Why Calvinists Have No Understanding
Originally published January 10, 2013
Think “colabor.” And by the way, that’s a biblical word. It should be understood that salvation is completely of the Lord. In our day, it’s just best to leave it at that though some finer points could be argued. Election is what it is, but I think it not a good idea to draw logical conclusions that lead to hardcore determinism. The apostle Paul evangelized like it depended on us to some point—that’s irrefutable. At any rate, if God didn’t make a way for reconciliation—there wouldn’t be any. So, should He get all the glory? Absolutely. Does that mean we have no role at all? I doubt it.
But one thing is clear: the Christian life is a colaboring with God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Our role is learn and do. That’s what a “disciple” is. And one of the doings, perhaps the most important one, is….THINKING.
Throughout the Bible, the colaboring of God and the Christian is seen. Unlike salvation and justification, the Christian life (sanctification) is full of conditions, promises, commands, encouragement, warnings, and instruction. If you take note in your daily Bible reading, you will see this colaboring concept throughout. Perhaps the most profound is 2Timothy 2:7. Here is what the apostle Paul said to Timothy:
Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.
The Lord will give us understanding, BUT, we have to THINK. No thinking—no understanding. To say that Christians in our day believe that God will give us understanding without thinking is quite the understatement.
Clearly, in Reformed circles, the elders think for the parishioners, and the elders get their information from a bunch of Calvinistic dead people, also known as “orthodoxy.” Even when Calvinists do pick-up their own Bibles to read they are anticipating that God will show them “pictures of Jesus” in every verse. Look, those are John Piper’s very words, not mine. Bible reading in Reformed circles has become always been like watching TV; you just watch and let your brain chemicals to the rest. As you read, Jesus will show Himself and whatever Jesus shows you will be imputed to your life because Jesus came to live for our sanctification and die for our justification. The death and resurrection was for our justification, but His life prior to the cross was for our sanctification.
Also implicit in Paul’s charge to Timothy is the fact that Paul expected people to verify for themselves what he taught. Let me show you a picture since we like them so much: When Susan and I are discussing Reformed issues with people while enjoying the perplexity on their faces as we accuse the big names of heresy, this question often follows: “So, who do you follow?” Initially, Susan and I were too shocked at the response to even answer. The question is, at times, also followed by, “You can’t say that about him—he has a lot of followers.”
Not sure I can add to that point. Have a wonderful colaboring day in Christ.
paul
Taking Back the Bible from Christian Academia: Confident Study of the Scriptures, Part 1
Originally published October 1, 2013
The Apostolic Church’s greatest nemesis was Gnosticism. An understanding of how Greek philosophy influenced the landscape of that day is critical to understanding what was behind many things written by the Apostles and Christ. Greek philosophy was the driving force behind Gnosticism, and it was predicated on an elitist academia who were supposedly the gatekeepers of truth and wisdom. Supposedly, these were the enlightened minority who should necessarily lead or rule over the unenlightened masses. They were, and still are responsible for repackaging the “deep” things of God so that the unenlightened masses can use it in some way to cope with life. In religious circles we call this, “orthodoxy.” In secular circles we call this, “Psychology.” Those who cope rather than overcome are always the shadows of orthodoxy.
Enlightenment was a pedigree that you were born into; predetermined by the universe, gods, or God Himself. Hence, formal schools were mostly populated by the affluent to prepare them to lead or rule over the unenlightened masses. It’s very little different today as most pastors are graduates from universities that the majority of people can’t afford. Ability to obtain a degree from a noted seminary is part and parcel with being qualified to be a pastor (even if you are a pedophile). Pastoral search committees immediately toss resumes that are anything less than a Master’s degree. Lay pastors are seen as a lower class of leaders and are paid accordingly. They are seen as necessary for churches who can’t afford the “real deal.” This whole tradition, at least in Western culture, began with Plato’s Academy. The Academy is really the foundation that all seminaries are built on. They follow the secular pattern of Western culture.
This was the elitist atmosphere in Judea when Christ showed up. God’s people were sheep without shepherds and living on a heavy/steady diet of orthodoxy. Jesus called it “the traditions of men.” Jesus came and circumvented the whole elitist construct which often invoked, “By what authority do you teach these things?” Christ never contacted or checked in with the formal academia of that time; they had to come to Him as Nicodemus did in the darkness of night. He was “the teacher of Israel” which probably means he was among the most prominent. It is also interesting to note that his name means “power over the people” which is the same idea as the Nicolaitan movement of that day which was primarily a Gnostic movement. That name means “power over the laity.”
Jesus took God’s truth directly to the people. He cut out the middleman, so to speak. This was revolutionary. This is EXACTLY what the apostle John was addressing in 1John when he wrote “you have no need for anyone to teach you.” He wasn’t excluding the need for teachers, he was excluding orthodoxy. He was excluding a dumbed-down version of “God’s truth” by the elite for the consumption of the supposedly unenlightened masses. And that is exactly what John was contending against. 1John refutes several teachings that were Gnostic ideas permeating the church in that day. Christ mentions the Nicolaitans specifically in His seven letters to the churches. Historically, they were known to be of the Gnostic school of thought.
Furthermore, the Bible always addresses God’s people as a whole and not the leadership specifically. The New Testament epistles always address the whole congregation. This is very telling. The Bereans searched the Scriptures themselves to verify the teachings of the apostle Paul and were called “honorable” for doing so. This is very telling as well.
Christ’s methods of teaching and approach had built-in opposition to the whole elitist caste system. He himself was not formally educated; the foundation of His assembly was built with men who were uneducated—they were the blue collar working class of that society. In the same way the elitists taught mysteries that the common people could not understand, He taught mysteries and parables to the common people that the elitists could not understand. More than likely the apostle Paul delighted in saying, “Behold, I show you a mystery.” That was turnabout play, mysteries were not revealed to the common people in that day.
Christian media and education is a multi-billion dollar business. History has never seen a country like America endowed with the same gargantuan Christian education system. Yet, Christians in this country are woefully dumbed-down and propagandized with European traditions and superstition. Our seminaries merely parrot European orthodoxy and their penchant for dumbed-down congregants. Yet, Europe’s history and societal woes in no way recommends itself for an example to follow. Those who know European history are dumbfounded that the Reformers and Puritans could be posed as religious heroes. American Protestantism is basically the European model that has never embraced the priesthood of believers.
This tradition translates into Christians consuming a mass of “Christian” information via published books, novels, movies, Christian radio, the internet, and TV/cable programs. Christians do not read and study the Bible for themselves. If they did, Christian media would not be a multi-billion dollar business. Instead of the Information Age and its tools being used to show ourselves approved, we use it to saturate our minds with the opinions of others. This is orthodoxy on steroids. It makes Paul’s “ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth” the understatement of the ages. This point can be solidified by the mere observation that the Information Age has not put seminaries out of business. Why? Because Christian academia is not a teacher—it’s an authority.
This is a segue for getting to my first point. The Bible must be returned to its proper place as the only authority in the church. We must obey God rather than man. The idea that making a book the authority in some way demeans God’s splendor is a metaphysical sleight of hand. To use the idea that God should not be minimized to the exegesis of a book is to praise God for being so awesome that we cannot really know anything about Him. “He’s not a precept, He’s a person,” etc., add nausea. Worship becomes a celebration of subjectivity as a way to praise God. God was way ahead of this little game:
Psalm 138:2 – I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name (KVJ).
Apparently, the concept of praising God’s glory above anything earthy like mere words written on a page annoyed Christ to some degree:
Luke 11:27 – As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
While God reminds us that indeed His thoughts are above our thoughts, He insists that we not lean on our own understanding; hence, we may assume we can understand the alternative. We are clearly responsible before God for objective truth, and no one will give an account for our own lives but us. Listen to whom you will, but you are personally responsible for what you believe. Does a book seem a little earthy and unspiritual to you? Well, they are present at the White Throne Judgment, and judgment will be rendered according to what is “written in the books.” In the book of Revelation we see that Christ instructed John to “write” what he saw. We also read Christ’s warning to not add or take away any words from the book.
That’s where confident Bible study begins. We must trust it as God’s sole authority. But why a book? The answer is so easy that we readily miss it. God created reality as we now know it, and that reality is interpreted through words. To comprehend any present reality, it must be described by words. God spoke the world into existence with words. We know light as light because He defined it by the word “light.” God instructed Adam to name the animals with words. Animals can only be defined by such names. If we see an animal that we are completely unfamiliar with, we ask, “What is it?” Words describe general reality and particular reality. One may also ask, “What kind of animal is that?” Words interpret reality. God’s Law is interpreted by words; so, it stands to reason that His enemies will want to interpret truth/reality in some other way. This is where philosophy can lead us to more understanding or death. We must remember that words mean things.
The points so far can be argued from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. The audience was the spiritual peasantry of the day. Yet, the hermeneutic for that sermon can be found in the following:
Matthew 5:1 – Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
He “taught” them. As my Grandmother might have said, They got a learnin’. That means they had everything they needed to understand what Jesus wanted them to know. The sermon is to be taken on face value. The words mean what they mean. This audience is NOT the spiritual elite of that day. Jesus ends the sermon by saying the application of those words to life will result in said life being built on a sturdy foundation. The sermon sought to change their lives. It taught them how to think, how to worship, how to pray, and how to act. At the end, they were astonished that he taught these things without the authority of men.
This is first and foremost: to know that God’s word is to us, that it is our sole authority, that we are solely responsible to know it and obey it, and next, that God has sustained its original intent and meaning.
Perhaps one reason Christians do not read their Bibles very much is because we have been taught that we can’t really understand it. Many Reformed churches teach their parishioners that Bible reading merely flavors or prepares their hearts for what they must learn from the elders:
You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul (Dr. Devon Berry: Clearcreek Chapel .org archives; How to Listen to a Sermon)….
The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will (Ibid.)
Such a statement is indicative of Reformed thought and should raise the ire of a child. Yet, American Christians are so dumbed-down that they listen to such without even blinking.
Therefore, few Christian fathers in America think they are qualified to teach their family the Bible. Oddly, this is not the sentiment in faiths like Islam and many cults. Is their growth, as opposed to the decline of Christianity, due to the offering of something objective? Tragically, many married couples that have been Christians for years seek counsel for what they should already know. Often, this counseling makes the situation worse because it comes from those who didn’t teach them the full counsel of God to begin with. Few parishioners are aware of their pastor’s epistemology. There is no concern for how their elders approach God’s word because the pastor himself is the authority. That’s the problem.
Moreover, we must be confident that God has sustained the Bible’s intent and meaning. Christ’s very mandate to the church was the following: go to all nations with the authority of His word and teach everyone to observe it and keep it. It may then be assumed that He has superintended the Bible and its canonicity. Yet, God involves us in the process. He has promised us that the truth will be available for those who seek it, but we must study to show ourselves approved. That study involves hard labor in all areas of epistemology. We must insist that God has made objective truth available to man for its primary purpose: “everything we need for life and godliness.” It may not tell you how to fix cars, but it will certainly teach you how to be an auto mechanic who pleases God.
This may entail a strong endeavor to gain knowledge of the skill apart from the Bible in order to fulfill the biblical mandate. I think you get the message; God gave us an extraordinary instrument known as a “brain.” We are to use it, not download the thoughts of others with a mindless flash drive. You will be held responsible for the actions that the downloaded information produces. You are responsible, not the source who fed you the information. Christians need to start reading the ingredient labels on the cans. You are to work out your OWN salvation with trembling and fear. Each person will be judged according to their OWN work. Being judged by our works is synonymous with being judged by what we choose to believe. We best not let others make that choice for us. To do so is to let others determine our eternal destiny. Perhaps there is not a greater measure of insanity; seeking for others to think for you. They will not stand in for you before God, why in the world would you let them think for you?
paul
A Reply to the Mommy-Saver Whitney Capps, and Her Open Letter Decrying Church Whiners
“I state all of this because it summarizes most of her post. Yes, let’s not focus so much on WHAT she wrote, but rather WHY she wrote it.”
The bio for Whitney Capps on Faith-It .com reads as follows: “Whitney Capps is a national speaker and writer for Proverbs 31 Ministries, in-the-trenches Mom to four little boys and wife to her CEO. Fabulously flawed and happily transparent, Whitney offers hope to the too-tired Mom.”
Capps posted an article on Faith-It titled An Open Letter to All the People Writing (And Sharing) Open Letters About What’s Wrong with The Church. In my eight years of researching Protestantism, I have never read a more intellectually dishonest article, but it also neatly organizes the specific problems with the black heart of Neo-Reformed orthodoxy.
Capps is “fabulously flawed,” “happily transparent” about her sin, and “offers hope” to the “too-tired Mom” who offers, as stated by a well-known Neo-Reformed pastor, her “obedience-stained garments” as a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God.
Like ALL of the Neo-Reformed, Capps offers the hope of focusing on our sin which enlightens our gratitude for our original salvation resulting in whatever obedience manifestations Christ chooses to sovereignly display. We must focus on our sin, sin, sin, sin, even the, according to the Neo-Reformed, “sin beneath the sin.” Like ALL highly paid Neo-Reformed mommy-savers, Capps offers the hope of John Calvin’s Sabbath sanctification rest. Instead of Paul’s exhortations to not become “weary in well-doing,” and his exhortations to obey “more and more,” Capps offers “too-tired” mommies the hope of rest.
And, happy transparency…about our sin. Isn’t that sort of the “rejoicing in evil” that Paul said was antithetical to love? No, not sort of, that’s exactly what it is.
Like all good orthodox authentic Protestants, Capps redefines biblical love as rest when the fact is Christ rested from His works so we can love. Christ died to end the law and put those to death through the Spirit who were under the law. After Christ was resurrected, He accepted the promise of the Spirit who resurrected Him from the grave and sat down at the right hand of the Father. Christ then bestowed the promise of the Spirit that He received, and His immense power on God’s people.
When the Spirit comes, he puts believers to death and resurrects them to new life in the way of the Spirit. He releases them from the law of condemnation because He put their former selves to death that was under that law, and resurrects them with Christ to a life that is now guided by the law in loving God and others. This is why obedience is love, and Capps, like all of the Neo-Reformed, rejoice in their own evil. She said, happy transparency, not me; those are her words. And unless she repents, her condemnation will be just.
I state all of this because it summarizes most of her post. Yes, let’s not focus so much on WHAT she wrote, but rather WHY she wrote it. What happens in “the church” is neither here nor there because we can’t do any good works anyway. Capps, like all of the Neo-Reformed, is decrying those who complain about things in the church that aren’t really any of our business. As Martin Luther stated in the Heidelberg Disputation, it is neither here nor there whether a Christian does a good work or not because it is not us doing it anyway, while bad behavior should be expected.
This is why Luther and Calvin both scoffed at the idea of justice among mortals; because such a concept assumes meritorious works on the part of mankind; i.e., you can’t have deserved punishment without deserved reward. Luther and Calvin both believed humanly perceived good works were only worthy of condemnation because even Christians cannot do a work that has any merit with God. Therefore, Luther and Calvin believed the concept of justice was an absurd anomaly.
Hence, in light of serious problems within “the church,” Capps addresses them in a classic Neo-Reformed cultic communication technique: classify ALL “problems” under a single category and prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution for that category. Then, use trivial examples to describe the category. No one has described it better than John Immel in Blight In The Vineyard: “It is a vague truism that all churches have their problems. But that doesn’t mean they should have problems or that all problems are morally equivalent. Just because some churches fuss over the color of the sanctuary carpet does not absolve the Catholic leadership of molesting little boys.”
In Protestantism, absolvement isn’t demanded, but a recognition that bad behavior is the only thing that can be expected is demanded. “Why are you getting exercised? Are you any better? Don’t you understand what you have been forgiven of? If you don’t, maybe you don’t really understand grace. Your ‘righteous indignation’ is very disconcerting.”
What isn’t understood is that bad behavior isn’t love. Capps, like all of the Neo-Reformed, believes freedom is defined by rest in sanctification from the law. Her cause is to set the too-tired mommies free. That’s making obedient love in sanctification the same thing as condemnation apart from sanctification, and frankly, a denial of the new birth that makes love in sanctification possible. In her estimation, mommies must be free from the new way of the Spirit and rejoice in still being under the condemnation of the law. Focusing on our “fabulously flawed” lives reminds us that Jesus obeys the law for us, and as many among them say, “It’s not about what we do, but what Jesus has done.”
In contrast, Jesus did what He did so that we could do something; namely, love God and others apart from any condemnation. He finished His justification work so that we can work in sanctification, and sent the Spirit to help us. Jesus is a master that purchased us from the Sin master that used to use the law to provoke us and condemn us, and Jesus will return to see what we did with the talents given us for the purpose of loving.
Capps, like many others, leads the delegation who has hidden their talents in the ground and will give Jesus the exact same gospel that He gave us when He returns. Because they fear that they might “have a righteousness of their own” they have buried their talents in the ground and taken up John Calvin’s Sabbath sanctification rest. Christ will indeed call it what it is: “lazy…wicked[ness]” that fears condemnation from a harsh master and not free to love.
Again, we will focus on WHY Capps wrote what she did and not WHAT she wrote. This brings us to her constant reference to “the church” as the vessel used by Christ to secure our salvation. Throughout the article, Capps makes the institutional church synonymous with the body of Christ. Using her own marriage as an example, you live with the marriage or you are not married; no marriage is perfect and no church is perfect. Going public with complaints about “the church” according to Capps would be like going public about her husband’s flaws. See how silly you are thou church whiner?
Of course, the major problem with this is Saint Augustine’s “the church” as Bride of Christ, and that being just plain wrong. This theology goes hand in glove with the Reformed concept of perpetual re-salvation/re-forgiveness for sins committed in sanctification in order to remain justified. The big three of Reformation doctrine, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, believed that progressive forgiveness needed to remain saved can only be found in the institutional church and under the authority of pastors/bishops. Foundational to the Reformation was the idea that pastors have the authority to forgive sins and declare people saved. This same idea initiated the founding of “the church” circa 4th century. Before then, “the church,” NOT a biblical word or concept, did not exist. For 300 years the assembly of Christ or called-out ones were networks of non-authoritative home fellowships.
And Augustine’s posture towards those who didn’t support God’s ordained salvation institution, those who did not pay the temple tax, is well documented. Why am I bringing up all of this history? Because it’s Capps. What she is really defending in the post is the authority of the institutional church. The black heart of Reformation authority is plainly seen therein.
I will probably smile and pray for grace while imagining throat chopping you, in the name of Jesus of course.
There is only ONE thing separating Capps and all like her from only imaging that and actually doing it: the American Revolution. How many statements like this do we have to hear from the Reformed who’s who before we finally realize that something is behind it? Like all before her, those who would threaten God’s salvation institution and discourage souls from it are worthy of nothing less than death. But because they are merciful souls, they will often only chop you in the throat, run you over with a bus, or catapult you into the next county.
She was right about one thing in her post. She accused the church whiners, e.g., discernment bloggers as well, of wanting to save the institution. Amen to that my pseudo-sister. You are spot-on about that for certain. And you are also right in a wrong way about that, being very misguided—the institutional church has wreaked death, rape, persecution, false soteriology, sectarianism in every social strata, and extortion on humankind in the name of Christ since its grotesque 4th century birth.
In case you haven’t noticed, posts like this are very prevalent lately. Is the Neo-Reformed resurgence feeling the pinch? Perhaps, but the home fellowship movement should be encouraged. After 40 years, and ten of those years being complete domination of American evangelicalism by the Neo-Reformed, we have the “Dones,” the ‘Nones” and a whole bunch of blessed whiners.
Blessed are the whiners—they just want answers, and white is the harvest thanks to the Neo-Reformed movement. And unfortunately for them, we’re in the Information Age.
paul
Predestination and Fatalism: “How Much?” is the Question that Only Leaves Two Choices
Originally published May 30, 2014
“This speaks to conditional and unconditional promises by God, cause and effect, and hope. What is at stake is our very understanding of reality itself.”
“What am I saying? A am saying that predeterminism is not a paradox in and of itself, I am suggesting that we consider the idea in our study that predeterminism is a slippery slope to making all of life a paradox. In other words, it makes objective truth unknowable.”
This is part 6 of our series on predestination. We are in the process of evaluating predestination from the viewpoint of love, promises, judgment, cause and effect, hope, commandments, obedience, fear, foreknowledge, freewill, choice, ability, total depravity, evangelism, the gospel, Bible doctrine, paradox, and salvation. In most cases, determinism creates a strained understanding of what some of these words mean to us in real life.
For instance, if God loves the world and man does not have the ability to choose, why does God choose some and not others? He is impartial, no? Why will God judge those who never had a chance to escape judgment? Would God really command us to do things that He knows we are not able to do? How is God’s love really defined? Paradox is a reality, but to what extent do we except paradox as a replacement for the common understanding of life concepts and the words that describe them? Are the simple concepts of commands, love, and choice really a paradox in spiritual matters but necessarily taken literally in the milieu of life? Does whosoever will really mean whosoever has been chosen? And if it does, why doesn’t God simply state that accordingly?
In part one, we established an important starting point: the doctrine of predestination has always been primarily framed and assimilated by Reformed theologians. That’s a problem because they had/have the gospel wrong. This is a matter of simple theological math; they were on the wrong side of the law and gospel. Therefore, the doctrine must be reexamined.
In part 2, we examined God’s will in regard to the lost and the relationship of evangelism and paradox. Evangelism is another word that becomes paradoxical in light of predestination. Obedience is a paradox, love is a paradox, judgment is a paradox, and evangelism as well because the legitimacy of the offer of salvation is called into question. Whosoever will becomes whosoever has been elected. If election is a paradox, all of the concepts connected to it are paradoxical as well.
In part 2, we established that God does not desire that any person perish. He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Which brings up another paradox: does God plead and exhort man to be saved while knowing that he is unable to respond? When God states, “come, let us reason together,” is he saying that while knowing that man is unable to reason?
At any rate, we concluded in part 2 that God does not desire the death of the wicked—He desires that all would be saved.
In part 3, we established that predestination was not unique with the Reformers. In fact, determinism is an ancient concept that has dominated human history. We also examined the historical bad fruit produced by its ideology, and biblical contradictions as well.
In part 4, we looked at the means by which God seeks man. Man is created with intuitive knowledge of God, man begins life in the book of life and must be blotted out if he/she perishes, and Christ died for all men, not just the elect. Though not in the study, the fact that all sins are imputed to the Old Covenant, and belief in Christ eradicates the Old Covenant and all of the sin imputed to it, it implies a readiness and desire of God to vanquish one’s sin. The imputation of all sin to a covenant is sort of the opposite of starting life in the Book of Life; God wants to keep you in the one book and get rid of the other one.
Moreover, God sent the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come while the works of God’s law are already written on the heart of every person. On the one hand, God has set up a gargantuan infrastructural reality to facilitate the salvation of man, but in all of this, who enters in is ultimately predetermined by Him. Why all the drama? Why all of the paradox? Why all of the confusion? Yet, another paradox that could be added is the Holy Spirit’s warning in regard to judgment along with all of God’s prophets; why offer this incentive to escape judgment to those who are unable to respond? This speaks to conditional and unconditional promises by God, cause and effect, and hope. What is at stake is our very understanding of reality itself.
In part 5, we begin to answer the question, “How much?” Let’s say that man is unable to choose God initially, but what about post new birth? Is man then able to make choices? Curiously, the Reformers say, “no.” We looked at the Reformed redemptive-historical hermeneutic that interprets all reality as a gospel metaphysical narrative. We simply put ourselves in the narrative by believing everything in life points to a truth about Christ and is predetermined. We called this plenary determinism. Also, while discussing this, we introduced the possibility that certain things are predetermined by God, while other things are not. We used the following chart to illustrate this:
Granted, we want some things to be predetermined by God. We want a happy ending. We want justice. We want the good guys to win. We want everyone to live happily ever after. In times of danger, we want our fears tempered by knowing that God is control. In the book of Revelation, for certain, the opening of the six seals will make it seem like the earth is in complete chaos and spinning out of control, but the fact will be that God is in control of every bit of that. Will that temper the fear of those who know that at the time? Sure it will.
But is everything predetermined? Does man have any role in reality at all? The main source for predestination doctrine has always been the Reformers, at least in Western culture, and they disavow choice in both the saved and unsaved state. Consequently, from an eschatological view, there is only one judgment in which both believers and unbelievers stand in to determine one’s eternal fate. Opposing eschatological views posit a separate judgment for believers and unbelievers, one for reward (believers), and one that condemns (unbelievers).
Obviously, the idea of reward strongly suggests that the reward is for something earned by making a right choice. In Reformed circles, rewards spoken of in the Bible are attributed to salvation (the reward[s] is salvation), but now we have yet another paradox because it is not really a reward that we get for something that we did! What am I saying? I am saying that predeterminism is not a paradox in and of itself, I am suggesting that we consider the idea in our study that predeterminism is a slippery slope to making all of life a paradox. In other words, it makes objective truth unknowable.
However, the Reformers state that truth can be known, and that there is no paradox at all: Man and history were created to glorify God. Everything that happens is predetermined by God (cause), and everything that happens is for God’s glory, and in fact, does glorify Him (effect). Hence, man has no ability to choose in being the cause for anything that happens. Judgment reflects God’s glory alone in simply revealing what God has preordained via good or evil. If this is not true, then how much choice does man have? That must be determined. If true, then how much choice does man not have? This must be determined as well.
At the T4G 2008 conference, John MacArthur stated the following:
The sum is that man is evil and selfish, unwilling and unable because he is dead. He loves his sin. He loves the darkness. He thrives on selfish lust. He’s happy to make a god of his own, manufacturing and convinced himself that he is good enough to satisfy that god. He may see his sin in his sin, but he does not see his sin in his goodness, and he does not see his sin in his religion, and it is his sin in his goodness that is most despicable for there is the deception and it is his sin in his religion that is most blasphemous because there it is that he worships a false god…
The contemporary idea today is that there’s some residual good left in the sinner. As this progression came from Pelagianism to Semipelagianism and then came down to sort of contemporary Arminianism and maybe got defined a little more carefully by Wesley who was a sort of a messed up Calvinist because Wesley wanted to give all the glory to God, as you well know, but he wanted to find in men some place where men could initiate salvation on his own will. That system has literally taken over and been the dominant system in evangelical Christianity. It is behind most revivalism. It is behind most evangelism. That there’s something in the sinner that can respond.
Notice how MacArthur combines ability with goodness. Ability is made to be a moral issue. Why does an ability to choose something, or make a wise choice, or desire to have something that is rooted in anthropology, have to be an issue of inherent goodness? If unregenerate man can make wise choices, or at least correct choices, and certainly he can, why couldn’t one of those wise choices be that of salvation? Yes, certainly the Bible teaches that man’s inclination is away from God, but once God seeks him out and confronts him, does he have the ability to be persuaded? Why is man able to choose to stop at a red light (cause) to prevent an accident (effect), but unable to choose God?
Throughout the same message, MacArthur asserts the following like points:
Wesley wanted to give all the glory to God, as you well know, but he wanted to find in men some place where men could initiate salvation on his own will.
Here, MacArthur makes an ability to choose equal with initiating the means of salvation and initially seeking God. Our previous lessons assert that man doesn’t initially seek God, but once God seeks him by various means, man has the ability to choose. Man has many abilities that are morally neutral, even in his weakness, why can’t the ability to choose be one of them when he/she is aided by God and convicted by the Holy Spirit? In Scripture, we have instances of men being nearly persuaded (Mark 12;34, Acts 26:25-32); what are we to surmise from this, that man has the ability to be partially persuaded, but not the ability to be fully persuaded? James suggested that some men can believe in God, but fall short of believing in a saving way (2:19). This means man has an ability to believe in God intellectually, but is unable to understand saving truth about God and make his own choice? Why would man then have the ability to believe in God at all?
According to MacArthur,
A new wave followed as people struggled to hang on to human freedom which said that Adam’s sin had “in some measure” affected and disabled all men, but sinners were left with just enough freedom of the will to make the first move of faith toward God. And then God’s grace kicked in. But sinners made the first move, and that’s what became known as semi-Pelagianism. Some would call it prevenient grace. There’s a component of grace in all human beings that gives them in the freedom of their own will the ability to initiate salvation. The idea is that depravity is real, but it is not total. Saving grace from God then becomes a divine response rather than the efficient cause of our salvation. This view is denounced, as you know, by several councils starting around 529.
How does an ability to choose equal the initiation of salvation? How does an ability to choose, or the freedom of the will to choose equal us making the first move? We by no means made the first move! Clearly, God made the first move by supplying the means of salvation, and the second move by calling all men unto salvation. After this, how does our abilty to choose constitute the “first move”? It’s not the first move, it’s a response to God’s love. And in regard to the point of our first lesson, throughout his message, MacArthur validates his points by citing St. Augustine; that is very problematic in and of itself. MacArthur then moves on in the same message to make the new birth synonymous with our ability to choose. If we have an ability to be persuaded, that is supposedly like giving birth to ourselves:
When the Bible speaks about the condition of the sinner, with what words does it speak? Well, when the Bible speaks of the sinner’s condition, it is usually in the language of death, sometimes darkness, sometimes blindness, hardness, slavery, incurable sickness, alienation, and the Bible is clear that this is a condition that affects the body, the mind, the emotion, the desire, the motive, the will, the behavior. And it is a condition that is so powerful no sinner unaided by God can ever overcome it… John 3, you are very familiar with it, Nicodemus, and no one is going to be able to see the kingdom of God unless he’s born again, Jesus said in verse 3, very interesting. Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” He is not stupid. He’s a teacher in Israel. He’s speaking metaphorically. He’s picking up on Jesus’ born again metaphor and asking the question, how does that happen? How does it happen? You can’t do it on your own. You can’t birth yourself. That’s his point. He gets it. He understands that man has no capability to bring birth to himself. Jesus follows up by saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit,”
First, MacArthur’s concession, perhaps unwittingly, that “it is a condition that is so powerful no sinner unaided by God can ever overcome it” is exactly what we are saying, and not by any means that man can choose God solo. God supplies the means of salvation and seeks after man with the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the word of God. But in the end, man is able to neglect this great salvation, and to his own eternal detriment. Also, the new birth is part of the means of salvation totally out of man’s control; the new birth is a promise to those who believe, and obviously not man giving birth to himself.
When you start thinking about these things apart from Reformed orthodoxy, some observations become interesting. MacArthur used the following proof texts to make one of his points:
But let me just work you through John for a minute, John 1:12-13. “But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become the children of God even to those who believed in his name who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of men, but of God.” That is unmistakable. Unmistakable. Salvation being the work of God.
First, notice that man’s role is simply to receive, and then man is “given” the “right” to become the children of God. Then MacArthur bemoans the following:
It is behind most revivalism. It is behind most evangelism. That there’s something in the sinner that can respond. And this is sort of like the right in a free country. You have to have this right. This wouldn’t be fair if God didn’t give the sinner the right to make his own decision so that the sinner unaided by the Holy Spirit must make the first move. That’s essentially Arminian theology. The sinner unaided must make the first move. And God then will respond when the sinner makes the first move.
This is exactly what the proof text that MacArthur stated says, that those who receive Christ do in fact have the “right” to become part of God’s kingdom. Also, in stating his Reformed logic in another way, he suggested that hearing the gospel message and receiving it was the same thing as preaching ourselves:
What can remedy that? We do not preach ourselves, verse 5, we preach Christ Jesus as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. We preach the gospel of Christ as lord and ourselves as slaves. And what happens? Verse 6, God who said light shall shine out of darkness, that’s taking you back to creation, God who created, who spoke light into existence is the one who has shown in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
Aside from the fact that having the ability to be persuaded is not preaching ourselves rather than Christ, note that MacArthur equates creation with the gospel which insinuates that the fall was built into creation itself. This is part and parcel with the supralapsarianism that we discussed in previous lessons.
But the thrust of this lesson centers on the “how much” when it comes to any role at all for man in salvation and the logical end of it, and in the final analysis how God’s love is defined. This is a sobering consideration. In both the 2013 Shepherds’ Conference and T4G 2008, MacArthur presents the idea that John 3, regarding the new birth, is something that is done to the individual without any participation on the part of the believer. The clear message in both cases was that any decision or belief on the part of the believer was excluded also. It was very much like the following rendition of the same text:
When we consider the great teachings of Scripture, they are not there just to give us information and they are not to teach us what we can do in our own strength. In Musings 34 (http://www.godloveshimself.org/?p=2018) we looked at how believing that the doctrine of justification is true is not the same thing as being justified. The new birth was also mentioned at the end. In the passage above (John 3:3-5) Jesus speaks pointedly and with power in a way that reflects on the issue being mused on here. Jesus did not tell Nicodemus that he must know the truth about the new birth in order to enter the kingdom. Jesus also did not tell Nicodemus that he must believe the truth about the new birth in order to enter the kingdom. Instead of that, Jesus told Nicodemus that he must actually be born again in order to enter the kingdom. There is a huge difference between believing what is true and what is true actually happening to you.
If we take this as a picture or even as an example of the teachings of Scripture, we can view what it means to believe something with different eyes or with a different perspective. Neither Jesus or Paul declared that a person must believe the facts about justification in order to be justified, but simply that a person must be justified (God Loves Himself .wordpress .com: Musing 35; February 10, 2014).
So, if reality is a prewritten metaphysical narrative for the sole purpose of glorifying God in all that happens in the narrative, it only stands to reason that God is motivated by self-glorification and self-love as the highest purpose for all that he does:
Perhaps this concept that Edwards gives just above cannot be stated too strongly or emphasized too much since all true Christianity depends on the truth of it. If God is not centered upon Himself and He does not do all for His own glory, then God Himself is not holy and acts against the perfection of His own nature, wisdom, holiness, and perfect rectitude. If God Himself does not love Himself and do all He does out of love for Himself (as triune), then He does not keep the same standard that He commands all others to do. If God does not love Himself and do all He does out of love for Himself, then the both the great Commandments and the Ten Commandments are not a transcript of the character of God. If God Himself does not love Himself and do all He does out of love for Himself (as triune), then He does not do what He requires of others in the first three petitions in the Lord’s Prayer. If God Himself does not love Himself and do all He does out of love for Himself (as triune), then He does not do all in His own name as He requires others to do so. If God Himself does not love Himself and do all He does out of love for Himself (as triune), then He does not do all for His own glory which He requires others to do (God Loves Himself .wordpress .com: Edwards on the God Centeredness of God; 11 December 7, 2013).
Add yet another paradox in regard to love. God didn’t send His Son to the cross because he loves mankind, he sent His Son to the cross because He loves Himself. The list of commonly understood words in a grammatical reality that have been redefined by the doctrine of determinism is now very lengthy. Why indeed did God even bother to write the Bible in a grammatical format? No wonder that Rick Holland, a former associate of John MacArthur has stated that good grammar makes bad theology. No kidding? Add yet another paradox: the idea that God is not a God of confusion. Of course, the Reformed would say that there is no confusion at all—ALL things are predetermined for God’s glory and completely out of our control—end of story.
Let’s pad this point a little more with some quotes from John Piper:
I would like to try to persuade you that the chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy himself forever. Or to put it another way: the chief end of God is to enjoy glorifying himself.
The reason this may sound strange is that we tend to be more familiar with our duties than with God’s designs. We know why we exist – to glorify God and enjoy him forever. But why does God exist? What should he love with all his heart and soul and mind and strength? Whom should he worship? Or will we deny him that highest of pleasures? It matters a lot what God’s ultimate allegiance is to! (Desiring God .org: Is God for Us or for Himself?; October 23, 1984).
Actually, the Bible states that the chief end of man is to obey God, and that God takes more pleasure in obedience than sacrifice (Ecc 12:13,14 1Sam 15:22). I am not sure that the Bible ever states any “chief end” of God. Really? God’s life has a primary purpose that we can understand? And its narcissism?
Though there seems to be many Scriptures that bolster determinism, it requires the redefining of many commonly understood word meanings, and inevitably leads to an unavoidable illogical outcome. If the doctrine of predetermination in and of itself was the only paradox, that would be different, but the problem we see here is that it makes all of reality a paradox unless you accept the mythological Reformed metaphysical narrative.
Indicative of What Ails the SBC: Johnny Hunt Denies the New Birth at Ohio Men’s Summit
“Hunt’s confusion concerning the new birth was further exemplified when he stated, ‘Christ died for all of your past, present, and future sins.’ This also unwittingly denies the new birth. Christ did not die for sins we committed after we were born again. This makes sin in justification the same thing as family sin in sanctification. Christ did not die to save us from sin that does not condemn us; this denies that the old us actually died with Christ and was ‘under law,’ and where there is no law there is no sin.”
Not that I get paid for it, but I will inform any SBC pastor who cares to know why the SBC is a dying unregenerate cesspool. You can hide the fact by squeezing out the smaller churches and pointing to the emotional orgies at the megachurches, but the numbers do not lie. And listen, the praise and worship format that is presently redistributing the sheep will eventually get old—this ministry is already seeing sharp declines in megachurch attendance.
The present-day SBC Neo-Calvinist surge is the same movement that has come and gone exactly five times since the Protestant Reformation. My guess is that it will die again. Susan and I recently visited churches that were on the cutting edge of this movement back in the 80’s, and the deadness that we experienced was explained this way by our teenage son: “That place is just creepy.” The energy once associated with the format is waning because there is no underlying substance and the novelty is passing. Yet, the format continues without the energy which projects an almost surreal creepiness experienced by those who visit. For the longtime members it’s a slow leak going unnoticed, for visitors it’s a blowout.
Aside: Was all of the recent Mark Driscoll drama just cover for the fact that the Mars Hill campuses were in decline? I wonder.
Another aside: The Catholic Church has bought the defunct Crystal Cathedral. It would seem that the Catholic Church is the only institution with the money to buy defunct Protestant campuses. Why does the Catholic Church have so much money? Answer: because it has always been upfront about its salvation by institution gospel. Will the Neo-Calvinist movement begin to be more out-of-the-closet about that approach in order to save the movement? It already is. People will pay big bucks to be saved by merely giving at the office (see, “Roman Catholic Church”).
Johnny Hunt would deny that he is a Neo-Calvinist and that is probably fair, but what I heard him say at last night’s Men’s Summit at Urbancrest Baptist church in Lebanon, OH is indicative of the problem. If there is confusion among Southern Baptists regarding the role of the Holy Spirt in Christian living, and there clearly is, that should explain everything, and it does.
Look, I don’t have the mp3 yet, but a slight paraphrase of a particular sentence spoken at the summit by Hunt goes like this: “The righteousness of Christ is the only thing that gets us into heaven.” Here we have a former president of the SBC, and a premier SBC pastor for something like thirty years, and that statement is just really bad theology if not an outright false gospel.
I keep saying it and will continue to do so: the Bible never states that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us. Though you can take a leap from one logical point to another on a few verses, why the steroidal emphasis on Christ’s righteousness when the Bible clearly states that it is the righteousness of God the Father that we possess? Is this emphasis important? It is if the Bible emphasizes the righteousness of the Father, and it does. Why not emphasize what the Scriptures emphasize?
But the concern goes way beyond semantics. In his Friday sessions, Hunt peppered that concept with the often heard idea that we don’t possess a righteousness of our own. Come now, would any of us still be working if we had a dollar for every time we heard that in SBC circles? But what is it saying?
First, if we ONLY possess the righteousness of Christ, fire insurance is the only gift and not righteousness. Follow? When you receive a gift, you take possession of it…no? Is the idea that we possess no righteousness of “our own” a backdoor way of saying we have not been made righteous and possess no personal holiness? Yes, I think it is. And by the way, forget all of the fuss about election—that idea is Calvinism in a nutshell.
Secondly, while one properly concurs that our sins were imputed to Christ because the Bible states that specifically, is it correct to say that righteousness has been “imputed” to us? I contend that this is NOT correct, and in fact is a denial of the new birth. Why? Because righteousness is not imputed to us, we are MADE righteous through the new birth. The whole “our own” business is a red herring deliciously favored at the table of demons. We don’t tell people we have no life of our own because we were born of parents. That’s just plain silly. “I have no life of my own; it was imputed to me by my parents.” No, you are alive just like your parents because they gave birth to you. In the same way, we ARE righteous because we were given life by a righteous Father through the Holy Spirit.
Hunt’s confusion concerning the new birth was further exemplified when he stated, “Christ died for all of your past, present, and future sins.” This also unwittingly denies the new birth. Christ did not die for sins we committed after we were born again. This makes sin in justification the same thing as family sin in sanctification. Christ did not die to save us from sin that does not condemn us; this denies that the old us actually died with Christ and was “under law,” and where there is no law there is no sin.
The idea that Christ died for our sin post salvation, at the very least denies the death part of the Spirit’s baptism and keeps the “believer” under law (see Romans 7:1ff). In not sparing any confusion in his lame presentation of the gospel, Hunt concurred that God chastises us for sins we commit as Christians which means God chastises us for sins Christ already died for. Hence, why wouldn’t God also chastise us for sins committed before we were Christians?
Therefore, Hunt, like most SBC pastors, flirts with John Calvin’s double imputation. This is the idea that Christ died for our justification, and lived a perfect life to fulfil the law so that His perfect righteousness can also be imputed to our sanctification. This is exactly why the “righteousness of Christ” is so strongly emphasized. The Bible is clear: this is a justification by the law that leads to antinomian living (see “a typical life in the SBC”). Why? Because we only have the righteousness of Christ and no righteousness of our own which is nearly a verbatim quote by Calvin from his Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.14.11).
This is an outright denial of the new birth and keeps the “Christian” under law. It doesn’t matter who keeps the law, even if the law was kept by Christ in our stead, it is not another seed that can give life (Galatians 3:15-21). We are like Christ because He is our brother by birth, righteousness was not imputed to us—we are MADE righteous by the new birth. We are literally new creatures, and ALL things are new.
But, if we have no ownership of righteousness through the new birth, if only our standing is exchanged and not our lives, Christ’s righteousness must be perpetually imputed to our “Christian” lives because we are still under law and not under grace. This would require a return to the same gospel that saved us in order to receive perpetual forgiveness for sins committed under the law, and this is exactly what is behind the viral mantra of “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” running amuck in the SBC. Forbid that we would lose our gratitude for salvation and only limit its remembrance to the Lord’s Table for we still supposedly need that forgiveness.
And this is exactly what John Calvin believed; that new sins committed as saints removes us from grace and perpetual forgiveness must be sought which can only be found in the institutional church where we continually “revisit the gospel afresh.” Yet, the who’s who of the SBC continually affirms that the issue with Calvinism in the SBC is a secondary issue unworthy of parting fellowship. It’s cluelessness on steroids. Calvin advocated the belief that necessarily goes hand in glove with progressive justification; and, sanctification is the Old Testament Sabbath rest. If we do any works on our sanctification Sabbath, it’s the eternal death penalty. As a result, Christ’s perfect obedience to the law must be imputed to us. This is where antinomianism and justification by law are the same thing; a perfect keeping of the law, which we of course can’t obtain so we must let Jesus obey for us lest we have a “righteousness of our own” becomes another seed other than Christ.
At the end of one session Hunt suggested that those who made a profession of faith follow up with the elders at Urbancrest concerning their “new relationship” with Christ. New relationship? Really? It’s not just a new relationship—it’s literal death and rebirth. We don’t just add Jesus to our still under the law lives for fire insurance or as Hunt put it, in essence, daily rescue. It’s not a daily rescue because we long for the one future rescue by Christ from this mortal body where sin still resides, but our inward man has been literally raised with Christ and free to love God and others through obedience to the same law that once condemned us.
It has been suggested to me that institutional religion and the new birth mix like oil and water: “Paul, if believers are truly born again and endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit, why would they need an evangelical industrial complex?” Indeed, that may well be the money question. I have been at two institutional church gatherings this week, and in both cases pastors were held up as upper strata of spiritual caste. At Urbancrest, the emphasis was totally over the top and downright shameful. Other than handing out freebies to the pastors who attended, the senior pastor at Urbancrest talked of a program of sorts through which parishioners could show their pastor that, “I have your back.”
So, is the new birth a threat to religious institutions? Can Holy Spirit empowered ministries thrive in an institutional setting? We will not know until pastors stop denying the new birth. But nevertheless, this is a gut check for every SBC pastor and Hunt in particular. What would be the result of a poll in most churches where the following question is asked?
“Are you only positionally holy in Christ, or are you a holy person?” I fear most would answer, “I am only positionally holy because I still sin.” Yet, pastors who continually wax eloquent about Christians not having any righteousness of their own somehow expect decent behavior from their parishioners.
To his credit, Hunt did advocate obedience, but anyone who was listening closely would have found that confusing. Hunt also emphasized “finishing strong.” He even said that all of his accomplishments in ministry would be worthless if he didn’t finish well. Here is what pastors need to understand: finishing well may mean you end up pastoring a church of 25 people because you stood for the truth. It is high time that pastors draw a line in the sand and definitively define the new birth in no uncertain terms. Please tell your parishioners who they are—are they positionally holy, or are they personally holy?
Did they exchange one “standing before God” for another one, or did they exchange their old life for a new one through the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment