A Frank Discussion About Homosexuality, Church Membership, and Joy Wickholm Bennett Tyranny
“This post isn’t so much about her, it is about the fact that she exemplifies a very important distinction in the realm of philosophical politics; that of the individualist versus the collectivist….That’s what we need to know about New Calvinists beyond the fact that they hold to a false gospel. They are collectivists.”
Tyranny always introduces itself with a kind understanding hand. Tyrants always feel your pain until the day that they inflict it. As a matter of necessity they also pose themselves as people who care about right and wrong. No, the only “right” is their collectivist doctrine. You can say sin is the cause for every drop of blood spilled on the earth, but past that, the question of the individual versus “the group” is the arena where that blood is spilled.
Until God Himself comes to rule the earth, two basic philosophies prevail about what is the best way to order society until that happens: confidence in the ability of the individual and a government that creates an environment where that can flourish, or confidence in an elite few who must rule over the incompetent, unenlightened masses. The elite few have always been those who claim access to a faraway enlightenment that is too difficult for the unenlightened masses to access. Plato, the undisputed psyche of Western culture, believed that only an elite few were willing to invest in the study necessary to obtain that enlightenment, and their ability to do so was predetermined within their particular pedigree. Plato, being a mentoree of the Hindus, believed that man’s soul reflected the ideal society, and each person was born a producer, a soldier, or a philosopher (spiritual or secular caste).
Moses and the apostle John disagreed on faraway enlightenment that needed to be mined by the spiritual or philosophical elite. Moses told the Israelites that no one needed to go up to heaven and bring the word down. He said it was very near to them and they were able to understand it. John said we have no need for anyone to teach us. John in particular was refuting the Gnosticism that was wreaking havoc on the early church, the same Gnosticism that has its origins in Plato.
Individualism is the arch enemy of collectivism. In collectivism, it is never about right or wrong, it is about being obedient to what’s best for “the group.” And don’t miss this: there is only one thing that is bad for the group; INDIVIDUALISM. This is the crux of the little tiff I had with blogger Joy Wickholm Bennett this week. I assume her and hubby Scott Bennett are still members of a…. or the…. New Calvinist church I last heard about. Her edgy public writing is no problem there because she is like many New Calvinists: they are allowed to play in their sandbox of ideas as long as they don’t do anything that unsettles the herd. And not keeping me on a short leash in regard to what “the group” did to me could jeopardize the freedom granted her at this time. We see this as a constant pattern in the testimonies we receive at TANC. It goes like this:
We were in marriage counseling and my spouse was being fingered for being the problem in our marriage. Then I started asking questions about doctrine. At the very next counseling session, I was all of a sudden the problem and not my spouse.
And let me throw my very own testimony on that heap. But the point here is the very valuable lesson I learned in regard to the fray. New Calvinists can play in their antinomian sandboxes as specified by their New Calvinist masters. They can be anything they want to pretend to be, just so it doesn’t reveal where any bodies are buried. While Bennett sells herself as a freethinking hipster, she is ultimately enslaved to the group and their tyranny. She is the personification of the SGM mentality.
Nevertheless, like so many of her liberal types, she accuses individualists of being “mandatory” in their thinking. The subject was homosexuality. This post isn’t so much about her, it is about the fact that she exemplifies a very important distinction in the realm of philosophical politics; that of the individualist versus the collectivist.
As a Biblicist, I am on a journey right now. How should separatism be defined? In the real world. As a Christian, if I have a boss that is gay, it is mandatory that you respect that boss. That’s the Bible. And by the way, homosexuals can be very good bosses. I doubt many care whether you are a Christian or not, there primary concern, if they are smart and many are, is how you make them look to their superiors. So, venue considerations are huge here. Moreover, I strongly contend that the Bible would teach a winning over by job performance alone in that venue.
Let me be clear here: I have friends and relatives who are homosexuals. Let me also be clear on this as well, they know where I stand on the issue. In these relationships, I think venue and mutual respect is the key here. Neither position is in the closet, nor is either thrown in the face of the other. They know that if they want a debate or counsel on the issue, they can readily find it with me. My duty is twofold: that my position is known, and that I then live out the substance of that position.
But there is also another angle here, collectivist versus individualist. In some collectivist societies not tempered by the American Constitution, homosexuals are executed. As Christians, are we up with that? Look, please, be a Biblicist like me, just don’t be an idiot about it. In regard to the upstart Potter’s House, would we allow homosexuals to be members? No, but on the other hand, The Potter’s House is a movement away from Protestant tradition, so we are still working through what true biblical membership really is to begin with. There are many, many unnecessary debates in the church because of Protestant tradition.
Would we allow a homosexual to attend our fellowship to hear our ideas while respecting our venue? Well, I look forward to hashing these things out as we grow, but right now, I would say, “yes.” But stop right now and put this in neon lights:
In collectivist societies, depending on the stripe, and there are many, what is deemed best for the group, is DICTATED by the few via civil law. And that may very well be homosexuality. In other words, the day may come when it would be against the law for the formal church to exclude, or include, homosexuality. And keep in mind, let me repeat that, “keep in mind,” an individualistic homosexual would be against mandatory inclusion.
The question is, how much tradition throws churches into this fray unnecessarily? And second, should Christians be more involved with social morality or the political philosophy that will dictate it to begin with? How we approach a problem is often smarter than a narrow focus on not compromising beliefs. Here is the danger, and please put this in neon lights as well:
“Moral” friends are often collectivists. And if they are put in power, that is something that has NEVER turned out well in all of human history.
Now, this brings me to the dangers of fleeing to those who share our same opinions. And worst yet, wanting them to have power. Are they collectivists, or are they individualists? One will allow you to have your own beliefs under reasonable constructs while being concerned for your wellbeing; the other will not tolerate a differing opinion because they believe it is a threat to society as a whole. Enforcing orthodoxy by the sword is a matter concerning the survival of mankind in their minds.
That’s what we need to know about New Calvinists beyond the fact that they hold to a false gospel. They are collectivists. And there is nothing “new” about it, Calvin was a collectivist extraordinaire. And that’s Joy Wickholm Bennett. She is the epitome of a collectivist. She lost the argument, so instead of being persuaded by the argument, she censored me. Siding with the collectivists that committed a criminal act against me was merely par. I was on a short leash for that reason to begin with. Her reaction was the result of two factors: one, she lost the argument; two, her sandbox was being threatened. Hence, we have a definition of collectivism:
Collectivism will not lose an argument or learn from it because it possesses an elitist knowledge that will save the world from itself.
And let’s look at her argument. In regard to homosexuals, deterministic. Go figure. Homosexuals are born with the desires that they have and have no control over those desires. Nobody chooses their desires, they are born with them. During our little tiff, she asked me when I chose to lust after women. My argument was that no Christian is enslaved to any desire save those that please God. I specifically argued that her determinist view was ironically making the homosexual the judge over a pedophile. Both have a desire, but she was judging deterministic desires as having different moral values. One should change, the other can’t?
Don’t misconstrue my point: at issue is the ability to change if one so desires. At issue is the rejection of determinism. At issue is choice.
Game over. Bennett, like all collectivists, will not lose an argument. And if she has the authority, she will have you burned at the stake just like her Great Uncle Calvin. Liberals don’t worry me, collectivist liberals worry me. Bennett is a collectivist liberal Calvinist. I like conservatives better, but a collectivist conservative is no less a danger. And don’t miss the way her collectivist determinism transcends liberalism and conservatism.
Hope lies in individualistic Biblicism. It also sees any kind of individualism as offering more hope than any of Plato’s relatives. That is a legacy punctuated with fire and death. It is a philosophy that always comes selling itself as freedom that results in bondage. Like Bennett, it whispers to many that it was predetermined that they are that way, and in their elite wisdom happy hopelessness can be found.
paul
Some of the following are screen shots of what Bennett deleted. Other aforementioned arguments were deleted before I could screenshot them.
No Joy, as you know, they held me hostage to membership at CCC after I left biblically by letter under threat of ruining my reputation for months. That’s not a feud, it’s a criminal act. And that is ok with you because you are a tyrant just like they are.
Israel: The Capstone of Justification; Part 2
A Protestant tradition among its so-called elders is the incessant wrangling over philosophical knowledge. Past the Protestant golden rule of orthodoxy canned for the totally depraved unenlightened masses, the “humbleness” of not knowing anything for certain rules the day. This is a Protestant family tradition.
This abrogation of truth is rife in regard to the subject of Bible prophecy. The logical conclusion is that 25% of the Bible which comprises prophecy is composed by a capricious god who enjoys confusing his children by writing things they can’t understand.
But I suspect the real concern is that the saints, by and large, will obtain a solid understanding of justification through Bible prophecy. Wisdom and understanding does not lend itself to control. True wisdom and understanding places confidence in God and not the traditions of men. Justification, the covenants, and prophecy fit together in one unified explanation of truth. The truth sets people free.
Justification is the goal, the covenants are the application and building of the plan, and prophecy explains the final outcome. God’s people are to know the goal, the plan, and the outcome, and are to be sure of it. That surety comes from seeing how the goal of justification, covenants, and prophecy fit together perfectly. The messenger told Daniel that the prophecy was “sure”; blessings are promised for those who study the prophecy of Revelation; those who have the hope of prophesy’s consummation purify themselves; but yet, the expected outcome is mystery? Doesn’t make sense.
In a general sense, this is what the apostle Paul is looking to do in the 9th, 10th and 11th chapters of Romans. Getting Israel right is getting justification right: “Salvation is of the Jews.” The framework of justification, covenants, and prophecy can be found in these three chapters. Let us begin in Romans 9:
Romans 9:1 – I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
This is stated in the present tense. To national Israel belongs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. We are going to focus on the covenants and the promises. Notice that both are in the plural and present tense. National Israel is still relevant and part of an overall redemptive plan. “Kinsmen” is the following word:
g4773. συγγενής syggenēs; from 4862 and 1085; a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:— cousin, kin (- sfolk,- sman). AV (12)- kinsman 7, cousin 2, kinsfolk 2, kin 1; of the same kin, akin to, related by blood in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman
“Israel” refers to the nation of Israel. Let’s establish that they were elected by God as a nation:
Because He loved your forefathers and chose their descendants after them, He brought you out of Egypt by His Presence and His great strength. — Deut. 4:37.
The Lord did not set His affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath He swore to your forefathers that He brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. — Deut. 7:7, 8.
After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people. — Deut. 9:4-6.
Yet the Lord set His affection on your forefathers and loved them, and He chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today. — Deut. 10:15.
“But you, O Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham My friend. — Isa. 41:8.
But now, this is what the Lord says—He who created you, O Jacob, He who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine.”
— Isa. 43:1.
“But now listen, O Jacob, My servant, Israel, whom I have chosen. This is what the Lord says—He who made you, who formed you in the womb,
and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, My servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.”—Isa. 44:1, 2.
“For the sake of Jacob My servant, of Israel My chosen, I call you by name and bestow on you a title of honor though you do not acknowledge Me.”— Isa. 45:4.
These are but a few, and it is also important to note that the promises to Abraham, our spiritual father, are part and parcel with the idea of his descendants being a nation:
The Lord had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”— Gen. 12:1-3.
Understanding justification and biblical prophecy is impossible if Israel ceases to be a nation. Israel is the factor that makes both add up to the only equation that makes sense. God’s salvific plan focuses on the saving of nations/races through his chosen nation, Israel. His elect King, Jesus Christ, will bring salvation to the nations through Israel:
“Here is My Servant, whom I uphold, My chosen One in whom I delight;
I will put My Spirit on Him and He will bring justice to the nations.” —Isa. 42:1.
He says: “It is too small a thing for You to be My Servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make You a light for the Gentiles, that You may bring My salvation to the ends of the earth.”
— Isa. 49:6
The whole idea of Christ being the elect (chosen) of God always puzzled me until I looked at it from the perspective of Christ being the elect King of Israel. He is the king of a nation that will bring salvation and justice to the nations. And God is particularly pleased with justice being displayed. This explains the “kingdom” language of the Bible. We should also remember that justice is important to God. Frankly, lack of emphasis in the church on justice is troubling to me. A zeal for what is simply right. One of God’s purposes of ruling the nations through Christ will be to put justice on display.
Israel as a chosen nation ruled by Christ to bring salvation to the nations is absolutely paramount to understanding justification and the Bible in general. Many leaders throughout church history have sought to separate Christians from this construct because when it gets right down to it, if you approach the Bible with this in mind, you don’t need them. Removing future Israel with Christ as its King throws understanding of the Scriptures into turmoil.
Even in the present age, being alienated from Christ is synonymous with being alienated from the “commonwealth” of Israel:
Ephesians 2:11 – Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
“Commonwealth” means the same thing in English….
g4174. πολιτεία politeia; from 4177 (“polity”); citizenship; concretely, a community:— commonwealth, freedom. AV (2)- freedom 1, commonwealth 1; the administration of civil affairs a state or commonwealth citizenship, the rights of a citizen.
….it is an independently sovereign state/community in the midst. Ephesians 2:11ff. is our first clue that the covenants and promises build on each other because they, for the most part, are always stated in the present tense; they all still serve a purpose in the restoral of national Israel. Paul states that the Gentiles in this present age were formally “alienated” from those things. You can’t be alienated from something that is no longer in existence or no longer valid or no longer serves a purpose. Now, let’s move on to Paul’s next point: The word of God has not failed because Israel rebelled;
Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring….11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
Elect Israel has an elect within it, or the “remnant” that are the spiritual descendants of Abraham so that the election of Israel is by grace alone and not works (verse 11). But we want to also balance this out with Paul’s statement concerning the whole nation. A Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) is not part of Paul’s outlook on election. Paul desired salvation for every Jew and evangelized like it depended on him. I can only assume that in some way it does depend on us. Election, though critical to assurance and aggressive sanctification, does not equal fatalistic determinism. What we do in the here and now matter immensely and makes a difference. How God weaves that together with his election is an understanding that I have not yet arrived at.
No one is to misinterpret the fall of Israel because of the non-elect within Israel that rejected Christ the King—the stumbling block of Zion. They rejected the chief corner stone that was the end of the law and attempted to establish a righteousness of their own. I think the remnant are those who are the beginning of the so-called church age which is better called the “last days.” They will all go up in the rapture at the end of the “church age” which is interesting because apparently, in an astounding display of God’s grace, the stiff-necked variety of Jews will be saved during the tribulation period, or the “time of Jacob’s trouble” (JER 30:7):
Zechariah 12:1 – The oracle of the word of the Lord concerning Israel: Thus declares the Lord, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: 2 “Behold, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of staggering to all the surrounding peoples. The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah. 3 On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will gather against it. 4 On that day, declares the Lord, I will strike every horse with panic, and its rider with madness. But for the sake of the house of Judah I will keep my eyes open, when I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 Then the clans of Judah shall say to themselves, ‘The inhabitants of Jerusalem have strength through the Lord of hosts, their God.’
6 “On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a blazing pot in the midst of wood, like a flaming torch among sheaves. And they shall devour to the right and to the left all the surrounding peoples, while Jerusalem shall again be inhabited in its place, in Jerusalem.
7 “And the Lord will give salvation to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not surpass that of Judah. 8 On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, going before them. 9 And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
Him Whom They Have Pierced
10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. 11 On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land shall mourn, each family[a] by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.
Notice what Paul states in Romans 11:5;
So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
“At this present time” refers to the present age, and they all go up in the rapture. The tribulation Jews are therefore another category, or so it would seem. Since God’s kingdom will not be reestablished on earth till the end of the tribulation period, I would assume that explains the term, “kingdom of heaven.” While God is grafting the Gentiles into Israel, the kingdom is in heaven until Christ returns and establishes the millennial kingdom on earth. At any rate, this is not “kingdom” in a spiritual since per se, this is a literal kingdom and spiritualizing the kingdom will not lend to understanding.
In Romans 11:1-10 Paul reiterates the remnant and those that are hardened, and then states the following starting in verse 11:
So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
This couldn’t be clearer. A full inclusion of Israel is yet future. What God wanted at Mt. Sinai will come to pass and will be established forever.
Romans 11:13 – Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
This is where Paul begins his tree illustration. What is this tree? I would say that it is the Abrahamic covenant or The Promise. God’s holiness is the root. The covenant is based on God’s holiness. But as an aside, is there a ministry to the Jews in our day? Yes, and the ministry is made clear in the above cited text. This should be the premise or foundation of any ministry for the Jews.
Romans 11:17 – But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
The covenant never changes because it is steadfast according to God’s election. The unbelief of some Jews results in God grafted in unnatural branches. The root is God’s holiness, the tree is the covenant, the natural branches are national Israel, the broken branches are those who were hardened, and the unnatural branches are the Gentiles. Paul warns the Gentiles at Rome to not posit the idea that the unnatural branches have replaced the natural branches. Of course, the Western church has broken that commandment with malice and all tenacity. Moreover, this approach will turn understanding of the Bible completely upside down. A proper understanding of the Jewish covenants is the paramount threat to Western clergy because if you have a proper understanding of God’s relationship to the Jews, you don’t need them to interpret the Bible for you.
Romans 9-11, especially chapter 11, is perhaps the most difficult in the Bible to preach on because there is nothing to study—it is what it is. However, it supplies a basic interpretive framework from which the rest of the Bible is interpreted. Salvation begins with the Jews and their King, and ends with the Jews and their King. The Reformed rejection of Israel’s election by the sultans of election displays the kind of confusion that transpires when you rebel against God’s revealed choices. The Reformers criticize the Jews for rejecting the Messiah while downplaying the remnant of Israel. Meanwhile, they arrogantly inform Christ that they accept Him, but not His chosen people. In chapter 11, Paul makes the eternal standing of those who posit such—ambiguous at best.
Furthermore, let us not depart this point without acknowledging the redeemed heart of the apostle Paul that is on display here. A redeemed heart loves the Jews, period. A redeemed heart, like Paul’s, wishes for the salvation of Israel. This stands in stark contrast to Reformed writings that go forth like vomit spewing from gluttonous stomachs.
Romans 11:25 – Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
Clearly, we are in what the Bible calls the time of the Gentiles. Paul barely stops short of saying we owe our salvation to the Jews. We have benefited from them being enemies of the gospel, but they are still God’s elect, and that is irrevocable. They are “beloved for the sake of their forefathers” till “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.” All Gentiles are saved by being grafted into the covenant that starts with the Jewish forefathers and ends with the banishment of ungodliness from Jacob.
I will conclude with the illustration below. This sums it up in the least common denominator. The following should be kept in mind when you read your Bible.
Exceptional Piety or Mysticism?
Throughout much of church history there have, time and time again, arisen movements and behaviors within the Church, which many view as exceptionally pious. Our own day is no exception. Within camps of the new Calvinism movement, the popularity of this type of behavior seems to be on the increase, with no signs of letting up.
The main characteristic to which I am referring consists mainly in the reliance or guidance of the Holy Spirit apart from the Word of God, and specifically apart from the moral law of God. Separating the work, or seeking the guidance of the Spirit, apart from the Word of God is nothing new, and has been an error that has creeped into Christendom for centuries.
While many hold that such practice is merely a version of Christianity, they seem to not realize that, in actuality, it is a departure from it. One of the…
View original post 178 more words
Are Babies Saved?
“And by the way, if the absence of law leaves no sin, that means particular redemption is erroneous…. All of the Reformed brain trust together is no match for babyology.”
What is “orthodoxy”? Unfortunately, it is Protestant traditions of men that have wreaked havoc on the American church. As a former Reformed pastor, I was part of conversation directly and indirectly regarding the counseling of parents who lost an infant or toddler. One thing that was avoided like the plague was a promise that their baby was in heaven with the Lord. This is due to Augustine’s view of original sin and the authority of the church to forgive sin. The Reformed view on this can be observed in the Calvin Institutes: 2.1.8, 4.16.1, 4.16.17.
Long story short, only babies baptized in the Reformed church have their sins forgiven by the authority of the church. The more I study Reformed theology, the more I understand that assurance is not found in any individual belief or experience, but rather an obedient allegiance to the formal church. This is really a mentality that cuts deep into the Protestant psyche of all stripes and explains indifference to injustice and abuse within. The vehicle may have some rust spots and nasty stains on the upholstery, but it be goin’ to heaven anyway. Also, that’s where you go if you want your totally depraved baby to be saved. I myself used to call them, “little vipers in sanctified diapers.”
It has often been thought that the Bible is ambiguous on this subject save Jesus insisting that the little children be allowed to come to him and King David’s proclamation about the infant that he lost. But biblical answers don’t always come from direct subject material, and in this case, we find comfort in theology. That shouldn’t surprise us, but I am afraid it does. Many mourn in hopelessness because a comforting answer could not be found on a Christian bookstore placard.
The definitive answer is found in Romans. All who are not guilty of sin are not under condemnation and will go to heaven. That’s because those who are not under law are under grace by default. And where there is no law, there is no sin:
Romans 3:19
English Standard Version (ESV)
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
Romans 4:15
English Standard Version (ESV)
15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
English Standard Version (ESV)
13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Romans 7:8
English Standard Version (ESV)
8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.
The next question is when humans, who admittedly bear natural sin, are “under law.” And by the way, if the absence of law leaves no sin, that means particular redemption is erroneous. It means the death of Christ also covered the sins of those who are not under law. But who are they? The apostle Paul will tell us:
Romans 2:12-16
English Standard Version (ESV)
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Paul is talking about two different kinds of law here: the Old Testament, and the law of God written on every heart of every person born into the world. As an aside, note that this doesn’t bode well for total depravity. Those who have never heard of the Bible will be judged according to the law written on their hearts as administrated by their conscience—either accusing or excusing. Those who have heard of the Bible will be judged by both. Christ was born under the law as well, but that wasn’t a problem for him because he never violated His conscience and could keep the law perfectly. At issue for all others is the development of the conscience that at some point brings the individual under the law. At that point, they need salvation.
So, the natural person does not come under the law written on their heart until they have a developed conscience that knows right from wrong. Where there is no law, there is no sin, and besides that, the death of Christ paid the penalty for natural sin:
Romans 5:19
English Standard Version (ESV)
19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
So, there are some pastors out there who have a good baby message: the hope of heaven and the exhortation for those under the law to accept the one who is the end of the law: Jesus Christ (ROM 10:4).
All of the Reformed brain trust together is no match for babyology.
paul
John Calvin: We Keep Our Salvation By Being a Member of a Church
“Nor by remission of sins does the Lord only once for all elect and admit us into the Church, but by the same means he preserves and defends us in it. For what would it avail us to receive a pardon of which we were afterwards to have no use? That the mercy of the Lord would be vain and delusive if only granted once, all the godly can bear witness; for there is none who is not conscious, during his whole life, of many infirmities which stand in need of divine mercy. And truly it is not without cause that the Lord promises this gift specially to his own household, nor in vain that he orders the same message of reconciliation to be daily delivered to them. Wherefore, as during our whole lives we carry about with us the remains of sin, we could not continue in the Church one single moment were we not sustained by the uninterrupted grace of God in forgiving our sins. On the other hand, the Lord has called his people to eternal salvation, and therefore they ought to consider that pardon for their sins is always ready. Hence let us surely hold that if we are admitted and ingrafted into the body of the Church, the forgiveness of sins has been bestowed, and is daily bestowed on us, in divine liberality, through the intervention of Christ’s merits, and the sanctification of the Spirit.”
The Calvin Institutes 4.1.21
4 comments