The Calvinist Grand Quandary
“At any rate, the very attempt by Calvinists to evangelize places them in a twofold grand quandary that requires the abandonment of rudimentary logic.”
“But in contrast, if God’s choice over our choice is the crux of the gospel, that crux must be explained in order for the presentation itself to be a true gospel.”
At the 2008 T4G conference, John MacArthur Jr. officially came out of the closet as a bonafide New Calvinist. He did this because he was convinced by John Piper and others that New Calvinism is Old Calvinism. MacArthur signed up because it’s true, and he was unwilling to reject Reformation tradition. Apparently, only other-than Anglo Saxon can be deceived en masse.
MacArthur’s keynote address was titled, The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing: The Doctrine of Absolute Inability. MacArthur was converted from his Lordship Salvation escapades of the late 80’s by the New Calvinist camp. According to a pastor I knew at the time, Michael Horton and others challenged MacArthur to rethink the controversy he had started. The result is MacArthur still affirming Lordship, but as a manifestation rather than actions of new creaturehood. I recently completed a series explaining all of the confused controversy in regard to the Lordship Salvation issue.
At any rate, the very attempt by Calvinists to evangelize places them in a twofold grand quandary that requires the abandonment of rudimentary logic.
I have written before about the Gospel of Sovereignty. Any ability at all on the part of mankind is a slight against God’s sovereignty. This is the hypothesis of MacArthur’s aforementioned messages. Hence, the “good news” is man’s “absolute” inability and God’s sovereignty. MacArthur’s primary text was John 3:1-8…
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
MacArthur stated during his messages that when the gospel is presented we must make it clear that people can only do one thing in response to the gospel: ask for salvation, and then wait to see if the wind blows or not. So, it is not a decision, often maligned in Reformed circles as “decisionism,” or a choice. Either suggests ability on the part of the individual to make a decision for God or to choose God; ability and God’s sovereignty are mutually exclusive. If man can choose, or make a decision, God ceases to be God.
This qualifies a fair challenge to all Calvinists: “Do you make it absolutely clear in your gospel presentation that people have no ability to choose God?” If they do not do this, if this is not qualified, they are presenting a false gospel by their own definition. Why? The truthfulness of their gospel must be verified by the certainty that the individual does not assume they have a choice or can make a decision.
Most Calvinists get around this by replying that people are being called on to believe only, not make a decision or a choice. However, it also stands to reason that belief itself is a choice. When we are presented with a proposition, we DECIDE to believe it or not believe it. In all fairness, according to their own definitions, Calvinists must make this distinction clear in their gospel presentation. Let’s face it; few do if they evangelize at all. In fact, when Calvinists are cornered with this question, they immediately start acting like a toddler who needs to use the bathroom. Basically, they know that the lack of this distinction in their actual gospel presentation is telling. Their presentation is supposedly purified by the absence of information.
On another wise, Calvinists are also admitting that they are asking for a mere mental assent to acknowledging that God saves people. The Bible states that part and parcel with belief is the acceptance that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him. Obviously, among the unbelieving, there are those who reject the existence of God altogether, and those who believe in His existence, but don’t want anything to do with Him. Is the wind only blowing halfway in those cases? Are there three different wind advisories? None, moderate, and gale force? Furthermore, if people have no ability to choose, is a decision to choose Buddha over Allah made for them? The logic seems to be that man can indeed choose, but will only choose other gods unless God intervenes—if they understand that they have no ability to choose.
If we give this whole construct merit to this point, we further find that the definition of faith must be a mere mental accent to the facts of the gospel with an intentional non-response; any response must be from the blowing wind. MacArthur stated in the same messages that we know Nicodemus was saved because “the wind blew” referring to his righteous actions.
Hence, if the Calvinist gospel is not false by their own definition, it must be presented as follows:
“God saves people, and you may be one of them and you may not be one of them, but if you are able to choose, God is not sovereign, and you are trusting in your own ability to choose.”
Unwittingly, some Calvinists say it is alright if people initially think they are able to choose, but later understand that it wasn’t their choice. So, it is alright if they initially trust in their decision in order to receive the gift of salvation from God, but later realize this was not the case at all. So at what point were they really saved? And would not sooner be better than later? Why not tell them from the get-go? This implies a cult-like procedure that misrepresents the truth, and then slowly indoctrinates the individual to a just standing. Others suggest that the evangelist should never state that it is their decision, but rather cite Scriptures that imply such—that way, apparently, it is the Holy Spirit lying instead of you. But nevertheless, what the individual believes about choice is uncertain unless clarified.
In the final analysis, everyone but the recipient of the gospel knows they have no real choice, but thinking they have a choice might be necessary to get them into the kingdom. But in contrast, if God’s choice over our choice is the crux of the gospel, that crux must be explained in order for the presentation itself to be a true gospel.
Add to this the definition of “believe” in the Bible. In the Bible, “believe” is never defined as a mere mental assent to the facts of the gospel; it also involves a commitment to kingdom living. More than not, it was the “gospel of the kingdom” that was preached by Christ and the apostles. As I explained in the Lordship series, it is impossible for the execution of the commitment to save you because justification and sanctification are completely separate. But clearly, a response to the gospel must include a decision to leave life A for life B. The follow-through doesn’t save you, the decision saves you. Because of the weakness of the flesh, love for God’s ways will vary in application, but you are not only choosing a savior; He is also Lord.
Consequently, Calvinists insist that repentance be left out of the gospel presentation for this reason—it calls on the individual to choose a different way. In the book of Acts, Christianity is referred to as “The Way” in several places. This is more information that must be excluded from the Calvinist gospel in order to make it true by their own definition. Therefore, in order for their gospel to be truthfully presented by their own definition…
“God saves people. If He saved you, you will live differently. The wind will blow, but it’s not your choice, do you believe this? And by the way, don’t change your life to prove to yourself God saved you, that’s fruit stapling. If you believe, that’s great, but now you must wait to see if the wind blows. The Christian life is a Sabbath rest.”
Anything less than this in a Calvinist gospel presentation is a false gospel by their own definition.
And let us not forget, in Calvinist post salvation status, the wind keeps on blowing, or not. It is undeniable that Calvin himself believed in three classes of people: the non-elect, the called, and those who persevere. Said another way: no wind at all, those who are temporarily enlightened (the wind stops), and the ones who get a steady wind to the end.
There is only one way Calvinism can be feasible; logic must be completely divorced from the Bible.
paul
“Secular” Is NOT Synonymous with “Evil”
Gnosticism does not interpret reality in three dimensions. That’s why it is of the Dualism family of philosophy. EVERYTHING is good or evil, material or invisible. This is the “knowledge of good and evil.” ALL of reality is interpreted and defined by one or the other. This also involves Anti-Type epistemology as well: opposites define each other; we would not know light if not for darkness, and evil gives deeper understanding of good and vice versa.
This was the basic hypothesis of the Calvin Institutes (see 1.1.1.) and Protestantism in particular. Martin Luther interpreted ALL reality via the “glory story” and the “cross story.” The story of man and the story of redemption. Luther believed that man cannot reason or know reality, and God sent Christ to marry the invisible to the visible as the only gateway of wellbeing—the only gateway of understanding between the shadow world and the true forms through suffering. This IS the Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic so highly touted in Reformed circles. It is behind comments by the likes of John MacArthur Jr. that people doubt their salvation because they have not suffered enough as a Christian.
This worldview has seriously crippled Christianity’s ability to minister to the world because, among many examples, the secular is always defined as being evil. America was founded on secular principles: separation of church and state. The founding fathers saw the secular as a force for good that freed man to pursue life and happiness. This was the first time in history where faith and force were separated.
Other words that are unfortunate Christian synonyms for evil… “flesh,” and “leaven.” The latter often denotes influence whether good or evil; the former, like the secular, can be used for good or evil. The framers recognized that church and secular together, never turns out well. This is why movements such as the Moral Majority are egregiously misguided.
Here is an example of God using the secular for good purposes, and His call to Christians to support such:
Romans 13:1 – Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
paul
The New Calvinist Movement Poses Imminent Danger to American Society
“Church folk only think they are doing church when in reality they are being USED for a broader political motive.”
While our ministry will continue to reveal the plenary doctrinal aberration of authentic Reformed soteriology, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the societal impact of New Calvinism.
Be sure of this: New Calvinism has bold political aspirations. The movement is simply a repeat of European church history trying to function under American rule of law. Right now, the movement is using a particular doctrine to gain a following, and once the following is big enough, it will make its move because it has votes to bring to the political big-boy table. In times past, the biggest sword won, but because of America, politics must replace bloodletting.
Also be sure of this: New Calvinism is about world domination, to the glory of God of course. Um, New Calvinists such as Doug Wilson and Albert Mohler have stated that in no uncertain terms.
Also note their reluctance to be critical of terrorism and such groups as ISIS. In fact, New Calvinist Joe Carter recently defended ISIS in regard to “false accusations” under the auspices of setting the record straight…because you know…we Christians should care about getting our facts straight. Yes, perhaps we should form a committee to defend career bank robbers accused of robbing a bank they didn’t rob. Indeed, one should ask Joe Carter why that is a priority, but I am afraid I already know.
Same ideology…different god.
Here is another thing you can be sure of: New Calvinists wouldn’t deem it a horrible thing if the ISIS flag eventually flies over the White House. Why? Well, their metaphysical epistemology is suffering to begin with, but the bigger element is the fact that groups like ISIS are seen as serving a possible benefaction: getting rid of Enlightenment ideology. If terrorism can serve that purpose, the New Calvinists figure they can make lemonade out of the lemons later on. BUT, New Calvinism cannot ultimately reach their utopian goals as saline fish in fresh waters—Enlightenment ideology must go, that is job one for New Calvinism. And hey, if terrorism can do that, it must be god’s will. Yet one more thing you can be sure of: New Calvinists see Enlightenment ideology as the absolute root of ALL evil.
Right now, New Calvinism is building their base; following/votes equal power. They are a political animal. If you think any of this is about God, you are simply naive.
What is prompting posts like this from moi? Because of our educational relationship with John Immel, PPT readers are beginning to understand, resulting in a mass of information being sent my way. They understand the doctrinal aberrations and the relationship to the political. This all boils down to collectivism versus individualism. Church folk only think they are doing church when in reality they are being USED for a broader political motive.
I will use a few recent examples sent to me. This one here (Article pdf) is yet another example of moral equivalency being preached from the pulpits. John Immel has a great post on that here…and here. Folks, please, there is a reason why New Calvinists are not outraged by terrorism. They share the same ideology and their forefathers practiced the exact same tactics to bring people into conformity.
This one highlights the Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic which is Platonist epistemology dressed in biblical garb (Article pdf. I have written extensively on this to the point of literal exhaustion. Platonism was the foundation of the Medieval church. Copies of the Bible were not available because rulers believed that the masses were unable to reason (see, “Catholic Church”). And, allowing the masses to reason will supposedly lead to chaos. Due to my research, I have come to believe that the Protestant Reformation was an answer to the inevitable mass distribution of the Bible to the serf populous. Trust me, the Bible is no friend of the Reformation. The Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic is specifically designed to rob God’s people of reasoning intellectually with God, and making it a Platonist epistemology instead.
New Calvinism is a political movement that is using people who think the movement is about Christian discipleship. The results speak for themselves; though New Calvinism posits “new resurgence,” it’s been “new” since 1970. While these Platonist philosophers attempt to save the world from chaos like their Marxist predecessors, in the same way, they create chaos, and then blame the same chaos on “losing our original roots.” New Calvinists have been firmly in control of the American church since 2006, and the results again speak for themselves. Virtually ALL anti-spiritual abuse blogs were authored post 2006.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
8 comments