The Protestant Gospel of Death
Quotations from the foundational document of Reformed thought: The Heidelberg Disputation to the Augustinian Order by Martin Luther; 1518, about 6 months after he penned the 95 Thesis.
Theses 3: The thesis is proven in the following way: If the works of righteous men are sins, as Thesis 7 of this disputation states, this is much more the case concerning the works of those who are not righteous.
These 4: [Keep in mind he is talking about Christians here] This is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and frightens us by means of the law and the sight of our sins so that we seem in the eyes of men, as in our own, as nothing, foolish, and wicked, for we are in truth that. Insofar as we acknowledge and confess this, there is »no form or beauty« in us, but our life is hidden in God (i.e. in the bare confidence in his mercy), finding in ourselves nothing but sin, foolishness, death, and hell,…that is, he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope…Such a man therefore is displeased with all his works; he sees no beauty, but only his depravity.
Theses 6: however, some people say that the righteous man indeed sins, but not when he does good. They may be refuted in the following manner: If that is what this verse wants to say, why waste so many words? Or does the Holy Spirit like to indulge in loquacious and foolish babble?
Theses 7: But this is completely wrong, namely to please oneself, to enjoy oneself in one’s works, and to adore oneself as an idol. He who is self-confident and without fear of God, however, acts entirely in this manner. For if he had fear he would not be self-confident, and for this reason he would not be pleased with himself, but he would be pleased with God.
Theses 10: For the grammarians call a mortal work one which kills,…Second, the will must do something with respect to such a dead work, namely, either love or hate it. The will cannot hate a dead work since the will is evil. Consequently the will loves a dead work, and therefore it loves something dead. In that act itself it thus induces an evil work of the will against God whom it should love and honor in this and in every deed.
Theses 11: Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work…Since there is no person who has this pure hope, as we said above, and since we still place some confidence in the creature, it is clear that we must, because of impurity in all things, fear the judgment of God. Thus arrogance must be avoided, not only in the work, but in the inclination also, that is, it must displease us still to have confidence in the creature.
Theses 16: Now you ask: What then shall we do? Shall we go our way with indifference because we can do nothing but sin? I would reply: By no means. But, having heard this, fall down and pray for grace and place your hope in Christ in whom is our salvation, life, and resurrection. For this reason we are so instructed-for this reason the law makes us aware of sin so that, having recognized our sin, we may seek and receive grace.
Theses 17: [Again, keep in mind that Luther is talking about Christians] it is apparent that not despair, but rather hope, is preached when we are told that we are sinners. Such preaching concerning sin is a preparation for grace, or it is rather the recognition of sin and faith in such preaching. Yearning for grace wells up when recognition of sin has arisen. A sick person seeks the physician when he recognizes the seriousness of his illness. Therefore one does not give cause for despair or death by telling a sick person about the danger of his illness, but, in effect, one urges him to seek a medical cure. To say that we are nothing and constantly sin when we do the best we can does not mean that we cause people to despair (unless we are fools); rather, we make them concerned about the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
These 18: [Again, Luther is referring to Christian living] The law wills that man despair of his own ability, for it »leads him into hell« and »makes him a poor man« and shows him that he is a sinner in all his works, as the Apostle does in Rom. 2 and 3:9, where he says, »I have already charged that all men are under the power of sin.« However, he who acts simply in accordance with his ability and believes that he is thereby doing something good does not seem worthless to himself, nor does he despair of his own strength. Indeed, he is so presumptuous that he strives for grace in reliance on his own strength.
Theses 20: [Reality is interpreted through suffering] He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross…[All material reality is evil] The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness…Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross.
Theses 21: This is clear: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers ,works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general, good to evil. These are the people whom the apostle calls »enemies of the cross of Christ…God can be found only in suffering and the cross, as has already been said Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and works are evil, for through the cross works are dethroned and the »old Adam«, who is especially edified by works, is crucified. It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his »good works« unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s.
Theses 22: [It is evil to believe God can be understood by anything that is material] That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened…This has already been said. Because men do not know the cross and hate it, they necessarily love the opposite, namely, wisdom, glory, power, and so on. Therefore they become increasingly blinded and hardened by such love, for desire cannot be satisfied by the acquisition of those things which it desires. Just as the love of money grows in proportion to the increase of the money itself, so the dropsy of the soul becomes thirstier the more it drinks,…Thus also the desire for knowledge is not satisfied by the acquisition of wisdom but is stimulated that much more. Likewise the desire for glory is not satisfied by the acquisition of glory, nor is the desire to rule satisfied by power and authority, nor is the desire for praise satisfied by praise, and so on,
Theses 24: He, however, who has emptied himself (cf. Phil. 2:7) through suffering no longer does works but knows that God works and does all things in him. For this reason, whether God does works or not, it is all the same to him. He neither boasts if he does good works, nor is he disturbed if God does not do good works through him. He knows that it is sufficient if he suffers and is brought low by the cross in order to be annihilated all the more. It is this that Christ says in John 3:7, »You must be born anew.« To be born anew, one must consequently first die and then be raised up with the Son of Man. To die, I say, means to feel death at hand.
These 25: Therefore man knows that works which he does by such faith are not his but God’s. For this reason he does not seek to become justified or glorified through them, but seeks God. His justification by faith in Christ is sufficient to him. Christ is his wisdom, righteousness, etc., as 1 Cor 1:30 has it, that he himself may be Christ’s vessel and instrument (operatio seu instrumentum).
The Christian Serf
Originally published February 12, 2014
One reason, among many, that I delight in not being a part of the institutional church is I am no longer a serf to American Christian academia. Did I really “tithe” to God in the past? No, I paid taxes to a multi-billion dollar corporation that is in the salvation by membership business. As an elder of a fairly large Evangelical church that was on the cutting edge of doctrinal conservatism, I created somewhat of a stir by recommending that the church start a benevolence fund. I found these types of confrontations surreal and confusing, until I grew up. But even before I grew up, I at least knew that recommending a widows list would be dead on arrival. What jumps out of the passages like an A-Bomb when you read the Bible for yourself is the fact that all giving is need-based, not institutional based.
Like government institutions, there is a separate standard for leaders and serfs. Christians often find themselves in double serfism accordingly, and this is completely unnecessary. Besides, it hinders real ministry. Like government—like church, and this week we have an excellent example accordingly.
The Obamas, for some time, have been attempting to legislate what Americans eat, for our own good of course. Specifically, the First Lady has been in charge of two programs that dictate what we are allowed to feed our children. However, TPNN reports that an upcoming White House dinner boasts a menu that has 1000 more calories than a meal one can order from an establishment of Big Fast Food which is among many capitalistic evils like Big Oil.
That’s the point: the standard is always double. You see, the enlightened can handle life-stuff like food and guns, but such things must be kept from the great unwashed masses because of our unrestrained appetites. This is a simple metaphysical construct that was up and running as soon as God blocked entry back into the garden with the baddest angel in the universe. This herd mentality eventually led to the flood. Even then, God had to later do the confusion of languages thing because men insist on letting others think for them and following bad ideas.
Like government—like church. What do we do when we want to “start a ministry”? We ask the elders for permission. While attending the aforementioned church, still as an elder, I was contacted by an inner city church that simply wanted us to come in and take them over. I thought it was an excellent opportunity for many in our church to serve God in the inner city. The opportunity met with stiff resistance. One man told me that he wouldn’t dream of participating in such a ministry without at least a Master’s degree. Others said that our church already supported a ministry that did the same kind of inner city work. By accepting the offer, we would have been usurping them in some way.
We don’t think of the institutional church as something that hinders ministry because of its huge programs and infrastructure, but let me remind you that those programs are limited to institutionally approved workers while the primary expectation of the Christian serf is to work a job, keep their mouth shut, and tithe at least 10%. In fact, many churches are disciplining members for not tithing. And why is there so much fear among Christians in regard to “church discipline”? Obviously, Christian serfs believe that the institutional church has the authority to declare them unbelievers. Scoff at membership by salvation if you must, but it is clearly how the institutional church functions.
And what is more obvious than the double standard? In the midst of the “church discipline” craze, where is 1Timothy 5:20?
But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.
Members being disciplined/excommunicated is an epidemic while the former is rarer than fine gold; also, rampant fear of elders is ever so evident and can only be chalked up to the belief that salvation is found in the institutional church.
Christian serfism is a plague that can only be cured by a New Testament model of worship.
Calvinists, Arminians, and Discernment Bloggers: Why They Will Not Accept the Truth About John Calvin
Originally published December 1, 2013
The Christian community continues to belabor the symptoms resulting from the false gospel of Calvinism. This is a doctrine that is no different from any other works salvation and should be categorized with Adventism, Mormonism, and all of the other isms. Election isn’t the issue; the 5 points are not the issue; at issue is another gospel. A couple of articles written this week are good examples. Dr. Jay Adams wrote a good article about the pervasive lack of practical application in contemporary preaching. But that is a symptom of the problem: Calvin believed that Christian living is the New Testament expression of the Old Testament Sabbath. Hence, to do works in the Christian life is the same as violating the Old Testament Sabbath by working. According to authentic Calvinism, we are saved by faith alone, but since salvation is not a finished work in the believer, we must continue to live by faith alone to keep ourselves saved. Therefore, authentic Calvinism expressed in New Calvinism is a complicated theology that enables us to live the Christian life by faith alone. This is nothing new. James had to refute it and it is why Martin Luther rejected the book of James.
That’s why there is no practical application in today’s preaching: it is deemed as works salvation. I have cited John MacArthur in previous articles who has repented of preaching practical application and has stated such plainly. He has stated that we do not apply Scripture to our lives—the Holy Spirit applies it and in most cases we do not even realize that we are obeying. Why? Because it is not us doing the work. He has plainly stated his belief on this. This is the mysticism of realm manifestation that is part and parcel with authentic Calvinism. It enables the living by faith alone in the Christian life by replacing our works with gospel manifestations of good works.
In another post this week, Joel Taylor of 5Point Salt suggested that Christians should show New Calvinist Mark Driscoll more mercy because we all “make mistakes.” Mistakes? Driscoll preaches another gospel. The apostle Paul proclaimed a curse on those who preach another gospel. Why is Christianity refusing to deal with this problem? The reasons follow: 1. Calvinists are in-between a rock and a hard place because the resurgence of authentic Calvinism in the form of New Calvinism has brought to light what Calvin really believed. They don’t want to look stupid because they have been calling themselves Calvinists all of these years and didn’t know what he really believed. 2. Arminians are in-between a rock and a hard place because they have been preaching for all of these years that the issue with Calvinism is the election issue. They, too, do not want to look stupid because the real issue all along has been a fundamentally false gospel. 3. Discernment bloggers want to deal with the behavior (the symptoms) and not the gospel because they are Protestants, and by design, they are theologically dumbed down. They are the least guilty of the three. They are attempting to do something about the problem via what they can understand: behavior, but in doing so, they are focusing on symptoms and not the disease. They need to get beyond Hospice care and find the cure. Unfortunately, and perhaps wisely, they treat the New Calvinists as misguided because they don’t have the theological wherewithal to make the case for a false gospel. But again, it is kinda not their fault as they have been deliberately dumbed down by Protestant ecclesia.
This has been a Reformed tradition for more than 500 years and is grounded in Augustinian Neo-Platonism. But, looking stupid shouldn’t be the issue; a love for the truth should be the issue; the eternal future of people should be the issue. What a difference it would make if notable Calvinists would admit that they missed it. What a difference it would make if Seminaries would preach the truth about New Calvinism.
paul
The Saving God, Tears of Joy, and the Gospel of Freewill
“They are purchased slaves remaining under the dominion of their present master by their own choice.”
John Immel makes one particular statement at every TANC conference each year: Calvinism is the most disastrous body of doctrine ever perpetrated on mankind. He speaks primarily from a societal viewpoint, I speak primarily from a theological viewpoint, and Susan speaks primarily from a life experience viewpoint. That’s how our roles in the TANC endeavor operate. We now have Andy as well who represents a grammatical life application of the theological ramifications, and to a point, the societal implications as well. If you don’t attend the conferences—you are missing out.
But back to John. The yearly statement which is now a tradition is unlike many traditions, in that one’s understanding of the statement grows every year. So, when John makes that statement, there is a marked, deeper refection than the year prior.
When I initially received Christ, the music of the gospel made me cry. Then I became acquainted with the only thing one can be acquainted with in the institutional church: orthodoxy. When orthodoxy became synonymous with truth in my mind, that’s the day the music died. Think what you may of John Immel, but his first series of talks at TANC 2012 introduced me to a unique challenge: orthodoxy as intermediate truth, and church polity as a soft term for the fusion of faith and force. That challenge led me on a journey that has resulted in the enablement to hear the sweet music of the gospel once again.
A combination of circumstances, including my marriage to Susan, enabled me to say to God, “No more listening to men, help me to take these words in Romans at face value. You are not a God of confusion, what is Paul plainly saying?” Pray tell: how do we make two laws, plainly stated as such, two realms? Answer: orthodoxy.
The music is back. My sins are not merely covered, they are ended. My salvation has no judgment. There is no law to be found. There is no condemnation. All I can see now in regard to condemnation is our loving Lord hanging on that cross in unimaginable suffering saying, “It is finished.” We are untouchable. Nothing can separate us from the love of God. Christ came to end the law of sin and death for those who believe, and set them free to obey the law of the Spirit of life without fear of condemnation.
When one stops listening to experts and really believes that God rewards those who seek Him, a particular God emerges from the truth: a God who predetermined a means for reconciliation, and pronounced it irrevocable, an irrevocable calling that will stand till all things are new. It’s called, “hope.” It is knowing that a good ending is predetermined. No one can take it from us. We also see a God that seeks man in his weakness and sin, shoving him to the precipice of His kingdom, but stopping short of making the decision for him. Certainly, when Adam sinned, he did not immediately seek God out for a solution—he hid. But God sought him out and reasoned with him, and so it goes in history.
God ordained the means of salvation; put His law on every man’s heart with an internal judge; sent His son to die, and thereby drawing all men to Him; sent the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin; imputes all sin to the law of sin and death that has already been ended and awaits those who want to be free of sin’s condemnation; and mandates His kingdom citizens to implore all to join God’s kingdom as well. “TURN AWAY! TURN AWAY! WHY WILL YOU DIE?” Moreover, Christ did not come to condemn the world, but to save it. Hell was not created for man, but for the kingdom of darkness. Consider…
And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”
Note that an unregenerate person can have wisdom. Note that they are drawn to the kingdom’s door. The unregenerate can know truth. The unregenerate can be persuaded. They have the law written on their hearts. They have an internal convicter, an outside convicter, the love of a Savior, the witness of love among His followers, and the testimony of creation.
We are told that God does all of this, but is just sporting with man, for in the final analysis, it is His choice alone. God is within His right, because of His righteousness, to send all to hell. Yet, in contrast, the Bible states that His righteousness is manifested by supplying a way of salvation. Christ didn’t come to obey the law perfectly to display the righteousness of God. Men were declared righteous apart from the law well before the first coming of Christ. Supplying a way to be reconciled with man put His righteousness on display. Christ did not come to condemn, and God desires that all men would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
At the 2008 T4G pastors’ conference, John MacArthur Jr. took opportunity to announce to the Reformed community that he was one of them in the truest sense. He asserted that total inability has always been the dominate teaching of the church from the very beginning. This, of course, is an outright, blatant lie and an attempt to rewrite church history. Free will was the position of many church fathers and theologians of the post apostolic church. But either orthodoxy can be bad and we need neither.
There will be weeping in eternal hell because they will know they had a choice; they “neglected the great salvation.” They said “no” in the face of a God who bankrupted heaven to call them. They will not be weeping because they had no choice. To believe that you have no choice is a choice.
The strongest indictment against predestination of individuals is the source itself, the Reformers…of the Catholic Church. Calvin, in league with the Eastern transcendental meditation that Reformed theology is predicated on, believed that there are three classes of elect: the non-elect; the partially elected; and those given the gift of perseverance. Yes, Calvin taught that some people are temporarily illumined, but God, apparently in conjunction with what He has predetermined, takes away their election and condemns them to a greater damnation. Only those “given the gift of perseverance” are the truly elected. This coincides with Eastern religion and the idea that some are hopelessly enslaved to the shadow material world (and enslaved to empirical reason) while some are partially able to see beyond the material. The third class is completely free from interpreting reality in the shadowy material world.
Because of the kinship that the Reformers had with Eastern mysticism, they were hard pressed to explain how Christ came to earth as a man in the flesh. I have received reports from some in Reformed churches that pastors are teaching the following: Christ did not have the same kind of flesh that we have. This should be of no surprise if you understand the true roots of the Reformation. Martin Luther taught that Christ came as a man to supply an epistemological gateway of understanding into the invisible. He equated ALL works with the material world, and insisted that Christ came to replace all works with suffering. Hence, Luther defined the essence of the Christian life as an endeavor to escape the material world through suffering and a deeper knowledge of Christ’s suffering in life and on the cross. The kinship to Eastern thought here is evident. This led to the cross being the paramount icon of Christianity.
The point here is that part and parcel with these ancient and Eastern ideas from the cradle of civilization is the concept of predeterminism. Predeterminism dominates Eastern thought and is very prevalent in Islam. Yet, in the same message at T4G 2008, MacArthur propagated the well-traveled idea among the Reformed that predetermism is unique to the Reformation. This is a blatant aberration from true history; to the contrary, predetermist ideology saturates human history and has been the fabric of the vast majority of religious and secular movements throughout history.
What has always been rare, and unique to the point of extinction is the idea that man is able. America is unique in history because it is founded on the insane idea that man is able to govern himself. This so grates against the mentality that has dominated world history that America is despised regardless of the steroidal goodness produced by her. In reality, the world lusts to see the American experiment fail, and this by no means excludes the present-day Neo-Calvinist movement. The Reformers, past and present, have sold their package well: the idea that freewill is the common mentality of humanity is perhaps the greatest myth that has ever been propagated upon mankind.
How can a loving God send people to an eternal hell? He doesn’t. They choose to go to a place that was never created for them, but rather for the Devil and his angels. They choose between two kingdoms.
Sin was “found” in Lucifer, either because God was complicit in the creation of sin, or because freewill is a righteous element of His creation power. But if freewill existed before man’s fall, and obviously it did, nothing in Scripture indicates that freewill no longer exists.
I understand that isolated Bible verses seem to propagate predeterminism, but that doesn’t equal plenary determinism, nor are ignorant Protestants qualified to draw conclusions from orthodoxy. The jury is still out because the fruits are from a poisonous tree. To what degree does God intervene and predetermine, and how much does the historic predeterminism running in the background reflect on certain statements in the Bible? For instance, God talking to the disciples in parables so that others could not understand…
“See, that’s because He didn’t elect the others that were listening.”
Then why any fear of them understanding something? Jesus was pushing back against the Gnosticism of that day which propagated the idea that religious leaders only had saving knowledge. He spoke in parables in front of them, and then reveled the meaning of the parables to His disciples later. This was a direct, in-your-face push-back to the Gnosticism of that day, and taught the disciples to stop taking the religious leaders of their day seriously. We would do well to follow that lesson in our own day.
But in the final analysis, this post points to our freedom in Christ. Christ died to purchase all men from the slavery of sin that rules the kingdom of darkness. They are under a law that condemns them, but also protects them in case one day they would follow Christ. The heavy load of law breaking on their shoulders is a law that has been ended if they would only believe in Christ. They are purchased slaves remaining under the dominion of their present master by their own choice. They are also written in a book of life from which God does not desire to blot them out.
If we are in Christ we are free indeed. We are free from condemnation. We must not only tell the world that they serve the master of sin, its king, and its kingdom, but that they have been purchased by the king of glory. They are slaves by choice. This is where Calvinism must claim limited atonement; the idea that Christ only purchased the chosen with His death. The idea that Christ purchased all men from the slavery of sin brings much question upon the idea of individual election. Yet,
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
God prepared the means of salvation and predetermined that the application of it would be undeterred. Mankind is convicted in regard to sin and the judgment to come from within and without. Within by conscience, a judge that administers the law written on their hearts, and without by the Holy Spirit. Christ came to save the world, not condemn it, and to draw all men to Himself. He seeks after all men, initially writes them in the Book of Life, and has purchased them from the master of this world. Even the law that condemns them imprisons their sin until faith comes. It is a law that leads them to Christ, but will indeed condemn them if they do not repent. He also calls on His church to implore all men to be “reconciled to God.”
He does everything but make the choice for us. This is far more compelling than the worn-out un-novel idea of determinism used by every sect and band of religious gypsies that have ever come down the pike. It sets us free from confusion and compels us to glorify God by sharing our life of joy that is able to love God and please Him. It rejoices in the freedom of loving God by loving others without fear of condemnation.
Calvinists only rob us of our freedom in Christ to love by warning us that such zeal could be a mere attempt at self-righteousness. But we know that righteousness is a finished work, and we will not submit ourselves again to the fear of condemnation…
…for there is no fear in love.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments