Calvinists Pretend That They Think Salvation Changes Us: A Picture Story
“This is why the present-day Reformed counseling culture led by the likes of David Powlison is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on Christianity.”
John Piper once stated in an interview that Protestants are not ready for the hard truth of the Reformed authentic gospel. And what is that truth? It is the “truth” that salvation doesn’t change us. They say, “We are transformed into Christ’s image, and “We are sanctified” etc., but they believe no such thing and for our sake lie about it because we are not “ready” for the “hard truth.” This is why the present-day Reformed counseling culture led by the likes of David Powlison is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on Christianity. Christians go to counseling because they think we can change with God’s help and for His glory, and the anticipation of happiness. Powlison has built an empire on allowing Christians to believe that initially like we allow our children to believe in Santa Clause. That way, he can draw them in and “help” them with his superior spiritual knowledge.
What is that knowledge? It is the “centrality of the objective gospel outside of us.” John Piper states it plainly: if any work of grace happens in us at all, it makes sanctification the ground of our justification. I document all of this in much detail in chapter four of The Truth About New Calvinism. Below is a picture that illustrates this. It was published by a Reformed think tank that Graeme Goldsworthy was involved in. Like the following pictures, you can click on it for a larger picture:
Let’s look at other Reformed illustrations that show clearly that they deliberately deceive by pretending they believe that Christians change. REMEMBER, these are their illustrations, NOT mine:
In the first chart, we only grow by the same two things that saved us: knowledge of our sin, and knowledge of God’s holiness. This is why we must “preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” But, in this chart, what is growing? Us? No, the cross. We don’t grow, the cross grows. Besides, if we grow, that circumvents the “growth” process right? If we get better, the other half of Reformed epistemology does not keep going down but becomes more level—making the cross smaller. No?
Look at the other chart that is really the same concept turned up instead of sideways. In the heart shape it claims transformation, but again, a second thought tells us that this couldn’t be what they are really thinking. If we get better, it destroys the Reformed metaphysical centrality of the objective gospel outside of us which is predicated on a deeper and deeper knowledge of how evil we are.
Furthermore, a good demonstration of the deliberate deception afoot is Paul David Tripp’s book, “How People Change.” They don’t believe we change, that’s a lie. Calvin’s total depravity also applies to the saints in Reformed theology. I document this in False Reformation. An illustration from Tripp’s book is integrated into the other illustrations by me to demonstrate this:
So then, what do these guys really believe about change? Well, it starts with gospel contemplationism which leads to “manifestations” of “the true and the good.” See the man in the first picture? See how he is meditating on all of the stuff outside of him? Through contemplationism, it is kinda like standing in the rain. The world sees the gospel, which in this illustration is the rain as a gospel “manifestation,” and as Christians we experience and feel the rain, but it has nothing to do with us or anything going on inside of us. For all practical purposes (in his general session address at the 2013 Shepherds’ Conference), John MacArthur likened it to a manifestation of the wind. You feel it and see its effects, but it is a force that is completely outside of us. He attributed Nicodemus’ later obedience after conversion to a mere blowing of the wind and not anything that Nicodemus could be credited with. We are talking MANEFESTATIONS here and not anything we do. It is similar to the concept of birthing the spiritual realm into the material realm.
In other words, when it gets right down to it—it’s Eastern mysticism. It began with the ancient paganism that saturated early civilization and morphed into Hinduism. Then Plato integrated the philosophy of Socrates with Hinduism. From there, it became Gnosticism which has all of the caste elements of Hinduism, and not by accident. The Reformed connections to Eastern mysticism are really no big secret and well-known among church historians.
Cults all come from the cradle of society and its spiritual caste. That’s why cults are innumerable and predicated on CONTROL. A characteristic not absent from Calvinism by any stretch of the imagination. The Gnostic Nicolaitans wreaked havoc on the first century church and the word means “conquerors of the lay people.” The name Nicodemus comes from Nicolaitans, so before his conversion, Nicodemus was probably guilty of what MacArthur said he wasn’t guilty of,
being a Calvinist.
paul
New Calvinists Think it is Cool and Funny to Reject the New Birth
“You must be born again.”
~ The Lord Jesus Christ
There is NO Such Thing as “Legalism”
We live in a unique era marked in its beginning by Christ paying the penalty for our sin (HEB 1:2). We are in the last days. We know that because it’s post cross. We live in this specific era which is also biblically described as a time of unprecedented deception (MATT 24:3,4; 2THESS 2:10-12).
Therefore, we must be careful to use specific biblical words in our communication of the truth. Those who define the language win the argument. Redefining the meaning of words to deceive is literally the oldest trick in the book; e.g., Satan redefined what God meant by death. “Surely, you will not die.” Depending on your definition of death, that was true—Eve didn’t die on the spot.
“Legalism” is a word that is not in the Bible anywhere. The concept/term was made popular by Martin Luther’s interpretation of law and grace. The term, “legalism” lends strong foundation to authentic Reformed doctrine. If you use the term, you are being a good Calvinist whether you know it or not. The Reformers were anti-sanctification because it suggests enablement and some room for self-esteem. The Bible does not call us to eradicate all concept of self for the sole purpose of the group, it calls us to evaluate ourselves truthfully (ROM 12:3). That’s why there is a severe lack of sanctification in the church today—we are all just good Protestants.
So, legalism is in, but the word for the primary nemeses of righteousness throughout the ages is out: “anomia.” The English word is, “antinomianism.” It means, anti (a) – law (nomia). And I assure you that manmade law is not in view. Ignorantly, Christians deem the word as just another 50-cent theological term even though it appears throughout the New Testament and defines the core of human woes. While anomia is ignored, a word that doesn’t even exist in the Bible is thrown around more often than we change clothes.
Because the ramifications of anomia pushback against Luther’s law/gospel theology, the word is translated in English Bibles as “wickedness” and “lawlessness” giving the idea of general bad behavior. The real idea is anti-truth, anti-God’s full counsel, anti-God’s wisdom, anti-sanctification, anti-kingdom living, anti-clear conscience, anti-life, anti-goodness, etc., etc. Christ points to it as the primary cause of lovelessness and cold-heartedness (MATT 24:12; PS 119:70). John indicts it as the very definition of sin (1JN 3:4).
Perhaps the greatest deception in all of this is the Reformed motif that the Pharisees are the poster children for “legalism.” Supposedly, they strived to keep God’s law as a way of earning His favor for both justification and sanctification of which are the same to the Reformers. The opposite is true; the Pharisees were full of anomia and voided the law with their anti-truth (MATT 15:1-9; 23:23-28). The Pharisees were not “legalists,” that’s a lie, they were antinomians.
Nothing cripples sanctification more than the Reformed idea that Christians can sincerely seek to obey God by following their born again new desire for the law and thereby unwittingly partaking in works righteousness. There is no more detestable evil under the sun because it causes a conflict between the new desire God has put in our hearts (ROM 7:25; PS 119:1ff.) and instruction that propagates a relaxed view of the law (MATT 5:19). This is why Calvinism has crippled the American church. They propagate a doctrine that sets us against the very desire that God has put in our new hearts.
Satan did not come to Eve in the garden as a “legalist.” He came to her as an antinomian. In regard to the time of the end, the apostle Paul refers to the antichrist as the man of anomia at least four times in his letter to the Thessalonians. From the beginning, and through the middle embodied in the likes of Baalam’s error and Korah’s rebellion, and culminating in the end, the doctrine of anomia is the primary beast that devours the souls of men. But yet, New Calvinist queen Elyse Fitzpatrick likens anomia to the Loch Ness Monster, and is celebrated accordingly for her supposed biblical insight.
It’s time to eradicate “legalism” from our Christian vocabulary and replace it with a description of the New Calvinist breed of beasts among us: Antinomians.
paul.
New Calvinists: Unregenerate and Singing Joyfully About It
“But our ongoing Potter’s House studies in the book of Romans reveals something else even more incredulous: the song is a self-described depiction, according to the apostle Paul, of the unregenerate response to the law.”
One of the more popular songs in our New Calvinist nation is “More Like Falling in Love” by antinomian heartthrob Jason Gray. Like all anti-law proponents of our day, he has been allowed to own the dialogue which usually results in winning the argument. In his own bio about the song, he states the following:
Is it weird to anyone else that we’ve made salvation a matter of who has the best information?
Notice how Gray trades the word “truth” for “information.” Switch the words in his sentence, reread, and he is exposed for the wretch that he is. When heretics are allowed to own the dialogue, they can write their own metaphysics. Here are the lyrics to the song:
“More Like Falling In Love”
Give me rules
I will break them
Show me lines
I will cross them
I need more than
A truth to believe
I need a truth that lives
Moves and breathes
To sweep me off my feet, it’s gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
It’s like I’m falling, oh
It’s like I’m falling in love
Give me words
I’ll misuse them
Obligations
I’ll misplace them
‘Cause all religion
Ever made of me
Was just a sinner
With a stone tied to my feet
It never set me free, it’s gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
It’s like I’m falling, oh
It’s like I’m falling in
Love, love, love
Deeper and deeper, it was
Love that made me a believer
In more than a name
A faith, a creed
Falling in love with Jesus brought
The change in me
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
It’s like I’m falling, oh
It’s like I’m falling
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
It’s like I’m falling, oh
It’s like I’m falling in love
It’s like I’m falling
(Falling in love)
It’s like I’m falling
Much could be contested here once you get past the initial shock of the song’s brazen anti-truth stance, especially the idea that love-feelings verify authentic truth. But our ongoing Potter’s House studies in the book of Romans reveals something else even more incredulous: the song is a self-described depiction, according to the apostle Paul, of the unregenerate response to the law. In the song, Gray posits the idea that the law merely provokes sin. For the lost person that’s true:
Romans 4:15 – For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 7:7 – What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.
Notice Paul is speaking in the past tense. Before he was saved, the sin that he was enslaved to utilized the law to provoke sinful reactions. And like Jason Gray states in his song,
Give me rules
I will break them
Show me lines
I will cross them….
Give me words
I’ll misuse them [right, like switching “truth” with “information”]
Obligations
I’ll misplace them
Throughout Romans, Paul describes this state as being “under the law” as opposed to being “under grace”:
Romans 6:14 – For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
You are either “under law” or “under grace.” When you are under law, sin has “dominion over you,” κυριευω (kyrieuo) has both the idea of lordship and control. Paul further explains in Romans 8:7-9:
7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Again, exactly as Gray proudly boasts:
Give me rules
I will break them
Show me lines
I will cross them….
Give me words
I’ll misuse them
Obligations
I’ll misplace them
However, when one is “under grace,” their minds are enslaved to the law:
Romans 7:25 – Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
The word for “serve” is “δουλευω (douleuo), a verb form of doulos which is a bond slave. Hence, as believers, our minds are enslaved to the law though we don’t keep it perfectly. Nevertheless, the law is now inclined to incite us to obedience rather than disobedience. Paul states it this way in Romans 8:3-4:
3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Furthermore, when we don’t seek to love God by learning and doing, we become ignorant in regard to the law and the likes of Jason Gray can propagate this New Calvinist antinomianism unfettered. And again, the dialogue is not challenged as well. Paul stated,
Romans 6:17 – But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
But Jason Gray states:
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
“Allegiance”? Paul called it a commitment to a “standard of teaching.” We are now slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification (ROM 6:18-19).
That’s New Calvinism: singing praises to Jesus as they draw nearer and nearer to a day of reckoning where they will give an account for their false gospel.
paul
Yawn. I’m a “Pharisee.” Go Figure
This blog has always been a tool for working through the best ways to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. For three years this blog has tested theses after theses with an open invitation to be proven wrong on every point by the New Calvinists. And no doubt, adjustments have been made. Though mostly personal attacks and the pointing out of 2-3 grammatical errors in a 2000 word post, acceptance of criticism has been key to where this ministry has come. And it has been a long, hard road. I didn’t just put up a blog and start writing, among many other preparations, I took college courses for the specific purpose of being as effective as I could be.
Some critical emails serve my purpose, and this morning, I received a New Calvinist jewel. It is a wonderful piece of Reformed talking points that exposes their egregious false gospel and the verbiage they attempt to use in the winning of an argument. The email can be addressed in order and point by point. Mighty convenient.
You would have made an excellent Pharisee. Like you, they delighted in law, instead of delighting in Christ. They searched the Scriptures because in them they thought they had eternal life, but Jesus said “they [the Old Testament Scriptures] are they that testify of me, but you do not wish to come to me that you might have life.” Then he makes the bold claim about Moses’ writings, “he wrote of me.”
First, Reformed hacks have fed on the Pharisee lie for a long time. The Pharisees were NOT “legalists” (a word that is not in the Bible), but were rank antinomians (“anomia,” a word that appears throughout the New Testament). They didn’t love the law, they loved their tradition. Christ’s specific indictment against the Pharisees was that they made the law void by integrating it with their traditions (Matthew 151-9, Mark 7:9-13).
Like you, they delighted in law, instead of delighting in Christ.
As we have seen, they DID NOT delight in the law, they delighted in their tradition. But note that although the Scriptures say Christians delight in the law (Romans 7:22), according to the Reformed false gospel, we can’t delight in the law and Christ both. To delight in the law is to delight in the law “instead” of Christ. It’s either the law or Christ—it can’t be both. This should speak for itself, and I have written extensively on the Reformed heresies that this reasoning is founded on. Primarily, Luther believed that reality could only be interpreted through one of two prisms: the cross story (the works of Christ [reality]) or the glory story (anything we do [unreality]). This can also be seen in the first tenet of New Covenant Theology which is the stream of Reformed thought that came out of the Australian Forum via Jon Zens:
New Covenant Theology insists on the priority of Jesus Christ over all things, including history, revelation, and redemption. New Covenant Theology presumes a Christocentricity to the understanding and meaning of all reality.
It’s Gnosticism—pure and simple. Christ is the “vision of the good” and everything else is evil.
They searched the Scriptures because in them they thought they had eternal life, but Jesus said “they [the Old Testament Scriptures] are they that testify of me, but you do not wish to come to me that you might have life.” Then he makes the bold claim about Moses’ writings, “he wrote of me.”
Of course Moses wrote about Christ, but does that mean that everything in the Old Testament is about Christ only and not what he tells us to do? Part and parcel with being saved is a commitment to follow Christ by obeying the law (“follow me”). When we commit to Christ, we are recognizing that He will (after the commitment) make us slaves (douleuo) to His law (Romans 7:25). In what I call the gospel according to Moses in Exodus 21:3-8, he splatters them with blood AFTER their commitment to obey the law. Peter alluded to this event specifically in 1Peter 1:1, 2. Before the foundation of the world, and according to God’s foreknowledge and our setting apart by the Spirit, we were set apart “FOR obedience to Jesus Christ” and for “sprinkling with His blood.”
Let me be clear: we don’t do anything to be saved, but when Christ makes us new creatures, He also enslaves us to His law and enables us to obey it. Though we can’t do anything to be saved, we should know that when Christ answers our plea for salvation—He makes us His slave. We now seek to “follow” Him in obedience and love Him by keeping his commandments. I can’t state this fact better than the apostle Paul:
Romans 8:1 -There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
The Pharisees didn’t search the Scriptures for that purpose. This Calvinist, like all of them, makes the fact that they searched the Scriptures for something other than Jesus synonymous with searching the law for ways to work your way into heaven. Christ didn’t even begin to give them that much credit for being closer to the truth. He stated that they made the law of God “void” altogether. Furthermore, many Jews thought they were saved by virtue of the fact that God had appointed them as caretakers of His word. He could have just as easily been referring to that, but it is clear that Christ’s broader point was the following: while claiming to be experts on the law, they were rejecting Him who is one of the major themes of the Scriptures. The other major themes are the other two members of the Trinity.
A person would have to be spiritually blind to miss the typological relationship between the Old Testament Scriptures and the truth revealed in Christ. You are right to observe “The Bible has built-in rules for interpretation throughout.” Not only did God reveal his truth through Jesus and the Apostles; he also revealed to us through their example how we are to interpret the Scriptures.
You seem to have misunderstood the nature of biblical typology. One of the characteristics of a type is that, unlike allegory, it is based on historical fact. We reject the allegorical method of interpretation, but fully embrace the typological pattern Jesus and the Apostle’s used and taught. If you should try to interpret the Book of Hebrews, for example, apart from typology you would be completely at sea. And what of John’s declaration “Behold the Lamb of God?” and Jesus’ declaration “I am the bread of life.” Typology is not a Greek hermeneutic; it is a biblical hermeneutic.
I don’t misunderstand the Reformed approach to “typology” at all. The following is the 6th tenet of New Covenant Theology:
All of the Old Testament scriptures are inherently prophetic in that the entire Old Testament, the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, point forward to and anticipate the WORD Incarnate, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). New Covenant Theology presumes that Jesus Christ, in his person and his saving acts, is the hermeneutic center of the Bible.
Then, John Piper states that our justification is maintained by meditating on those saving acts alone:
In the first image, the believer has no security or confidence that he will make it to heaven. In the second image the believer has security in the wrong place; a kind of automatic eternal security that can get you to heaven another way than by the chain of God’s saving, persevering acts revealed in Scripture.
Hence, we persevere to the end by God’s “saving” “acts” PLURAL as “revealed” in “Scripture.” It’s salvation by seeing all of Scripture as redemptive acts. Typology is needed to do this because a literal interpretation causes many problems with this approach. The whole Bible must be interpreted by “rich typology.” Meditation on the works of Christ alone in the Scriptures enables us to live by faith alone in sanctification as a means of maintaining our just standing. Again, Christ plus mediation on his works alone as found in the Scriptures to keep our salvation intact. We are doing something (meditation), and not doing something (obeying the law in sanctification) to keep our salvation. That’s a problem.
You wrote, “To take away from this construct by making the Bible a narrative rather than objective law is to drive a stake through the essence of the of the gospel.” For you, law is the gospel. You even stated that “Law” and “gospel” are used interchangeably. It is true to state that on occasions the term “law” is used as a synonym for the revealed truth of God, but that is altogether different from stating that law and gospel are used interchangeably. You would have found full agreement with the Pharisees. The reality is that Law and gospel are founded on two distinctively different principles. The principle of law is “the man who does them shall live by them.” The principle of the gospel is “the righteous shall live by faith.” Those principles are mutually exclusive. If it is of works, it is no longer by grace.
This statement reveals how ignorant Calvinists think the average parishioner is. “Gospel” means “good news.” All of God’s word is “good news.” This Calvinist, like all Calvinists, makes the good news of the blood synonymous with all of the good news in the Bible, and then makes it mutually exclusive from the law. The Sermon on the Mount is the “good news of the kingdom,” but Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection is not once mentioned in the sermon. The death, burial, and resurrection is the good news of “first importance” (protos 1Cor. 15:3). The word speaks of the order, or what is before what is next. We are to then add works to the foundation of our faith in sanctification (1Peter 1:5-11).
He continues:
The reality is that Law and gospel are founded on two distinctively different principles.
How can that be? We wouldn’t know anything about the gospel if it wasn’t for the law. Law isn’t just the Ten Commandments, it’s the full counsel of God (Matthew 5: 18). Instead of the law (word of God) informing us on the gospel, he makes the gospel a separate entity “founded” on a different “principle.” But we are either “under law” or “under grace.” And “under grace” DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE LAW, but in fact ENSLAVES US TO THE LAW (Romans 7:25). A Christian is also defined by his/her ability to keep the law as opposed to those who are under it (Romans 8:7,8). Furthermore, one of the primary purposes for which we were saved was so that the righteous requirement of the law could be fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4).
His erroneous Reformed position is further stated:
The principle of law is “the man who does them shall live by them.” The principle of the gospel is “the righteous shall live by faith.” Those principles are mutually exclusive. If it is of works, it is no longer by grace.
This is a clear fusion of justification and sanctification by virtue of the fact that law/works and faith/grace are mutually exclusive. Law is totally separate, rather than having a different relationship to both. Hence, those “under grace” cannot be enslaved to the law which is synonymous with unregeneration. If the law is mutually exclusive—there is no gospel. A saved person is enslaved to the law.
Moreover, his statements lack a context in regard to justification and sanctification because the Reformed see them as the same thing. Hence, “The principle of law is ‘the man who does them shall live by them’”….for justification or sanctification? “The principle of the gospel is ‘the righteous shall live by faith’”….for justification or sanctification? If the Reformed answer honestly, they say, “both” because they see the two as being the same.
I have never encountered an individual who claimed to be a Christian as you do who seemed to delight so much in detracting from Christ. There is no question the Scriptures provide us with moral principles and flesh and blood examples [usually negative examples in the OT Scriptures] of how we should live, but the Scriptures are more than a legalistic manual for life. If you read the Scriptures and miss Christ, you have missed the heart of the biblical message.
You have often stated that we believe “every verse in the Bible is about Jesus.” It is difficult to imagine that anyone could believe 1 Chron. 26:18 “at Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar” for example, could be a reference to Jesus. Your claim, as is usual for you, twists our position. What we do believe is that the Scriptures are not primarily a book about laws, but primarily a book about Christ. Even those passages that report the abysmal failures of prophets, priests, kings, judges, etc. point forward to him who will fulfill these offices perfectly to the glory of God.
I will conclude with the simple truth that these last two paragraphs by him illustrate the Reformed, and very Gnostic Emphasis hermeneutic.
Sure, shadows are true, but to the degree that we focus on the shadows, we detract from the full life-giving powers of the sun Son. Sure, the new birth is true, but to the degree that we focus on a work that is supposedly done within us, we detract from the Son. Hence: “I have never encountered an individual who claimed to be a Christian as you do who seemed to delight so much in detracting from Christ.” Other Reformers warn of “eclipsing Christ” by emphasizing the Father and the Holy Spirit as much as Christ. In Gnostic venues, focus on the material detracts from the “vision of the good.”
Therefore, though I say they believe every verse in the Bible is about Christ to make a point, more accurately, they believe that Scriptures where Christ can’t be seen shouldn’t be “emphasized. ” That would be a problem because Christ stated that man lives by “every word” that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). An example of how this incites the Reformed to approach the Bible follows:
Immediate context is vital; however this is a starting point and not an end. From the immediate context begin to think of the wider contextual range (Sentence, Paragraph, book, whole Bible). 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.
Ever wonder why everything is About Jesus in Reformed churches and the Holy Spirit and the Father are seldom mentioned?
That’s why.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment