This would pertain to things that are out of our control. Worry will destroy you; therefore, if there is something you can do to rectify the cause for the worry, do so. If nothing can be done, put off worry and put on prayer (Phil 4:6, 1Pet 5:7). In Christian circles, prayer often replaces action because Christians don’t know what to do.
This brings us to the target of our message tonight:
Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.
Conspicuously missing in this long list of Paul’s Christian living principles, and under the nomenclature of monetary giving specifically, is a word that saturates the Protestant psyche, the “tithe.” The word means, “a tenth.” The idea that Christians should give a tenth of their income, on the gross (of course, even though Christ clearly said the tax belongs to Caesar), is a gargantuan normality in the Christian church. Yet, where is the word here among these other major concepts of Christian living in chapter twelve and where is it in the New Testament? The word “tithe” appears twice:
Matthew 23:23 – “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
Luke 11:42 – “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
The word “tithes” (plural) appears as follows:
Luke 18:12 – I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get. ‘ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘ God, be merciful to me, a sinner! ‘
The remaining appear in Hebrews chapter 7:1-10 only:
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. 3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.4 See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils!
5 And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. 6 But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8 In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. 9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
like the verse we are looking at tonight, the tithe never appears as a New Testament imperative among multitudes of passages that contain instruction on giving such as the following:
Matthew 6:1 – “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Luke 14:12 – He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”
Acts 2:44,45 (KVJ) – And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Acts 4:32-35 (KVJ) – And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Romans 15:25,26 (KVJ) – But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
2 Corinthians 9:7 (KVJ) – Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
Galatians 6:6 – Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches. 7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
1Timothy 5:3 – Honor widows who are truly widows. 4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. 5 She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, 6 but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. 7 Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, 10 and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. 11 But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry 12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. 13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. 14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. 15 For some have already strayed after Satan. 16 If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows.
17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
James 1:27 – Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
James 2:14 – What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Besides the fact that “need” seems to be the standard for New Testament giving, I would like to direct your attention to Matthew 6:1ff. We have the tithe spoken of a mere three times in the gospels, and in a context that is non-specific to giving. The rest of the references are in Hebrews 7, and again, giving is not the specific subject. But note Matthew 6:1. Like the rest of the New Testament, righteous giving refers to giving that meets need. And this is just reality from someone who has been an evangelical for a long time: the tithe is very difficult to execute in “secret.” In fact, in some evangelical churches, they will bring you up on church discipline if you don’t give 10%. I was at a pastor’s conference and ended up in a debate over cash-in-the-plate tithing. The argument I got from a fairly well known pastor in this area was that cask-in-the-plate tithing was for those who didn’t want to be “accountable” to the church leaders. That’s not secret giving. And listen here, we have all seen it: the politics of big tithing in the church. Few pastors will back down from a big tither on any issue. The “tithe” in and of itself, has created a huge culture of politics in the church.
Last week, I made a request to those who visit the PPT blog for a good information source on tithing/giving. As you know, I usually don’t do that and prefer my own personal study, but the subject of giving is a pretty massive subject that would set me back at least a couple of weeks on this Romans series. Well, I think I hit the jackpot when someone referred me to a book entitled, “Tithing Today, a 19th Century Blunder” by Pastor Gary Arnold © 2009. Before I get into some things that are learned from the book, I want to quote an objection to not tithing cited in the book:
Some will say, if tithing ended, how is the Christian church supposed to be financed? That topic will be covered later in this book (p.21).
He then states later in the book:
These principles apply not only to giving to a church, but for giving in general. Since tithing ended at the cross, the Christian Church must be supported entirely by free-will gifts. We find in the scriptures guidelines for this giving (p.38).
This is where I am going to just pull the cat out of the bag and confess where I have landed on all of this, and this study on tithing has pretty much closed the deal. I believe the New Testament model of home fellowships was not a temporary model, I believe it was meant to be permanent till the Lord returns. I don’t think there is any institutional church to support with a tithe, I believe Christians meet in homes and give their money according to need. A tithe to support a brick and mortar church institution is undoubtedly the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind. Churches teach tithing because institutions are cash hungry beasts. As far as the whole institutional church infrastructure and academic caste system—I just don’t see it in the Bible. This study is just one more example of the many things we have learned in the past year that will never be learned in the institutional church or its seminaries. The whole system is controlled by the traditions of men and what is expedient for the institution.
Before we get into the finer details of Pastor Arnold’s book, let me state our position by launching off of the aforementioned quotation: “the Christian Church must be supported entirely by free-will gifts.” We agree according to the church expressed in local home fellowships, NOT the institutional church. Giving should be free-will and based on need. Arnold seems to base his argument on the abrogation of Old Testament law that pertains to the tithe. In reference to Colossians 2:
This shows that the written code (the law) was cancelled. In Verse 16 this is repeated by “do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, ………. or a Sabbath day.” Verse 17 explains that these laws were “a shadow of the things that were to come,” again showing that the laws were done away with. The word “shadow” was translated from the Greek word “skia” which means darkness of error.
We would only part ways with Arnold here because the text doesn’t say “things that were to come,” but rather, “things to come.” Hence, much of the Old Testament is yet future, and pertaining to Israel. As we have discussed previously, Old Testament covenants as well as the New Covenant build on the foundation of “The Promise” and culminate at the new heavens and new earth. Some of the covenants are “passing away” but are not abrogated. This is the way we look at covenants and eschatology. Here at the Potter’s House, we do not hold to Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, or Dispensationalism, but rather Remnant Theology. This statement can be obtained for free by emailing us your snail mail address.
With that said, the last part of this message will summarize Pastor Arnold’s excellent points on what the tithe was in the Old Testament. And, I wholeheartedly recommend that you download his book at,
TithingToday.com, or NewTestamentGiving.com
Our one disagreement is noted, and I am going to summarize some very important ideas that I have been challenged to consider from this book. Arnold’s presentation of these ideas in the book are very in-depth.
1. Western culture has made the word “tithe” a religious term. In the Bible, it simply means “tenth” or a “tenth” part. It was strictly a mathematical term.
2. The contemporary teachings on the tithe make no distinctions between “assets” and “income.” Arnold argues that the Old Testament tithe was based on assets and not income. Hence, that would be very contradictory to the contemporary approach that calls for at least a 10% tithe on gross income. Arnold also argues that this idea is congruent with when Old Testament believers were supposed to tithe.
The book obliterates all arguments that use Abraham’s tithe and Joseph’s vow as an argument for New Testament tithing.
3. The book makes a distinction between man’s work and God’s work. This subject is ever so important in our day. A man plows, plants and waters, but God gives the increase. Arnold argues that assets primarily come from God’s work, and income is primarily man’s work. He argues that the Old Testament tithe was based on God’s work, or assets, and not ours. Again, his treatise is in-depth in defending this position.
4. The book makes a distinction, by word study, between “giving” and “payment” in the Old Testament and New Testament. “Giving” is freewill, “payment” is compulsory. How these words are used in conjunction with Old Testament and New Testament giving is very interesting.
5. The book makes the case that the Levites were supported by tithes. The tithe never went to God, it went to the Levites. The often used Malachi verse to warn parishioners about robbing God by not tithing was actually addressed to the priests of that day, not God’s people in general:
Nehemiah 13:10 (KJV)
And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them: for the Levites 10 and the singers, that did the work, were fled every one to his field.
I believe this verse is telling us that the priests stole the Levites portion of the tithe; therefore, they had no food to eat at the temple, and they went back to their own fields. We must interpret this verse in this way because nowhere does it say that the priests had also left the temple. The priests had the food. Read chapter 13 of Nehemiah to get the complete picture.
So Malachi 1:14 shows the priests robbed God of the offerings, and Nehemiah 13:10 shows the priests robbed God of the tithes.
Next, in Malachi 3:10 God says to bring all the tithes to the storehouse. The people took the tithes to the Levites who lived in the Levitical cities, not to the temple. The Levites took the required tithe of the tithe to the temple. (See Nehemiah 10:37-38) Only those tithes ever made it to the temple. The priests then took those tithes to the storehouse. It only makes sense if God is speaking to the priests in this verse.
Therefore, I believe that the evidence shows that Malachi 3:8-10 is being addressed to the priests, not the people.
All in all, the book completely dismantles the popular arguments for tithing. I want to conclude this message by drawing from another idea found in this book. Another distinction made by this author was between “definitions” and “interpretations.” I want to add a closing thought to that distinction. When we approach the Bible, are we looking for definitions, or some sort of interpretation? The Ethiopian Eunuch didn’t ask Philip for an interpretation, he asked for an explanation. When we approach life questions concerning how we please God, we need definitive answers. Institutions encourage the following of Interpretations; we call that “orthodoxy.” Whether it be giving or some other life issue, we don’t need interpretations, we need definitions. New Testament giving is defined by need, not the payment of a tax.
John Calvin Heresy 101: Sabbath Salvation
I often hear complaints that Reformed theology is too complicated, and therefore difficult to judge according to its truthfulness. “So, everything seems ok at the Calvinist church I attend, and they talk about the Bible.” Well, this isn’t difficult to understand: Calvin believed you keep yourself saved by living your Christian life according to the Old Testament Sabbath. In what way? Answer: by not doing any works. The Christian life must be lived out as the Sabbath Day, and in the same way that working on the Sabbath was a capital offense in the Old Testament, working in the Christian life will bring spiritual death:
Ezekiel is still more full, but the sum of what he says amounts to this: that the Sabbath is a sign by which Israel might know God is their sanctifier. If our sanctification consists in the mortification of our own will, the analogy between the external sign and the thing signified is most appropriate. We must rest entirely, in order that God may work in us; we must resign our own will, yield up our heart, and abandon all the lusts of the flesh. In short, we must desist from all the acts of our mind, that God working in us, we may rest in him, as the Apostle also teaches (Heb. 3:13; 4:3, 9). [The Calvin Institutes 2.8.29]
And how long, and to what degree should we live out the Sabbath?
Should any expect some secret meaning in the number seven, this being in Scripture the number for perfection, it may have been selected, not without cause, to denote perpetuity. In accordance with this, Moses concludes his description of the succession of day and night on the same day on which he relates that the Lord rested from his works. Another probable reason for the number may be, that the Lord intended that the Sabbath never should be completed before the arrival of the last day. We here begin our blessed rest in him, and daily make new progress in it; but because we must still wage an incessant warfare with the flesh, it should not be consummated until the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah: “From one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord,” (Isaiah 66:23); in other words, when God shall be “all in all,” (1Cor. 15:28). It may seem, therefore, that the seventh day the Lord delineated to his people the future perfection of his sabbath on the last day, that by continual meditation on the sabbath, they might throughout their whole lives aspire to this perfection. [The Calvin Institutes 2.8.30]
In other words, we “aspire” to perfection (when we are ultimately perfected at the resurrection) “by continual meditation on the sabbath.” When I was sharing these Calvin nuggets with my wife Susan, she asked, “How do you not work in the Christian life?” My answer: ‘By meditating on your own sin and God’s grace and holiness, and thereby allowing God to work through you.’ Her next question: “But how do you know when it is God’s work or your work?” My answer: ‘Everything that you do that is a good work is done by God and only EXPERIENCED by you. All sin is your doing, and is an aid to understanding how sinful you are. All the good works experienced by you are imputed or manifested by God. And, Christians are not to live by faith alone, or in other words, live by the Sabbath for the sake of the manifestations. That would be doing something other than living by faith alone’:
He, however, who has emptied himself (cf. Phil. 2:7) through suffering no longer does works but knows that God works and does all things in him. For this reason, whether God does works or not, it is all the same to him. He neither boasts if he does good works, nor is he disturbed if God does not do good works through him. He knows that it is sufficient if he suffers and is brought low by the cross in order to be annihilated all the more…He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ. [Martin Luther: The Heidelberg Disputation ; thesis 24,25]
Christians, according to the Reformers, are completely unable to do any good work pleasing to God:
We must strongly insist on these two things: that no believer ever performed one work which, if tested by the strict judgment of God, could escape condemnation; and, moreover, that were this granted to be possible (though it is not), yet the act being vitiated and polluted by the sins of which it is certain that the author of it is guilty, it is deprived of its merit. [The Calvin Institutes 3.14.11]
So what’s the point? What’s the payoff? Answer: JOY! The more we live by faith alone (Sabbath rest) in the Christian life by focusing on our sin and God’s Holiness, the more we experience the joy of our original salvation. Said Luther:
Now you ask: What then shall we do? Shall we go our way with indifference because we can do nothing but sin? I would reply: By no means. But, having heard this, fall down and pray for grace and place your hope in Christ in whom is our salvation, life, and resurrection. For this reason we are so instructed-for this reason the law makes us aware of sin so that, having recognized our sin, we may seek and receive grace. Thus God »gives grace to the humble« (1 Pet. 5:5), and »whoever humbles himself will be exalted« (Matt. 23:12). The law humbles, grace exalts. The law effects fear and wrath, grace effects hope and mercy. Through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20), through knowledge of sin, however, comes humility, and through humility grace is acquired… Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ.
This is clear from what has been said, for, according to the gospel, the kingdom of heaven is given to children and the humble (Mark 10:14,16), and Christ loves them. They cannot be humble who do not recognize that they are damnable whose sin smells to high heaven. Sin is recognized only through the law. It is apparent that not despair, but rather hope, is preached when we are told that we are sinners. Such preaching concerning sin is a preparation for grace, or it is rather the recognition of sin and faith in such preaching. Yearning for grace wells up when recognition of sin has arisen. A sick person seeks the physician when he recognizes the seriousness of his illness. Therefore one does not give cause for despair or death by telling a sick person about the danger of his illness, but, in effect, one urges him to seek a medical cure. To say that we are nothing and constantly sin when we do the best we can does not mean that we cause people to despair (unless we are fools); rather, we make them concerned about the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. [Heidelberg Disputation: thesis 16, 17]
So, the Christian life is a cycle of seeking mercy by using the Bible (the law) to reveal our wretchedness which results in being “exalted.” It is a perpetual cycle of humbling ourselves resulting in grace (exaltation). Seek mercy—get grace—seek mercy—get grace—seek mercy—get grace. The Reformers called this “mortification and vivification.” This occurs in the Sabbath rest:
Spiritual rest is the mortification of the flesh; so that the sons of God should no longer live to themselves, or indulge their own inclination. So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but insomuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world. [The Complete Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis: Jean Calvin; translated by John King, 1844-1856. Genesis 2:1-15, section 3.]
According to the Reformers, this perpetual cycle of seeking mercy and receiving the joy of grace is in fact their definition of the new birth, and this experience is a congruent deeper and deeper realization of our sinfulness coupled with more and more consistent joy. It is a perpetual reliving of our baptism and the joy thereof (Michael Horton: The Christian Faith; mortification and vivification, pp. 661-663 [Calvin Inst. 3.3.2-9], Paul Washer: The Gospel Call and True Conversion; Part 1, Chapter 1, heading – The Essential Characteristics Of Genuine Repentance, subheading – Continuing and Deepening Work of Repentance, The Heidelberg Disputation These 24, The Complete Biblical Commentary Collection of John Calvin 1844-1856: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, Translated by John Owen | 1Peter 4:1-5, section 2). John Piper added some contemporary philosophical pizazz to this doctrine with his Christian Hedonism doctrine. So, the pay-off is easy believism with the JOY bonus. However, many Calvinists contend that it is really the hard and narrow way because the essence of all sin is: to avoid repentance whether unregenerate or Christian. It is the hard way of Dr. Larry Crabb’s “inside look.” It is “peeling off the layers of sin ” prescribed by CJ Mahaney. Nevertheless, the affront to the Bible command to not rejoice in evil cannot be missed here (1Cor 13:6). Also, we must not miss the point that this is a prescription for keeping ourselves saved by living in the Reformed Sabbath:
And this emptying out of self must proceed so far that the Sabbath is violated even by good works, so long as we regard them as our own; for rightly does Augustine remark in the last chapter of the 22nd book, De Civitate Dei, ‘For even our good works themselves, since they are understood to be rather His than ours, are thus imputed to us for the attaining of that Sabbath, when we are still and see that He is God; for, if we attribute them to ourselves, they will be servile, whereas we are told as to the Sabbath, “Thou shalt not do any servile work in it.” [The Complete Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis: Jean Calvin; translated by Charles William Bingham ,1844-1856. The Harmony of the Law: Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses | Its Repetition—Deuteronomy 5:12-15. ¶2]
In essence, this is salvation by Christ + the Reformed Sabbath Rest. It is living in a cycle of seeking knowledge of our sin in order to better appreciate the cross. Our salvation is not finished, we must “keep ourselves in the love of Christ” (CJ Mahaney). We must keep ourselves in the Reformed Sabbath for the “attaining of that Sabbath.”
paul
Albert Mohler, Nelson Mandela, and the Crusade for a New Calvinist Host
I have to think long and hard these days for something that annoys me more than Albert Mohler. His presidency at Southern Seminary is a boondoggle rivaled only by the election of Barak Obama, who is, by the way, advocated by Mohler. As the world was blessed with another week, Mohler failed not to mark his territory with an article about the passing of Nelson Mandela lest the world not know his opinion about it. Hence, the Louisville Kool-Aid drinkers who wait with bated breath for his unctions from on high are now apprised.
The article compared Nelson Mandela to George Washington. Ok, the buffoonery of that theses aside, why does Mohler meddle in this stuff? What makes the president of Southern Seminary a political player? For crying out loud, why does Mohler, Piper et al weigh in on every political tryst that comes down the pike? Why did a lot of these guys vote for Barak Obama? Answer: Calvinist history predicated by Calvinist need.
As you know, New Calvinism is the latest resurgence of authentic Reformed doctrine. Historically, authentic Calvinism dies a social death and experiences periodic resurgences in 100-year cycles. New Calvinism is the fifth resurgence since Calvin’s Geneva. Volume 2 of TTANC will document the history of these cycles and the reasons for them.
Protestantism is predicated on passive sanctification/Christian living. Therefore, in an attempt to stop the death spiral Protestantism finds itself in from time to time because it is a light form of its original lager recipe, it attempts to go back to the original recipe for a solution. The only solution in history since the Reformation that offered aggressive sanctification as a solution was the biblical counseling movement founded by Dr. Jay Adams. However, his movement was spawned in the same year that New Calvinism was born (1970), and a war ensued accordingly.
The true biblical counseling movement and its aggressive sanctification lost the war. I witnessed the movement and was involved in it firsthand when it really started
Target Publication 2015
making a radical difference in Christianity circa 1990. New Calvinism (then known as Sonship Theology), infiltrated the true biblical counseling movement through Westminster Seminary and effectively destroyed it by 2006. The high priest of this inquisition was Dr. David Powlison who was a mentoree of the father of Sonship Theology, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. I therefore assume that Powlison will one day receive his just reward for snuffing out one of the most significant revivals in church history.
There are six reasons authentic Calvinism dies:
1. Protestantism was founded on the ancient ideology of spiritual caste. As a result, the Reformation gospel integrated Neo-Platonism with the Bible and offered not just a different gospel, but an entirely different way to interpret reality. Luther, taking his cue from St. Augustine, made the cross the sum of epistemology in and of itself. Many didn’t understand this and still don’t.
In other words, the Reformers interpreted reality through a redemptive prism, while the natural tendency is to interpret reality grammatically. The former believes that creation is a narrative that points to nothing but redemption; the latter doesn’t reject the idea that redemption is referred to in some way, but also believes other things are going on, and the plain sense of words are the key to understanding reality. The redemptive view of reality relies heavily on allegory because it demands a redemptive outcome.
The Reformers actually believed, as many do today, that a grammatical interpretation of reality is synonymous with works salvation and the glory of man. This was Luther’s epistemology. New Calvinists such as Paul David Tripp and Rick Holland have said that a literal, exegetical approach to Scripture separates us from the saving works of Christ (Tripp), and makes bad theology (Holland). Salvation is therefore married to redemptive eisegesis.
Hence, as time progressed, redemptive Protestants grew fewer, and grammatical Protestants increased in number. Remember, at issue is the very interpretation of reality itself. This has resulted in the present-day reality of redemptive Calvinists and grammatical Calvinists; ie., “Old Calvinists” and “New Calvinists.” Both claim Calvin, the former unwittingly. Therefore, in the midst of these resurgences, you have Calvinists fighting Calvinists. Examples of this are ample in church history and will be detailed in TTANC2. Along with every resurgence is an antinomian controversy between Calvinists.
The first point here is that authentic Calvinism dies a social death because its contra intuitive interpretation of reality is a natural anomaly. As it dies, it is replaced with the weaker form that came from it, and a need for solutions once again arise, and the original once again presents itself as the solution: “See, we have gotten away from our roots. That’s the problem.”
2. The original calls for a perpetual revisiting of the same gospel that saved us. This simply becomes boring and people lose interest. Susan and I have recently visited New Calvinist churches that were on fire in the early 80s. They are now deader than dead. Imagine our teenage son pointing this out without any cue from Susan and me at all.
3. The doctrine does not produce spiritual growth which results in a plethora of negative issues that arise from spiritual immaturity. See Hebrews 5:11-6:8. Infants in adult bodies will eventually devour each other.
4. The spiritual tyranny that is ALWAYS part and parcel with this doctrine. Remember, it is basically a spiritual cast system that puts a high premium on control.
5. God’s people eventually figure out that it is a false doctrine.
6. Ultimately, it needs to survive by getting in bed with the government as a way to enforce its orthodoxy. If this doesn’t happen, reasons 1-5 result in its death. Everyone agrees that the Enlightenment era destroyed authentic Reformed orthodoxy because it severed church and state—first in America, and then Europe followed. When this happened, it resulted in the proliferation of cults because government force had to be replaced with various forms of manipulation and mind control.
And this is why New Calvinists such as Albert Mohler are so politically minded. Authentic Calvinism has always been a parasite that will ultimately die unless it finds a government host. Be sure of it: this is what happened to the colonial Puritans, they were kept out of the American political process when they attempted to use the American Constitution to enforce their orthodoxy. This resulted in the death of American Puritanism. Before the American Revolution, the Colonies were Puritan theocracies.
Mohler et al knows their movement will eventually die unless they can use the government to enforce it, and this is behind their liberal political leanings. It takes a collectivist government to enforce a collectivist religion. They know this; hence, “No Government is perfect.” This is why Mohler thinks that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” This is why Mohler thinks the differences between Washington and Mandela are “ironic” despite the fact that Mandela was a communist.
Frankly, I believe that this is why John Piper retired from the pastorate and made a video in Geneva that announced his future vision. New Calvinists will continue to become more and more involved in the political realm. There is an agenda to get in bed with the state in order to enforce their faith. If they don’t, history will repeat itself—they know this. They will go the way of the colonial Puritans.
This is just simply history. Calvinists will do what Calvinists have always done. Sure, grammatical Calvinists may deny this historic agenda because they don’t get it, but the authentic Calvinists do get it…
It’s about the collectivist parasite feeding from the host of individualism.
paul
Is Calvinism the Same Kind of False Gospel that Plagued the Hebrews?
Calvinism is the “golden chain of salvation.” Justification by faith alone, one of the five solas, means that we are justified by faith alone, but Calvin taught that justification is a PROCESS that extends from when we were saved until final justification at the resurrection where the sons of God will be “made manifest.” This is opposed to seeing justification as a finished work, a onetime factual declaration. We are practically just because we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit via the new birth which is also a onetime final work. A birth is a onetime event.
However, if you see justification as a PROCESS from salvation to glorification, the Christian life must be lived by…what? Right, faith alone. This is just another dirty little secret behind the Reformed bumper sticker. Justification by faith alone also means sanctification by faith alone. And since justification is not a onetime finished work, we can never be worthy of not needing justification; hence, total depravity also pertains to the saints—another devil in the detail of a Reformed bumper sticker.
Furthermore, if justification is a process, we need to stay in that process till the end, right? How? Well, the same way we have always been justified, by faith and repentance alone for justification. If we are in the justification process, we need to live by the same repentance and faith that saved us—alone. This is how Calvin stated it:
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death—viz. ablution, satisfaction, expiation;
Hence, it stands to reason that new sins separate us from justification, and the perpetual need for Christ’s mediation is needed:
…by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God… Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God.
Calvinists call this “deep repentance.” So, the Christian life, according to Calvinism, focuses on a “lifestyle of repentance and faith” (Paul David Tripp).
Now consider Hebrews 6:1-6. The Hebrew writer seems to be introducing this same idea of revisiting the doctrine of our original salvation rather than moving on to something else:
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit.
The Hebrew writer says to not lay again the “foundation” of faith and repentance. This is in direct contradiction to Calvinism and its “lifestyle of faith and repentance” within the PROCESS of justification. But what the Hebrew writer says after that is even more interesting:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Note: the Hebrew writer is saying that it is impossible to return to the same repentance that saved us. Again, this is in direct contradiction to Calvinism. Also, Calvinism teaches that when one re-repents (mortification), they experience “vivification.” The specific Reformed theological term is mortification and vivification. Vivification can certainly be classified as a “heavenly gift… and the powers of the world to come.” New Calvinists refer to it as a “treasure trove of joy” (John Piper). It is “living out our baptism” (Michael Horton). But the Hebrew writer is clearly saying: that is impossible if one falls into a state where the same repentance that saved us is needed again. This is a contradiction to mortification and vivification.
And lastly, even if it were possible: “seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” Remember, Calvin said that the death of Christ continues to be a mediation and perpetual ablution (washing).
Is Calvinism a return to the same heresy that plagued the Hebrews? It sure looks like it.
paul
The Gospel According to Dr. David Allen and Al Mohler: Is the Official Southern Baptist Gospel Biblical?
“So, what is it exactly that both camps agree with? What is this Calvinism that is fundamentally orthodox according to Dr. David Allen?”
Well, yesterday was full of learning. I think the most important thing I learned is that Southern Baptist leaders are like wrestlers in the World Wrestling Federation. They fight in the ring, and go out together for beer afterwards. Another thing I learned is that both parties (Calvinists/Arminians) have a vested financial interest in keeping the SBC undivided. Truth is not the issue here, at issue is the salvation of the SBC financial machine monetized by the sheep they deem as still totally depraved. And sadly, like WWF fans, the sheep think these guys are really fighting.
Some of my wisest mentors have been totally depraved. Not in regard to ethics, but in regard to reality. As a young, and naive new restaurant assistant manager, the elderly general manager sat me down and stated, “Paul, this is how it works; if you prefer, rape the waitresses, steal the food, and put stuff in the customer’s meals, but don’t mess with the money.” I fear the SBC is little different.
Calvinism versus Arminianism in the SBC? “The Watershed issue in the SBC for the next 5-10 years”? How many SBC parishioners watch WWF? Bless their hearts, in the same way that WWF fans love their favorite wrestlers, many SBC congregants love the “T” word: truth. That’s a problem. At this year’s John 3:16 Conference, a couple of young restaurant managers asked the Southwestern Seminary elites what they were going to do about the Calvinist problem in the SBC. Dr. David Allen, the wise general manager, set them straight. Those Calvinists are our brothers, and Calvinism is not outside of “Christian orthodoxy.” And it goes without saying that Al Mohler over at Southern, “ground zero for the Neo-Calvinist movement,” would agree with Allen wholeheartedly. As one leader stated during the same conference, the big match is “a family matter.” Yes Sally May, bring us another round.
Both parties even have mutual foes that disrupt family harmony. Dr. James White points to those pesky hyper Arminians while Dr. Allen points to those pesky hyper Calvinists. As a pastor you learn one thing in a hurry: if you want a two party beat down, get in the middle of a family dispute and take sides.
So, both sides agree: there are merely residual disagreements in regard to Calvinism, but fundamentally, it is “orthodox.” So why the conference? That answer becomes as easy as A,B,C: the fans shouldn’t expect the wrestlers to really kill each other, that wouldn’t be Christian-like. The conference wasn’t a stand for the truth, it was wise counsel from the general managers to the fans. They said as much:
This strand of Baptist life, Caner said, ran concurrent with the stronger Calvinistic one from the Philadelphia Baptist Association and both have existed within Southern Baptist life since the founding of the convention.
Caner asserted that much of the theological disunity could be resolved if there was more evangelistic methodological unity, particularly using an altar call.
Southern Baptist history, Caner said, demonstrates that revival and the methods of evangelism associated with historic “revival meetings” will be what halts “discussion over doctrinal differences” and stops “theological infighting.”
So, what is it exactly that both camps agree with? What is this Calvinism that is fundamentally orthodox according to Dr. David Allen? Well, in the Calvin Institutes, Calvin teaches that the “washing”; i.e., salvation, is “perpetual,” and the atoning work of Christ on the cross is also perpetual (3.14.11). I kid you not.
In 4.1.21,22, and elsewhere, Calvin states that sins committed in the Christian life separate us from grace, and we must therefore receive daily salvific forgiveness of sins, and this forgiveness can only be found in the institutional church and under the authority of pastors. This should give relevant meaning to the “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day” jingle that is popular among SBC leaders.
I could go on and on and on with examples, but you get the point.
The SBC fans are paying good money to have their gospel picked for them while the SBC elite laugh about it at the local pub over a few cold ones. It’s time for that gig to be over.
Trust me, the fans have God’s permission to choose their own gospel. You do not have to go to a conference to get permission from elitist charlatans. Take me for instance, I am a licensed Southern Baptist pastor, and I confess that Dr. David Allen can take his false gospel and stuff it in a place of his choosing. No pun intended.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment