Newtown Massacre Isn’t a Plug for Christian Homeschooling
Another public school massacre has taken place. This time it involved very young children at a distinguished elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. And of course, Christians en masse will jump on the “he (the shooter) was mentality ill” bandwagon.
This shows again how Christians claim to be Scriptoriums, but function in life like any other the Bible is just a book written by men crowd. In the New Testament we read the historical account of King Herod ordering the death of every child two years old and younger in Bethlehem and surrounding regions. Whatever means were used to slay these infants in front of their mothers would have been a very gruesome scene. But yet, if Herod or any of the soldiers that carried out the act were “mentally ill” the Holy Spirit didn’t get the memo. And this is mass murder of infants on an unfathomable scale. Moreover, there are no words for how trite Herod’s reasoning was in comparison to the order.
We don’t know much about this hideous massacre, that’s “hideous massacre” not “tragedy,” other than the fact that the murderer was the live-in-20-something son of a school teacher employed by the school. She was found dead at her home where the son/murderer also lived. Obviously, something went awry in that relationship and the social/professional connection with the school ended up in the crossfire. But it wasn’t a “senseless” act, it was a SINFUL act, and like many other similar acts—well planned.
It is understandable that the world has no answers for these events for they can’t even rightly identify such with correct words, but Christians shouldn’t ape their ignorance—they should at least act like being a Christian means that we live by God’s wisdom and He informs us according to the world He created.
Sometimes that means using common sense which God is not opposed to. He gave it to us for a purpose. We have raised-up a whole generation of hyper self-centered adolescents via child-centered parenting on steroids. Christians have added to the fray through such things like homeschooling which teaches our children that they are either too good to be schooled with the world’s children or too mindless to defend themselves intellectually. Or both. Yes, indeed, because Christians are weak thinkers, for sure the public schools would drag our children into hell with little or no effort. This is a valid fear because American Christians have never been more dumbed down which is a Protestant tradition from the Dark Ages.
Couple this child-centered parenting with the steady flow of violent images that are poured into the minds of our children through TV, movies, and video games. The result is people who do not take “no” well. Examples of the violent results abound. Parents who cut off a teenage boy/girl relationship because of inappropriate behavior end up dead at the hands of the offended teens. A mother who refused to let her son borrow the family car—dead accordingly. Former friends of Charles Manson; such as, the Beach Boys and Neil Young among many other top recording artists point to his failure to obtain a recording contract as being instrumental to the horrific acts that followed. As Neil Young stated, “Charles didn’t take rejection well.”
When these events take place, it would be better if Christians would simply remain silent. We both echo the world and reinforce their beliefs that we don’t know any more than they do, or we implement the either/or hermeneutic; i.e., this happens because public schools don’t buy into the Christian whiffle dust. If schools would only let the children pray and display the Ten Commandments while teaching that this nation was founded on Deism Christianity, God would smile from heaven and surround said schools with a Star Trek deflector shield. Look, what’s all of this nonsense about public schools keeping God out? They can’t do that. If our children are Christians, He is IN them, not a Ten Commandments statue. Neither does showy prayers impress a lost world—they want to see a life of answers from people who supposedly hangout with God.
I have been a youth pastor. When you suggest to the teens that they befriend the bullied outcasts of their school they look at you as if you’re from another planet. When children are bullied at school, love or justice of any kind rarely shows up. They become hopeless and feel powerless to do anything about their dilemma. Middle schools and high schools are the epitome of a social caste system which is usually written off as “kids being kids” until the bullied outcaste shows up with a willingness to trade his whole life for one hour of being empowered to inflict justice on a cruel world. In one of the most notorious school massacres ever, one of the perpetrators walked into the school cafeteria and yelled, “All jocks stand up.” What’s our first clue?
Yet, in all of the desperate clamor for answers, where are the Christian ministries that target the outcastes in our public school systems? “In home schools.” Well, touché. At one church Susan and I attended, we heard continued prayer requests for a troubled child who was being bullied at school. Finally, Susan and I, somewhat perplexed, asked why the police had not been called into the situation as bullying is a criminal offence in the state of Ohio. The answer? “These are just children we are talking about!” In regard to this same student, I had previously encouraged the youth of our church to reach out to this young man in the name of Christ. The suggestion was met with blank stares. When there are no answers—when there is no hope—things will happen.
Christians showing the world that we will gladly take the rejects that the world doesn’t want is a start—it’s at least something. It is better than mimicking the ignorance of the world or selling magic whiffle dust in the form of a Christian flag, Ten Commandment statues, or a hokey meet at the pole prayer show. Something is better than stupid.
And a third one as well: the suggestion that this event is a plug for more homeschooling where our mindless lazy-thinking children will be safe.
If we want God back in the schools, He will be there within our children. And if His glory is shown in them, it will be through the mind of Christ and His wisdom.
paul
Why is it a Total Waste of Time to Debate a Calvinist?
You ever convinced a Calvinist of anything? Neither have I. There is a reason for that. They actually perceive reality differently than you do. When you read your Bible, you of course know that the redemptive historical account of Christ is a primary theme. But you also believe God wants you to draw other truths from His word. If you are a Biblicist, you believe that God’s wisdom found in the Bible has a many-faceted application to life.
Not so with a Calvinist. Calvinists, like mystics, think in dualisms. In other words, when you are speaking to a Calvinist, he/she perceives you as speaking from one or two realities: the glory story, or the cross story. Those are the only two realities.
When two Calvinists are talking together they are talking from the standpoint of understanding through the prism of reality being interpreted through their evil as set against God’s holiness. Every verse in the Bible seeks that end. Every verse in the Bible seeks to show you that contrast—nothing more—nothing less. That’s the cross story, and it interprets all reality:
If the story is true, Jesus Christ is the interpretative key to every fact in the universe and, of course, the Bible is one such fact. He is thus the hermeneutic principle that applies first to the Bible as the ground for understanding, and also to the whole of reality (Graeme Goldsworthy: Gospel-centered Hermeneutics; p.48).
That’s why the following is important if you are a Calvinist and preparing a Bible study:
At this time, resist the temptation to utilize subsequent passages to validate the meaning or to move out from the immediate context. Remembering that all exegesis must finally be a Christocentric exegesis. Look for Christ even if He isn’t there directly. It is better to see Christ in a text even if He isn’t, than to miss Him where He is (http://clearcreekbtsc.blogspot.com/2011/06/beginning-to-study-whole-purpose-of-god.html).
So, all reality is interpreted through God’s good and our evil—the contrast is reality. This is the “cross story.” Martin Luther believed that the only people in the world that were worthy enough to be called theologians interpreted all reality in this way (Heidelberg Disputation, theses #20). Calvin reaffirmed this in the first sentence of book one, chapter one of the Calvin Institutes. Luther even mused about the benefit of civil authorities arresting good Samaritans to demonstrate that God sees their deeds as filthy rags. However, he concluded in thesis 5 of his Disputation that such should not be treated as crimes against society. What a guy.
Also, this relegates the Bible to contemplative purposes only. When we see the reality of our evil as set against God’s holiness—obedience is imputed to our realm as a “mere natural flow.” Christians are only to “rest and feed” on the cross story (Paul David Tripp).
In contrast, if you are speaking from the viewpoint of a many-faceted life application, and a learn and do discipleship approach, you view life through a distorted reality. If you think that there is any goodness in you at all, that is the glory story—it’s your story and not Christ’s story. Hence, Calvinists do not think that unbelievers or Arminians can properly grasp reality.
Therefore, know this: when you are debating a Calvinist, they are debating from the standpoint that you cannot properly assess reality.
In the past you have somehow gotten the idea that Calvinists are arrogant.
Now you know why. They are the wisest totally depraved people walking the earth. That we could all be totally depraved wise people.
paul
Tchividjian’s Response: It’s Why They’re Called “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing”
“Not only that, and don’t miss this, if sanctification ‘feeds on justification,’ and if justification is monergistic, and it most certainly is, then sanctification is also monergistic and not synergistic. So, regardless of Tchividjian’s synergistic-like jargon in regard to sanctification—we should know better.”
Let’s be honest, when the Bible warns us about wolves dressed up like sheep; deep down, we assume it’s a bad costume. But it’s not, and we should assume that we will have to diligently exercise the brain God gave us in order to make sure that “no one deceives you.”
Tullian Tchividjian, hereafter “Mr. T,” is once again answering to fellow Calvinists for his Reformed antinomian ways. Mr. T is a heretic, but he’s spot-on in regard to the Reformed doctrine that he teaches. Unfortunately, rather than calling out men who don’t get what Luther/Calvin really taught, Mr. T continues to hone and adjust his defense of what he teaches in an evangelical way. If he would just say, “Listen guys, I teach authentic Reformed doctrine. You guys call yourselves Calvinists and you don’t even understand his soteriology, so hang it on your beak,” I would come to Coral Ridge and wash his car for free. And as a bonus, I would serenade him with the Christian classic, “Friends.” Yes, let’s get all the Calvinists debating each other with citations from the Institutes and the Heidelberg Disputation. Hint: if you are in that debate; choose sides with Mr.T.
Mr. T’s conclusion to his latest defense makes my first point:
So, I’m all for effort, fighting sin, resisting temptation, mortification, working, activity, putting off, and putting on, as long as we understand that it is not our work for God, but God’s work for us, that has fully and finally set things right between God and sinners. Any talk of sanctification which gives the impression that our efforts secure more of God’s love, itself needs to be mortified. As Scott Clark has said, “We cannot use the doctrine of sanctification to renegotiate our acceptance with God.” We must always remind Christian’s that the good works which necessarily flow from faith are not part of a transaction with God–they are for others. The Reformation was launched by (and contained in) the idea that it’s not doing good works that make us right with God. Rather it’s the one to whom righteousness has been received that will do good works.
There’s so much more that can be said, but I hope this serves to clarify that my understanding of the Christian life is not “let go and let God” but “trust God and get going”–trust that, in Christ, God has settled all accounts between him and you and then “get going” in sacrificial service to your wife, your husband, your children, your friends, your enemies, your co-workers, your city, the world.
AMEN “BROTHER!” But….the devil is in the details—literally. Mr. T writes the following in his introduction:
Pertinent to any discussion regarding justification and sanctification is the question of effort. In my recent back and forth with Rick Phillips on the nature of sin and its ongoing effect on the Christian, some have assumed that when I say there is no part of Christians that are sin free, I’m also endorsing a “why-even-try”, effortless approach to the Christian life–that I’m overlooking or understating the importance of “sanctification.” I suspect that one of the reasons for this is owing to my passion to help people understand the inseparable relationship between justification and sanctification.
Though I understand why—“why-even-try” is between quotation marks, technically, in context, “sanctification” being so indicates a misnomer by the author. In fact, many in the Reformed tradition dismiss progressive sanctification altogether. Dana Stoddard refers to it as “definitive sanctification” which usually refers to the elective setting apart for salvation by the Holy Spirit when we were justified before the foundation of the Earth. As far as I can tell, the Reformation magnum opus, the Heidelberg Disputation, does not contain the word sanctification at all. But perhaps I am missing it somewhere. At any rate, a couple of other details are worth noting in Mr.T’s introduction.
He speaks of “the nature of sin and its ongoing effect on the Christian.” The idea that “when I say there is no part of Christians that are sin free.” Well, that just isn’t so. It’s solid Reformed theology, but it’s not true. 1John 3:9 states, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.” The apostle Paul adds to that by saying we delight in God’s law in our “inner being.” Furthermore, Paul stated that the power of sin to enslave us is broken; hence, “it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” To say that no part of the Christian born of God is untainted by sin is just not true.
Mr. T then states that justification and sanctification are “inseparable.” And….
As G. C. Berkouwer said, “The heart of sanctification is the life which feeds on justification.” So, I think it’s fair to say that sanctification is the justified life.
This is sanctification by justification, and suggests that the law still needs to be upheld to maintain our justification. That is not righteousness “apart from the law.” This is the Achilles heel of the Reformation gospel and I have written on this extensively. Not only that, and don’t miss this, if sanctification “feeds on justification,” and if justification is monergistic, and it most certainly is, then sanctification is also monergistic and not synergistic. So, regardless of Tchividjian’s synergism-like jargon in regard to sanctification—we should know better. Everything else is just window dressing. Impressive window dressing, but nothing more than window dressing just the same.
Furthermore, as Dr. Jay Adams aptly notes, this whole business of sanctification feeding on justification “misidentifies the source of sanctification.” Mr. T then begins to make his case with Luther’s concept of passive righteousness and active righteousness. Right. That’s from theses 27 of Luther’s Disputation and is classic Reformed theological gymnastics. The Disputation eradicates the participation of the Christian in sanctification so thoroughly that Luther suggests in theses 5 that people who do good works in public shouldn’t be brought up on criminal charges. I’m not kidding.
Moreover, Mr. T, in supposedly advocating hard work in sanctification, describes that work as a constant fight against our supposed totally depraved narcissism which constantly clamors to earn acceptance with God for justification:
Also, be aware of the fact that our hearts are like a “magnet” that is always drawing the horizontal (non-saving) plane towards the vertical–we are always burdening our love for others (which fulfills the law) with soteriological baggage. In other words, we see our good works as a way to keep things settled with God on the vertical plane instead of servicing our neighbor on the horizontal plane.
In other words, we should never serve anybody for the sole purpose of pleasing God. Pleasing God always means pleasing God for the sake of justification. This, my friends, is just one of many, many problems with fusing justification and sanctification together. The apostle Paul made it clear that pleasing God is the paramount goal of the Christian’s life.
Mr. T even suggests that efforts to keep the law as Christians will just inflame sin. This is true of unbelievers who are “under the law.” The law has a tendency to provoke them to sin. This also agrees with the Reformed idea that Christians are still “under the law” and therefore need the gospel every day:
This is also why it is important to fight sin and resist temptation. Sin and temptation is always self-centered. It is, as Augustine put it, “mankind turned in on himself.” Failing to believe that everything we need we already have in Christ, we engage in “sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these” (Galatians 5:19-21), desperately looking under every worldly rock and behind every worldly tree for something to make us happy, something to save us, something to set us free. The works of the flesh are the fruit of our self-salvation projects…. Real freedom in “the hour of temptation” happens only when the resources of the gospel smash any sense of need to secure for myself anything beyond what Christ has already secured for me. We, therefore, “preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” because we forget it everyday.
And, go figure, the cure is dedication to the….right, local church:
It is for these reasons that it is so important for us to exert effort to pray, read the Bible, sit under the preached Word, and partake of the sacraments. It’s in those places where God confronts our spiritual narcissism by reminding us that things between he and us are forever fixed. It’s at those “rendezvous points” where God reminds us that the debt has been paid, the ledger has been put away, and that everything we need, in Christ we already possess. This vertical declaration forever secures us and therefore sets us free to see the needs around us and work hard horizontally to meet those needs.
When justification and sanctification are fused together, sanctification becomes a tricky minefield that can blow-up our eternal security. This is obvious if you read all of the back and forth between Tchividjian and Kevin DeYoung, and now Phillips. But never fear, if you are faithful to the Reformed philosopher kings, all will be well. Just stay at the foot of the cross while the philosopher kings figure it all out. You will be safe feeding there.
Or will you?
paul
Ground Zero: Pope Gregory and New Calvinist Gospel Contemplationism
“Monks. That’s what we are missing here. Martin Luther. Ever heard of him? He was a monk.”
“In that Disputation, Luther postulates Pope Gregory’s take on the gospel which is the exact same calling card of present-day New Calvinism.”
“Powlison points to Pope Gregory and Augustine as the pioneers of biblical counseling using a ‘Christ-centered,’ ‘full gospel’ approach. And what was that approach?”
Let’s just take one contemporary example: a Presbyterian church that is now a mere shell of what it was; the remains of a war over the arrival of a New Calvinist pastor who exhibited outrageous behavior and leadership style. Today, some parishioners stand dumbfounded that the Presbytery took positive steps to keep said pastor in place.
As TANC, our newly formed think tank that researches Reformed theology continues to journey into church history for answers, the reasons for present-day tyranny in the church become clearer every day. First, it is driven by the gospel that founded the Reformation. Simply put, it is a gospel that does not believe that people change, but are rather called to contemplate the saving works of Christ in order for His righteousness to be manifested in one of two realms. Whether Baptist, Methodist, or whatever, this Reformed seed, the idea that people really don’t change is at the core of their function though they would deny it verbally. The Western church as a whole buys into this basic concept.
Secondly, the basic concept of spiritual elitists ruling over the totally depraved. You know, the they really can’t change crowd. The Reformation clarion call of total depravity—what’s our second clue if we need one? The spiritual is accessed through the chief contemplationists, and since they have the dope directly from God, they should rule over the totally depraved. Look, I have been a Baptist since 1983, and this is how it works. Again, we wouldn’t verbalize that, but to some degree it is true of all Western denominations because we are the children of the Protestant Reformation. What were we protesting? Naughty philosopher kings; past that, not much.
If we don’t change, the church doesn’t either. Think about that. And we wonder why things are a mess. Apparent growth in numbers is being driven by something else other than a true gospel. And the Reformers deny that while pontificating total depravity. It is testimony to the depth of which this Protestant construct has dumbed down the average parishioner; i.e., the totally depraved change. And nobody blinks. The assumption is that total depravity only pertains to the unregenerate, but that’s not the case according to the Reformed gospel and its time for people to start doing the math on that. The “Nones” and the massive exodus from the evangelical church is taking place for a reason.
I’m not ready to declare Pope Gregory the Great the father of the Reformation and present-day New Calvinism just yet, but recent discoveries reveal some things that should be fairly obvious. We aren’t stupid, just trusting, and that needs to end. Christians need to take advantage of the information age and start studying for themselves as the Christian academics of our day refuse to be forthcoming. They didn’t forget to mention that sola fide is also for sanctification. They didn’t forget to mention the total depravity of mankind AND the saints. They didn’t forget to mention that the new birth is a realm and not something that happens in us—it’s deliberate deception because the Reformed gospel is “scandalous.” The totally depraved are not “ready” for what the enlightened class of philosopher kings understand. By the way, many seminary students will testify to the fact that they are told as much by their seminary professors. Seminaries are where you go to be certified for the purpose of ruling over the totally depraved in order to, in Al Mohler’s words, “save them from ignorance.” Sorry, I prefer to let the Bible and Google save me from ignorance. Thank goodness for the Gutenberg press.
Monks. That’s what we are missing here. Martin Luther. Ever heard of him? He was a monk. What is the very premise of monkism? It’s the idea that the spiritual is obtained by contemplationism. And monkism is not unique to the Catholic Church—it is the link from the Catholic Church to the ancient concept of mystic dualism. Though it pans out in various different ways, it’s the idea that matter is evil and spirit is good. In other cases, it holds to the idea that both good and evil are necessary to understand true reality. Good defines evil, and evil defines good. The more you understand both, the more “balance” you have in the universe. Then there is the goal to birth the spiritual into the physical through meditation/contemplationism. Like I said, there are many takes on the basic approach.
Monks believe that the physical or world realm is a distraction from the spiritual realm. In some cases, they believe that all matter is merely a form of the perfect, or spiritual. Hence, monasteries. Traditionally, monasteries have been clearing houses for the dope from God through contemplationism. And since they have the dope, they should rule the totally depraved for their own good. In some spiritual caste systems, the monks rule directly, in others like the Catholic Church, the monks are the Scribes and Prophets for the rulers; i.e., the Popes.
The fact that monkism would be part and parcel to any doctrine formulated by Martin Luther is a no-brainer. Mysticism is simply going to be a significant factor, and so it is with Protestantism. This becomes more apparent when you consider the core four of the Protestant Reformation: Martin Luther, John Calvin, St. Augustine, and Pope Gregory the Great. Luther’s 95 Theses was a protest against naughty Popes, but he was completely onboard with the Catholic caste system. When his 95 Theses resulted in the unexpected societal eruption that took place, he presented a doctrinal disputation to the Augustinian Order in Heidelberg. And don’t miss this:
In that Disputation, Luther postulates Pope Gregory’s take on the gospel which is the exact same calling card of present-day New Calvinism. In theses 27 of his Disputation, Luther states the following:
Thus deeds of mercy are aroused by the works through which he has saved us, as St. Gregory says: »Every act of Christ is instruction for us, indeed, a stimulant.« If his action is in us it lives through faith, for it is exceedingly attractive according to the verse, »Draw me after you, let us make haste« (Song of Sol. 1:4) toward the fragrance »of your anointing oils« (Song of Sol. 1:3), that is, »your works.«
There could not be a more concise statement in regard to the New Calvinist gospel. Deeds in the Christian life come from the same acts in which Christ saved us. Secondly, they are not our acts, but the acts of Christ applied to our Christian lives by faith alone. Thirdly, when the works of Christ are applied to our Christian lives by faith alone, it will always be experienced by the exhilarating emotions of first love—this is the mark of Christ’s active obedience being manifested in the spiritual realm through the totally depraved. We “reflect” the works of Christ by faith alone. Even John MacArthur has bought into this nonsense, claiming that obedience to the Lord is “always sweet, never bitter.” Francis Chan states that it always “feels like love.” And of course, poke John Piper’s rhetoric anywhere and this same monkish mysticism comes oozing out.
Moreover, Luther states this same concept from many different angles in his Disputation, and theses 28 is clearly the premise for John Piper’s Christian Hedonism.
No wonder then that New Calvinists of our day sing the praises of Pope Gregory. Here is what heretic David Powlison stated in an interview with Mark Dever’s 9Marks ministry:
Caring for the soul, which we try [try?] to do in biblical counseling, is not new. Two of the great pioneers in church history would be Augustine and Gregory the Great. Even secular people will credit Augustine’s Confessions as pioneering the idea that there is an inner life. Augustine did an unsurpassed job of tearing apart the various ways in which people’s desires become disordered. Gregory wrote the earliest textbook on pastoral care. He pioneered diverse ways of dealing with a fearful person, a brash and impulsive person, an angry person, an overly passive person. He broke out these different struggles and sought to apply explicitly biblical, Christ-centered medicine—full of Christ, full of grace, full of gospel, and full of the hard call of God’s Word to the challenges of life.
Powlison points to Pope Gregory and Augustine as the pioneers of biblical counseling using a “Christ-centered,” “full gospel” approach. And what was that approach? It was primarily contemplationism and dualism. In fact, Gregory practically saw “doing” as a necessary evil. In Roland Paul Cox’s Masters dissertation, Gregory the Great and His Book Pastoral Care as a Counseling Theory, Cox states the following:
The overall theme in Gregory’s dichotomies is balance. It is possible that this comes from Gregory’s own struggles in balancing his desire for the contemplative life of a monk versus his reluctant, but active, service as ambassador to Constantinople and pope.“The Regula Pastoralis was in large part devoted to describing how to reconcile the two types of life. He came to the conclusion eventually that while the contemplative life was the better and more desirable of the two, the active life was unavoidable, and indeed necessary in order to serve one’s fellow man.…There could be no better exemplar of the two lives than Gregory himself, but he would have been less than human had he not from time to time mourned the fact that so much of his time must be given over to the active at the expense of the contemplative” [Jeffrey Richards, Consul of God : The Life and Times of Gregory the Great (London ; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980), 57.].
Powlison, in true Reformed tradition, invokes the either/or hermeneutic, or the either cross story or glory story hermeneutic of Luther’s Disputation by suggesting that any denial of this “Christ-Centered” approach is a wholesale denial of an “inner life.” In other words, suggesting that doing something should be emphasized as much as contemplationism is paramount to denying that there is an inner life. Such statements by Powlison are indicative of his utter lack of integrity.
In addition, Gregory’s penchant for mystic dualism is seen in the same dissertation:
Gregory’s view of health revolved around balance. In Pastoral Care 34 dichotomies are given. For each one Gregory discusses how either extreme is detrimental. The following are a few examples of Gregory’s dichotomies: poor/rich, joyful/sad, subject/superiors, wise/dull, impudent/timid, impatient/patient, kindly/envious, humble/haughty, obstinate/fickly, and gluttonous/abstemious. Further, Gregory explains how certain traits although they appear to be virtues are in reality a vice. For example, in describing the dichotomy of impatient and patient, Gregory says the following about the patient: “…those who are patient are to be admonished not to grieve in their hearts over what they suffer outwardly. A sacrifice of such great worth which they outwardly offer unimpaired, must not be spoilt by the infection of interior malice. Besides, while their sin of grieving is not observed by man, it is visible under the divine scrutiny, and will become the worse, in proportion as they claim a show of virtue in the sight of men. The patient must, therefore, be told to aim diligently at loving those whom they needs must put up with lest, if love does not wait on patient” [Pastoral Care: pp. 109, 110].
In other words, self-control is a vice. Unless cross-centered love is mystically applied according to Luther’s Disputation (theses 28), the latter evil of self-control is worse than the former sin of being offended since such offences serve to humble us (LHD theses 21).
What goes hand in metaphysical hand in all of this is good ole’ ancient spiritual caste tyranny. As Cox further observes,
Shortly after becoming pope, Gregory wrote Pastoral Care. In addition as pope, he reorganized the administration of the papal states, he maintained papal authority in the face of encroachments from the Patriarch of Constantinople, he established links with the Frankish Kingdoms, and most importantly (for these English writers), he sent a party of monks, led by Augustine, to convert the Anglo-Saxons.
Gregory was very influenced by the Rule of St. Benedict and Benedictine monks who came to Rome after the monastery that St. Benedict founded was burnt. In some letters, Gregory calls his work Pastoral Rule. “There is every reason to assume that Gregory in conceiving the plan for Liber Regulae Pastoralis [Pastoral Rule] intended to provide the secular clergy with a counterpart to this Regula [the Rule of St. Benedict].
….This culture of rulers and emperors also helps explain why Gregory saw Pastoral Care and Pastoral Rule as one in the same. By modern day standards, Gregory would be considered overly authoritarian.
A culture of “rulers and emperors” had precious little to do with it, but rather ancient spiritual caste systems that answered the supposed preordained call of God to control the totally depraved. With the sword if necessary. While many of these systems were based on mythology prior to the 6th century, Plato systematized the idea and gave it scientific dignity. But his trifold theory of soul consisting of king, soldier, and producer called for a sociological counterpart that was a mirror image to fit the need. Sir Karl Raimund Popper, considered the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, fingered Platonism as the primary catalyst for religious and secular tyranny in Western culture. And Plato’s mystic dualism (shadows and forms) added not just a little to the MO of the Reformers. According to church historian John Immel:
Calvin’s Institutes (1530) is the formal systematic institutionalization of Platonist/Augustinian syncretism that refined and conformed to Lutheran thinking and became the doctrinal blueprint for the Reformed Tradition [Blight in the Vineyard: Prestige Publishing 2011].
Christ promised us that He would build His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The idea that the Reformers rescued His church from the gates of the Roman Catholic Church is both laughable and the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. The idea that Christ needed, and continues to need the services of Plato’s philosopher kings is arrogance on steroids. Somewhere, God’s church moves forward. Let us shed the Reformed load that hinders and find our place in that true church.
paul
Reformed Questions in Response to “False Reformation”
Paul,
Just a few questions:
1. If you accept the idea that “flesh” and “spirit” refer to parts of regenerate believers rather than to spheres in which people live and by which we are controlled, where does sanctification take place, in the flesh or in the spirit? The same question applies in terms of “old man”/ “new man.” Which of those grows in sanctification?
Answer: This question reflects the fact that the Reformed crowd doesn’t openly discuss what they really believe about this issue, and I commend you accordingly. Authentic Reformed doctrine holds to the idea that the active obedience of Christ is manifested in the “Spirit realm” as a result of what we see in the Bible being imputed to us by faith alone in sanctification (see Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, theses 27). We don’t change. The “Spirit realm” and the “flesh realm” are two forces that put pressure on us, and at any given time, we “yield” to one or the other. This is the position of the elders who are over the NANC training center in Springboro, Ohio according to an email I received from them when they thought I was onboard with their doctrine.
Of course, the take on this varies among those in the Reformed tradition. Another example would be the idea that we are still dead spiritually, and the living Christ within us is the one obeying. What is consistent is the idea that this obedience is experienced in a certain way: joy and a willing spirit (see LHD, theses 27); that’s how we know Jesus is doing it and not us. At any rate, the crux of Reformed theology is that all good works take place outside of the believer; i.e., Luther’s “alien righteousness” for not only justification, but for sanctification as well. Your question is at the very core of debates that took place between heretic Dr. Ed Welch of CCEF and the commendable Dr. Jay Adams.
Jay Adams oversees INS as he was pretty much run out of NANC and CCEF—largely due to the fact that NANC and CCEF are both bastions of evil. I find it utterly intolerable that thousands are sent to these organizations daily with the hope of change when these Reformed organizations in fact don’t believe that God changes them. There are no words for my loathing of such hideous deception while these organizations also take people’s hard-earned money to boot. And some don’t go along with these ideas, but they stand silent and therefore are just as guilty. And my “whole life” is contending against this? Perhaps, but better that than one’s whole life buying acceptance with silence. Moreover, people praise CJ Mahaney and co. for their tireless night and day service to the “gospel” which is really the work of the kingdom of darkness against the kingdom of light. A pity that I would counter that with my own life.
Unfortunately, Adams, who is much more advanced in patience than I am—associates with them, and in my estimation thereby causes confusion regarding the kind of counseling that will change people. Also, the possibility that the only biblical counseling organization left on the face of the earth that is not infected with Trippism and Powlisonism is also a major concern. Nevertheless, Adams and his associate, Donn Arms, are the only ones who have taken a stand against the heretical onslaught taking place in biblical counseling circles which is fraught with mindless followers, lackeys, lovers of filthy lucre, shameless cowards, and lying integrationists. The idea that these people care about any marriage or the well being of any saint is laughable.
But to answer your question completely, I believe the Scriptures are clear that the old self was put to death and no longer has the ability to enslave us to sin. The old self was “under the law” which means that the law provoked him to sin and a final judgment according to the law. As long as we are alive, our mortality has influence over us in regard to the old ways of being under the law, but the enslavement is broken. We are in fact born again, and have a regenerated “law of our mind.” Hence, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” The warfare takes place inside of the believer between the law of his mind and the “law of sin.” The apostle makes it absolutely clear: this warfare takes place between my “inner being” and “in my members.” What is clearer? Unless the Bible is a Reformed gospel narrative that isn’t meant to inform our co-laboring with God in sanctification. But it is, because we are no longer “under” it for justification, but are informed by it for sanctification. Because the Reformers believe we are still under it, we must continue to live by the gospel that saved us from the law. We are still under it, but Jesus keeps it for us. How this is applied to the Christian life by the Reformers is outright Gnosticism to the core.
Furthermore, the “law of my mind” part of the believer that “delights in the law” in our “inner being” is what grows. Something in us is in fact growing: a host of passages that include 1Peter 2:1-3 make this certain. Really? Jesus isn’t really talking to us when he states, “Well done faithful servant”?
2. Do you believe sanctification occurs completely apart from faith? Do we have everything we need at the point of regeneration, so that further dependence on the Holy Spirit is no longer necessary? It sounds as if that is what you are saying.
Answer: Your question is framed within the confines of the Reformed either/or hermeneutic. Reality is either interpreted through the “glory story” or the “cross story.” This is the interpretive foundation of Reformed theology as stated in Luther’s HD. Because sanctification includes us, it must be by faith alone like salvation or it includes our glory as well. Therefore, where faith is, it must be by faith alone because faith is of God who will not share His glory with another. Therefore, if our doing is involved with sanctification, it must occur completely apart from faith. It must be the glory story, or the cross story. Reformed proponent Gerhard Forde states this in no uncertain terms.
Biblicists reject that metaphysical presupposition with prejudice. We stand with our beloved brother James, whom Luther rejected for obvious reasons, in saying that faith and works are together in sanctification while faith is alone in justification. Luther and his Reformed minions believe that grace is fused with works apart from our faith when it is faith in the works of Christ alone in sanctification (LHD theses 25).
Also, “Do we have everything we need at the point of regeneration, so that further dependence on the Holy Spirit is no longer necessary?” Again, we see Reformed metaphysics. If any part of our story is in the narrative, it’s semi-Pelagianism and not the cross story. This is a rather simple concept. All of the power that raised Christ from the dead is credited to our account in salvation. The Holy Spirit, our “HELPER” (ESV) “helps” us (that’s what a “helper” does, they “help”) in appropriating the blessings of salvation. He aids us (that’s what a “helper” does, he “aids”). And those blessings are appropriated “IN” (that’s a preposition) the DOING (James 1:25).
3. Do you believe Jesus’ actions are ever to be considered not only as instructional as a pattern for our obedience, but as motivation to imitate him?
Answer: As many have forcefully argued in several articles, especially Presbyterian Pastor Terry Johnson, God uses many different incentives to motivate us other than gratitude and meditating on the salvific works of Christ. This was also Adams’ primary contention against Sonship Theology.
4. Do you see any difference between God’s work in a believer that replaces his need to obey and God’s work in believers motivating them to obey?
Answer: The very question suggests a “need” to “replace (s)” the “need” of a believer to “obey” in sanctification? Of course, a clear distinction is not made regarding….in sanctification or justification? But, NO SUCH NEED EXISTS for sanctification. Our work in sanctification has NO bearing on our justification. The premise of the question is based on faulty Reformed presuppositions.
5. How do you see the Reformed doctrine as teaching that sanctification completes justification?
Answer: They call it a “CHAIN” (The golden chain of salvation-Romans 8:29,30). What’s a “chain”? What happens if you remove the middle links of a “chain” ? It’s not completed—this would seem apparent.
paul
16 comments