Reformed Questions in Response to “False Reformation”
Paul,
Just a few questions:
1. If you accept the idea that “flesh” and “spirit” refer to parts of regenerate believers rather than to spheres in which people live and by which we are controlled, where does sanctification take place, in the flesh or in the spirit? The same question applies in terms of “old man”/ “new man.” Which of those grows in sanctification?
Answer: This question reflects the fact that the Reformed crowd doesn’t openly discuss what they really believe about this issue, and I commend you accordingly. Authentic Reformed doctrine holds to the idea that the active obedience of Christ is manifested in the “Spirit realm” as a result of what we see in the Bible being imputed to us by faith alone in sanctification (see Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, theses 27). We don’t change. The “Spirit realm” and the “flesh realm” are two forces that put pressure on us, and at any given time, we “yield” to one or the other. This is the position of the elders who are over the NANC training center in Springboro, Ohio according to an email I received from them when they thought I was onboard with their doctrine.
Of course, the take on this varies among those in the Reformed tradition. Another example would be the idea that we are still dead spiritually, and the living Christ within us is the one obeying. What is consistent is the idea that this obedience is experienced in a certain way: joy and a willing spirit (see LHD, theses 27); that’s how we know Jesus is doing it and not us. At any rate, the crux of Reformed theology is that all good works take place outside of the believer; i.e., Luther’s “alien righteousness” for not only justification, but for sanctification as well. Your question is at the very core of debates that took place between heretic Dr. Ed Welch of CCEF and the commendable Dr. Jay Adams.
Jay Adams oversees INS as he was pretty much run out of NANC and CCEF—largely due to the fact that NANC and CCEF are both bastions of evil. I find it utterly intolerable that thousands are sent to these organizations daily with the hope of change when these Reformed organizations in fact don’t believe that God changes them. There are no words for my loathing of such hideous deception while these organizations also take people’s hard-earned money to boot. And some don’t go along with these ideas, but they stand silent and therefore are just as guilty. And my “whole life” is contending against this? Perhaps, but better that than one’s whole life buying acceptance with silence. Moreover, people praise CJ Mahaney and co. for their tireless night and day service to the “gospel” which is really the work of the kingdom of darkness against the kingdom of light. A pity that I would counter that with my own life.
Unfortunately, Adams, who is much more advanced in patience than I am—associates with them, and in my estimation thereby causes confusion regarding the kind of counseling that will change people. Also, the possibility that the only biblical counseling organization left on the face of the earth that is not infected with Trippism and Powlisonism is also a major concern. Nevertheless, Adams and his associate, Donn Arms, are the only ones who have taken a stand against the heretical onslaught taking place in biblical counseling circles which is fraught with mindless followers, lackeys, lovers of filthy lucre, shameless cowards, and lying integrationists. The idea that these people care about any marriage or the well being of any saint is laughable.
But to answer your question completely, I believe the Scriptures are clear that the old self was put to death and no longer has the ability to enslave us to sin. The old self was “under the law” which means that the law provoked him to sin and a final judgment according to the law. As long as we are alive, our mortality has influence over us in regard to the old ways of being under the law, but the enslavement is broken. We are in fact born again, and have a regenerated “law of our mind.” Hence, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” The warfare takes place inside of the believer between the law of his mind and the “law of sin.” The apostle makes it absolutely clear: this warfare takes place between my “inner being” and “in my members.” What is clearer? Unless the Bible is a Reformed gospel narrative that isn’t meant to inform our co-laboring with God in sanctification. But it is, because we are no longer “under” it for justification, but are informed by it for sanctification. Because the Reformers believe we are still under it, we must continue to live by the gospel that saved us from the law. We are still under it, but Jesus keeps it for us. How this is applied to the Christian life by the Reformers is outright Gnosticism to the core.
Furthermore, the “law of my mind” part of the believer that “delights in the law” in our “inner being” is what grows. Something in us is in fact growing: a host of passages that include 1Peter 2:1-3 make this certain. Really? Jesus isn’t really talking to us when he states, “Well done faithful servant”?
2. Do you believe sanctification occurs completely apart from faith? Do we have everything we need at the point of regeneration, so that further dependence on the Holy Spirit is no longer necessary? It sounds as if that is what you are saying.
Answer: Your question is framed within the confines of the Reformed either/or hermeneutic. Reality is either interpreted through the “glory story” or the “cross story.” This is the interpretive foundation of Reformed theology as stated in Luther’s HD. Because sanctification includes us, it must be by faith alone like salvation or it includes our glory as well. Therefore, where faith is, it must be by faith alone because faith is of God who will not share His glory with another. Therefore, if our doing is involved with sanctification, it must occur completely apart from faith. It must be the glory story, or the cross story. Reformed proponent Gerhard Forde states this in no uncertain terms.
Biblicists reject that metaphysical presupposition with prejudice. We stand with our beloved brother James, whom Luther rejected for obvious reasons, in saying that faith and works are together in sanctification while faith is alone in justification. Luther and his Reformed minions believe that grace is fused with works apart from our faith when it is faith in the works of Christ alone in sanctification (LHD theses 25).
Also, “Do we have everything we need at the point of regeneration, so that further dependence on the Holy Spirit is no longer necessary?” Again, we see Reformed metaphysics. If any part of our story is in the narrative, it’s semi-Pelagianism and not the cross story. This is a rather simple concept. All of the power that raised Christ from the dead is credited to our account in salvation. The Holy Spirit, our “HELPER” (ESV) “helps” us (that’s what a “helper” does, they “help”) in appropriating the blessings of salvation. He aids us (that’s what a “helper” does, he “aids”). And those blessings are appropriated “IN” (that’s a preposition) the DOING (James 1:25).
3. Do you believe Jesus’ actions are ever to be considered not only as instructional as a pattern for our obedience, but as motivation to imitate him?
Answer: As many have forcefully argued in several articles, especially Presbyterian Pastor Terry Johnson, God uses many different incentives to motivate us other than gratitude and meditating on the salvific works of Christ. This was also Adams’ primary contention against Sonship Theology.
4. Do you see any difference between God’s work in a believer that replaces his need to obey and God’s work in believers motivating them to obey?
Answer: The very question suggests a “need” to “replace (s)” the “need” of a believer to “obey” in sanctification? Of course, a clear distinction is not made regarding….in sanctification or justification? But, NO SUCH NEED EXISTS for sanctification. Our work in sanctification has NO bearing on our justification. The premise of the question is based on faulty Reformed presuppositions.
5. How do you see the Reformed doctrine as teaching that sanctification completes justification?
Answer: They call it a “CHAIN” (The golden chain of salvation-Romans 8:29,30). What’s a “chain”? What happens if you remove the middle links of a “chain” ? It’s not completed—this would seem apparent.
paul
New Calvinism is Bad News for Those Who Suffer
There seems to be some bad news in regard to our “good news” gospel-centered churches: your suffering is good news. The evidence continues to mount: New Calvinism is authentic Reformed doctrine. Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation was/is the foundation of Reformed doctrine. It was the first document after his 95 Theses (six months later) which confronted the bad behavior of his fellow philosopher kings, but his Disputation to the Augustinian Order was his doctrinal theses. By the way, according to Luther himself, his Disputation was heavily influenced by the writings of Pope St. Gregory and St. Augustine.
Like the New Calvinists of our day; no, exactly like the New Calvinists of our day, and according to the Disputation, Luther believed that the laity are not able to draw propositional truth from the Bible. He taught that spiritual knowledge and discernment only serve to inflame the evil desires of people whether they are saved or not. Therefore, God issued the Bible for the sole purpose of self-depravation, or “humbleness.” Knowledge “puffs up,” but what he called the “cross story” humbles—leading to “resurrection.” Luther saw the Christian life as a continual cycle of death and life, or “humbleness” followed by “grace.” ALL other considerations, especially anything to do with ourselves, are the “glory story.” This constant cycle of death and resurrection (humbleness and grace) was his redefinition of the new birth.
Luther defined love as something that seeks need [Theses 28]. Sounds good, no? But that was his only definition of love. Love seeks nothing for itself, but only seeks need. The problem begins in the anthropological fact that the love of good and justice feeds our desires because we desire to see such and experience it. But Luther attributed that notion to Aristotle and rejected it. True life was to be found in the suffering of the cross story only and any other life story that serves to bring us low—leading to resurrection. Any and all suffering in our life identifies us with the suffering of Christ, and leads to His resurrection:
Although the works of God are always unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.
That the works of God are unattractive is clear from what is said in Isa. 53:2, »He had no form of comeliness«, and in 1 Sam. 2:6, »The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.« 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, according to that verse of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 6:9-10, »As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as dying, and behold we live.« And that it is which Isa. 28:21 calls the »alien work« of God »that he may do his work« (that is, he humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope), just as Hab. 3:2 states, »In wrath remember mercy.« Such a man therefore is displeased with all his works; he sees no beauty, but only his depravity. Indeed, he also does those things which appear foolish and disgusting to others.
This depravity, however, comes into being in us either when God punishes us or when we accuse ourselves, as 1 Cor. 11:31 says, »If we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged by the Lord«. Deut. 32:36 also states, »The Lord will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants.« In this way, consequently, the unattractive works which God does in us, that is, those which are humble and devout, are really eternal, for humility and fear of God are our entire merit [Theses 4].
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. Thus God »gives grace to the humble« (1 Pet. 5:5), and »whoever humbles himself will be exalted« (Matt. 23:12). The law humbles, grace exalts. The law effects fear and wrath, grace effects hope and mercy. Through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20), through knowledge of sin, however, comes humility, and through humility grace is acquired. Thus an action which is alien to God’s nature (opus alienum dei) results in a deed belonging to his very nature (opus proprium): he makes a person a sinner so that he may make him righteous [Theses 16].
The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn »wisdom concerning invisible things« by means of »wisdom concerning visible things«, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus) [Theses 20].
A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.
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« (Phil. 3:18), for they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil and the evil of a deed good. 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 21].
Luther answered the obvious objection to all of this with the following:
Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ [Theses 17].
More and more, this is the Reformed perspective of pastors in evangelical churches. It represents about 90% of the perspective among certified biblical counselors associated with NANC and CCEF. Does it leave any doubt as to why there is so much indifference to abuse and tyranny in our churches?
And excuse me while I shudder—the thought of hurting people being sent to such counselors by the thousands on a daily basis.
paul
Today’s Christian Husband and Father: Killing His Family with Awesome Preaching
Bob is on his way to Jerry’s house for dinner. Bob is the chairman of their church’s elder board. Jerry is being considered for eldership and Bob will be dining at his house for a pre-interview en lieu of further discussion. Pizza is the cuisine. And apparently, not just on this night—Bob notes that every trashcan in the house is stuffed with pizza boxes. Dishes full of M & Ms also adorn many of the table tops. Bob is taken to the kitchen by Jerry to meet his wife, and Bob perceives no less than twenty-five bags of potato chips staked about in various places. One corner of the kitchen is occupied with a tall stack of Coca-Cola 12packs. Big on taste—small in nutrition. Precious few will disagree that Bob’s family is headed for serious health problems if they do not change their ways. Yet, Bob is a picture of how the vast majority of Christian husbands oversee the spiritual diets of their families. However, the “Bob” motif falls woefully short of making the point; at least Bob knows what his family is eating for better or worse. Christian husbands of our day don’t even know the difference between Redemptive Historical hermeneutics and Grammatical Historical hermeneutics. In fact, when the subject comes up, a rolling of the eyes follows. That’s because the preaching/teaching is awesome where they go to church. Uncompromising, and God glorifying. As one pastor exhorted me when inquiring about what hermeneutic he used in his preaching: “Come and see if it tastes good, and if you still want to, we will talk about theology.” But I never doubt it will taste good. Who doesn’t love pizza for dinner, potato chips as a side, Coke to drink, and M&Ms for desert? Fact is, nearly 90% of preaching/teaching in today’s American church is fundamentally based on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation. This document is the very heart of the Reformation and the engine that drives the present-day New Calvinist movement. Its premise was based on the idea that all spiritual reality, wisdom, and truth comes from the combination of two perspectives, and only these two: the holiness of God, and the wretchedness of all men whether they are Christians or not. Luther called this perspective the “theology of the cross.” It has come to be known as Gospel-Centered preaching/teaching. It is also the foundation of the Calvin Institutes. Everything in the Calvin Institutes, in some way, points to the glory of God “as set against our sinfulness.” This has become job one: as described in the Heidelberg Disputation; this way of teaching is the “cross story,” and all other spiritual wisdom is the “glory story.” Hence, the contemporary clarion call of the Reformation derived from Luther’s Disputation is, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Anything at all that has anything to do with us is “subjective,” and part of the “glory story.” Unless it concerns our wretchedness. Therefore, the Disputation ridiculed a negative attitude towards suffering as well for this serves to further reveal our woeful state in life which magnifies the redemptive work of Christ and our utter worthlessness. The whole motif can be visualized by the following Reformed chart: 
Yes, you can preach wonderful sermons on those two dimensions. They are both abundantly true. Charles Spurgeon is known as the “prince of preachers.” All of his sermons are based on the “cross story.” All, I repeat “all” of John Piper’s sermons and the (seems like) 600 books he has written are based on nothing but, I repeat, nothing but the “cross story.” Amen, pass the potato chips. In circa 1994, John MacArthur abandoned the “glory story” aspects of his preaching and now focuses on the “cross story.” Amen, pass the M&Ms. And those babies slide down nice with a big swig of Coca-Cola. “But Paul, what’s so sweet about focusing on our own wickedness?” My dear friend, haven’t you seen any Staples commercials? It’s easy. You totally stink. Nothing is expected of you: “Hey honey! Good news! We don’t change! Our marriage isn’t about a bunch of do’s and don’ts! Our failures make us wiser!” That was easy. In fact, teachers like Michael Horton and John Piper continually espouse the idea that expectations are just, “more bad news.” And regarding leaders? “Alright, time to prepare my message for tomorrow, and all I have to do is look for two things, and two things only in the text: how great God is, and how bad we are.” That was easy. In fact, we find the following on a well-known Reformed blog regarding instruction on how to prepare a Bible lesson:
At this time, resist the temptation to utilize subsequent passages to validate the meaning or to move out from the immediate context. Remembering that all exegesis must finally be a Christocentric exegesis. Look for Christ even if He isn’t there directly. It is better to see Christ in a text even if He isn’t, than to miss Him where He is.
But as the apostle asked rhetorically, “What saith the Scriptures?” Is there another story other than the “cross story”? Anybody interested in the House on a Rock story?
Matthew 7:24 -“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
Learn and do. That’s how we have a life built on a rock. It is the very definition of a disciple:
Matthew 19 – Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
So, here is my suggestion. When you go to church this Sunday, and other days following that involve sitting under the teachings of your leaders, take a legal pad with you. Draw a line at a downward angle on the bottom labeled, “our sin.” Draw a line at the top with an upward angle, and label it “Christ.” Then draw a line in the middle and label it, “What? Why? And How?” Or, “Not only what Jesus did, but what did He SAY?” Or simply, “Life built on a rock.” If there isn’t a three-dimensional balance—get out of there. You either love your family or you don’t. You will be judged by Christ accordingly. I was approached by my wife Susan this morning. My son by marriage had approached her asking questions about demonology. Apparently, he had questions concerning some things he had heard about the subject in the secular realm. I was astonished; though both of them have been in church for a combined total of 72 years, they didn’t even know the basics regarding this subject. My wife wanted to know the answers to his questions—other than the usual answers: “Jesus” and “gospel.” And if we don’t know, the world will gladly inform our children accordingly. Knowledge equals authority. Men, wake up. paul
Reformed “Total Depravity” and Yin-Yang
Most Christians are familiar with the Reformed view of total depravity from the T.U.L.I.P acrostic fame. Mankind, being totally depraved, cannot and will not seek God. This is also often prefaced with “also known as Total Inability and Original Sin.” This leads to the logical progression of Unconditional Election, or the “U.” God didn’t choose us because of anything worthy in us. Well, of course not. This leads to Limited Atonement, often prefaced with “also known as Particular Atonement.” This and the “I,” Irresistible Grace, is where most of the arguments come in according to the free will/sovereign grace debate. There is almost no disagreement with the “P,” or Perseverance of the Saints, often prefaced with, “also known as Once Saved Always Saved.” Few argue about that as discussion swirls about regarding “I’m a fill in the blank: 1-5 point Calvinist.”
So goes the arguments around, and round, and round for 500 years now, and with no resolution. Why? Because the arguments are based on a faulty understanding of the doctrine. This is evident from the idea that you can be a partial-point advocate of Calvinism. The points depend on each other. It’s like saying you’re a partial advocate of the equation, 1+1+1+1+1=5. Moreover, once there is an understanding of what makes Calvinism tick, the free will/sovereign grace issue is exposed as just an inferior byproduct of the big picture.
We begin with the dirty little secret concerning the “T.” The total depravity of man (original sin) is also the total depravity of the saints. It has come to the point where neo-Calvinists have had to come clean on this of late. And if you are paying attention, they are constantly saying that we (Christians) are “wicked sinners saved by grace,” “enemies of God,” “no different than unbelievers,” etc, etc, etc. This ministry has a storehouse of data confirming this. Calvin himself stated that Christians are utterly unable please God in any way (Calvin Institutes: Book 3; ch. 14, sections 9-11). The fact that this idea flies in the face of the apostle’s stated goal of pleasing God, whether here or in glory, is irrelevant because of how Calvin approached the Scriptures. Reformed theology is not based on exegesis by any stretch of the imagination.
We remain totally depraved. We remain completely evil. We don’t change. This is foundational to Reformed theology. It also brings us to the next dirty little secret: “P” or, once saved always saved, is not “true” in the way most Christians think it is from a Reformed viewpoint. The perseverance of the saints is really Christ persevering for us. Hence, Christians “manifest” Christ’s perseverance. This is simple math. How can the totally depraved persevere? Once Calvinists have to come clean on the total depravity of the saints, the house of cards will fall. The “P” as worded indicates that the saints have a part in the persevering—this is a deliberate, deceptive lie. Something else is going on. But what?
We get a clue from beginnings. Specifically, Genesis and the first sentence of the Calvin Institutes. In the very first sentence of the Calvin Institutes, Calvin states that ALL wisdom comes from a deeper and deeper understanding of God, and ourselves. That’s his metaphysics and epistemology, and is appropriately stated in the very first sentence of his magnum opus. But wait. If we are evil and remain evil, and God is good, is this not the same thing as the “knowledge of good and evil”? Where have we heard that before? This is the knowledge that the Serpent tempted Eve with. He told her God was withholding true wisdom from her which could be found by eating the fruit from the tree of “the knowledge of good and evil.”
Basically, we have Calvin agreeing with Satan in regard to what true knowledge is. But is ALL knowledge ALWAYS the best wisdom? Is all metaphysics good metaphysics? Obviously, sin was a knowledge that Adam and Eve knew nothing about. They had to sin to get the sin knowledge. Let me repeat that in another way because it’s an important element: they had to disobey God to get the knowledge and actually experience it.
The Bible states the details of Satan’s fall and the entering of evil into reality or, what is (metaphysics). The passages are Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:11-19. At that point, no doubt, evil was born into the knowledge of reality. But was that a good thing? And hold on to this question for now: did God need evil to better define Himself?
Since the garden, men and women have founded many philosophies on the idea of good and evil being the full knowledge of reality. The whole metaphysical story if you will. They often made that knowledge equal with wisdom, and wisdom being good, in and of itself. Added was the idea that good and evilas moral verses immoral is not reality, but was contrived by men because of their misunderstanding of true reality. This is known as Dualism and is the foundation of most false religions of all kinds with thousands of variances. Basically however, it’s the idea that the invisible reality is a higher knowledge than the material, and cannot be obtained through what the five senses can ascertain. The goal (in some cases) is to join the spiritual with the physical by accessing the spiritual (invisible). By gaining a deeper and deeper knowledge of both invisible and material, the invisible can be experienced in the material realm resulting in wellbeing.
We see this concept in the most ancient of civilizations; eg, oriental culture. The goal of the Yin-Yang (literally, “shadow and light”) is to gain understanding of both which leads to an understanding of reality because opposites give definition to each other. Darkness can’t be understood without light etc. Likewise, “the good” or God, can’t be understood without evil. Hence, reality is made up of opposites (male, female, etc), and understanding the opposites and how they define each other is the key (epistemology) to understanding reality. That’s the gest.
And let there be no doubt—this basic idea is the foundation of Reformed theology. Again, the math is simple. If we don’t change—if we remain evil—there is only one place left to go: Mystic Dualism. But how do they make this work? It’s not that difficult, and can be seen throughout Reformed teachings. First, all of the magnificent teachings in Reformed theology are mostly about how great God is. We focus on that (who wouldn’t!), we are mesmerized by that (who wouldn’t be!), and miss what is missing: learn and apply. Learn and apply isn’t the point; more and more knowledge of the good (God) and the evil (us) is supposedly the point. Stopping to apply God things to our life cuts off the God experience achieved through the knowledge of both.
The Reformed camp states it all the time: “Seeing God’s holiness as set against my own sinfulness is the key to transformation.” Al Mohler says it all the time. Elyse Fitzpatrick says it all the time. John Piper says it all the time. CJ Mahaney says it all the time. It’s a first-degree theological felony performed in broad daylight under the cover of how awesome God is—a very powerful cover! It reminds me of my frog-gigging days with my grandfather: the rays from the flashlight paralyze the bullfrog, and then you spear his stupidity.
I have often posted the New Calvinist cross chart on this blog, and sigh, I will do it again at the end of this post. This is their chart, not mine, and what is more obvious? We don’t change. By seeing God’s holiness more and more, and our sinfulness more and more, the cross gets bigger. This lends to powerful “rhetorical” questions that argue the case such as, “Do you want to be bigger? Or do you want the cross to be bigger?” “Do you want what you do to be bigger? Or what Christ did on the cross to be bigger?” This is very powerful; primarily, because it was hatched from the minds of demons. But if you stop and think for a while, you might stop and ask: “The cross getting bigger; what does that look like? How is that experienced?”
Good question, and the key is the word EXPERIENCE. What we experience is not necessarily who we are. We can experience the cross getting bigger—that doesn’t necessarily mean we are bigger. We can experience the cross in our lives as we use the Scriptures to see the glory of God and our own sinfulness (Chrsitocentric, or gospel-centered hermeneutics). And, that experience leads to more UNDERSTANDING which leads to more experience, or a “transformation from glory to glory.” But the experience is separate from who we are, more like a manifestation in the realm in which we exist. Therefore, we may experience an obedient act in our lives, but it is not really us obeying, it is the “active obedience” of Christ imputed to us. This is why New Calvinists often say that our obedience, when it is real obedience, isn’t experienced in what feels like “self-effort,” or “obedience in our own effort.” As Francis Chan states:
When we work for Christ out of obligation, it feels like work. But when we truly love Christ, our work is a manifestation [emphasis Added] of that love and it feels like love (Crazy Love: p.110).
That’s because we are experiencing the obedience of Christ imputed to us, and not an obedience that we exercise. Hence, as New Calvinist Chad Bresson often states, it’s a “mere natural flow.” Other Reformed teachers call obedience “kinesthetic” or “experienced, not performed.” It is also interesting what the first tenet of New Covenant Theology states:
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.
This simply means that “all reality” is interpreted through the gospel; ie, the aforementioned cross chart. So, gospel contemplationism leads to experiencing “grace,” and that experience leads to an even deeper understanding of grace, leading to more deeper and deeper experiences of grace. Or, “spiritual formation.” Or, “heart transformation.”
What about sin? Well, remember, the cross, or the cross experience, gets bigger as we gain a deeper and deeper knowledge of our own sin as well as God’s holiness. Therefore, our sin serves to give us a deeper understanding of both the Yin and the Yang. In this case, God’s holiness “as set against our sinfulness.” The experience of both, one fruit (Christ’s imputation), and thorns (our sin) contribute to knowledge of the good which leads to deeper experiences of grace. The latter is the theme of Paul David Tripp’s How People Change published by Punch Press in 2006. I included a visual illustration from that book at the end of this post along with the cross chart for your viewing pleasure. Anyone familiar with Gnostic dualism will immediately recognize the cybernetic loop of experience that leads to deeper knowledge through reinforcement, and hence deeper experiences of the spiritual, or the gospel.
There are two fundamental problems with this approach. Serious problems. First, it sees the necessity of understanding evil to better understand God. Evil is factual, but it isn’t God’s truth—He doesn’t need it to define His Holiness. The idea is the epitome of vileness. Secondly, this philosophy encourages an endeavor that Scripture forbids—dwelling on that which is not honorable (Philippians 4:8 among a myriad of other texts). We are to learn what sin is in order to put it off in our lives, not to inflate our supposed identity as among the totally depraved in order to glorify God. This is all a complete distortion of sanctification reality.
In the final equation, total depravity being total inability in both justification and sanctification is the dirty little secret that completely unravels Reformed theology. When we remain unchanged, there is only one formula left: mysticism, and interpreting obedience as something performed by Christ and only experienced by us. In the same way that Adam and Eve could only know evil by experiencing it, we can only know good through experience, but are not able to practice it ourselves. In other words, in the fall, ability to perform and experience our own performance of good was supposedly reversed with evil. Now, we can only perform evil and experience the good imputed to us by Christ’s obedient life as part of the atonement, and added to His, apparently, not all sufficient death. You can add that as a third reason to believe Reformed theology is nothing short of repugnant.
This is elementary. The simple knowledge of what total depravity really means leaves the whole Reformed house in ruins. The only thing that now adds up is the misery, blood, and oceans of foolish ink left in its wake.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
20 comments