American Christians Are All Calvinists
“Calvin didn’t believe in election. The assumed absurdity of the statement testifies to the traditions of men that saturate the American church.”
There is no new thing under the sun. When Christ came and began His ministry with the proclamation of the kingdom gospel, Israel was steeped in the traditions of men. And Christ didn’t call it “legalism,” He called it antinomianism. Whether Arminian or Calvinist, both came from that same stock. They claim to be different, but both celebrate their parents as heroes of the faith: the Pilgrims. The unregenerate even get in on the act during the holiday season of Thanks Giving and Christmas.
But the Pilgrims were Puritans. And the Puritans were rabid Calvinists. They brought with them the first Bible to ever see American soil: the Geneva Bible which included Calvin’s play by play commentary. They came to start a theocracy modeled after Calvin’s Geneva, and succeeded. And what followed was the same heartless brutality they brought with them from Europe. The Pilgrims were merciless tyrants and were put out of business because they hung too many Quakers for disagreeing with them. Like Calvin and Luther, they were endowed with superstition and mysticism clothed in European orthodoxy.
The reverence of Puritans as spiritual giants and pioneers is grounded on pure myth. They were communistic, and lacked the rugged individualism that founded this nation. Regardless of the vast, unmolested resources they found when they arrived here, Indians had to teach them how to survive. The Puritans were not innovators, and invented little to overcome the environment they found themselves in. Their presuppositions concerning man and mystical approach to life did not serve them well. These same presuppositions run deep and wide in the American church.
But what about Calvinism versus Arminianism and the election issue? There is no disagreement there either. Calvin didn’t believe in election. The assumed absurdity of the statement testifies to the traditions of men that saturate the American church. Calvin believed that we are sanctified the same way we were saved, by faith and repentance alone. He also believed that this saving duo of faith and repentance were necessarily perpetual, and could only be received in the formal church institution. Luther believed this as well. You keep your salvation by being faithful to the local church, or “new covenant.” One must remain “faithful to the covenant” by seeking perpetual reconciliation in the church. So-called election is being elected to be in the covenant, but then you have to keep yourself in the covenant. You run the “race of faith” by “faith alone” in order to stay justified in sanctification.
God then sorts out who was able to do that at a single, last judgment. Hence, Augustine, a forefather of the Reformation, believed that eternal life wasn’t determined until the final judgment. I document these assertions in “False Reformation” and the mini-booklet “New Calvinism for Dummies” (tancpublishing.com). However, this may be helpful as well: https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2012/10/31/mutable-justification-not-shocking-just-reformed/
The fact that Reformed theology rejects election can also be seen in Supersessionism. This is the belief that though the nation of Israel was elected, they lost their election because they didn’t stay faithful to the covenant. So, once elected doesn’t necessarily mean always elected. Though Revelation makes it clear that God will dwell with man ON EARTH for eternity, the American emphasis is eternity in heaven. Why? Because God tabernacling with man on earth =’s Israel. That’s why. The very purpose of election cannot be denied as stated by Paul in Romans 9—anything at all that we do is separated from justification. Therefore, Calvinists deny the purpose of election.
Arminians are no different because they come from the same stock. They also deny election, and seek comfort in church membership. I can’t even tell you how many Southern Baptists that I have visited who trust in their church membership for salvation. To suggest they be removed from the church roles because they have not attended in several years is tantamount to removing them from the book of life. This is a common mentality in Baptist churches and I have witnessed it first hand on many occasions. Also throw in the obvious overemphasis on salvation in Arminian Baptist churches because like their Calvinist counterparts, the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.
Because of the traditions of men, we are all Calvinists. And we are so steeped in tradition that we don’t even know it. There is no new thing under the sun.
paul
Why David Powlison is a Liar
Cultists are all the same. First, they believe they understand a higher knowledge that most Christians are not “ready for.” Example: in an interview with John Piper conducted by someone who asked him what he would say to the Pope if he had two minutes with him, Piper stated in no uncertain terms that most Christians are not ready for the true Reformation gospel of justification by faith alone [in sanctification]. Secondly, this mentality allows them to condone the hijacking of familiar Christian terms/phrases and use them to deceive. Example: when they use the term progressive sanctification they really mean progressive justification and they know it grade-A well. It’s deliberate deception.
“Cult” is a loosely used term and it should be. Cults are defined as any group that seeks to control others through deception. They are also defined by being sectarian; in other words, their false doctrine divides relationships of various kinds. New Calvinism has its roots in ancient spiritual caste systems that are defined by those characteristics. Much of today’s religion finds its origins in those ancient philosophies. So “cult” is going to be a term often used, and rightfully so.
This post was instigated by an email I received from a reader regarding a recent article by David Powlison in the revamped The Journal of Biblical Counseling. I believe Powlison to be, for many documented reasons, an unrepentant, habitual liar. The article that was referred to me, as you can tell, has ruffled my feathers. I’m just fed up with all of the deception. The link was a review written by John Piper puppet Justin Taylor. What is the gist of the article? Powlison is going to explain why being sanctified by justification is only one small part of the full counsel of God that he pretends to proffer. In one promotion for the article we read,
David Powlison challenges the popular views on sanctification that take one strand in Scripture and present it as the be all and end all of Christian growth. He specifically engages the strengths and weaknesses of the view that asserts, “You are sanctified by remembering that you are justified.”
Um, excuse me, but first of all, the idea that Christian growth comes from preaching the gospel to ourselves every day or revisiting the gospel isn’t even “one strand” of Scripture to begin with. That strand isn’t there period. It’s a lie directly from the pit of hell itself. According to Taylor, Powlison will address the following in part 2 of the article:
In an article planned for the next issue of the journal, Powlison plans to look at several related questions:
Is sanctification essentially the activity of remembering and rebelieving that Jesus died for your sins? Is self-justification by your own performance the chief problem that sanctification must deal with? When the Bible says to “make every effort,” is the hard work chiefly the struggle to remember and believe again that we are saved by the achievement of our Savior? “In each case,” he writes, “I will say No, and will seek to widen both our personal approach to sanctification and the scope of ministry to others.”
Powlison chooses his words carefully. He is going to “teach” us how to “widen” our “approach to sanctification.” But the “approach” is still singular, and as this blog has exhaustively documented, his approach is exclusively Christocentric. Powlison’s language is also continually saturated with nuance such as, “I will say no.” Why not just say NO and be done with it? Because the answer is not really “no,” that’s why. That’s the usual Powlison speak for, “It’s kinda ‘no’ but then again it’s kinda ‘yes’”
Let me make my point with this excerpt from Taylor’s blog:
Is self-justification by your own performance the chief problem that sanctification must deal with?
Um, excuse me, but if you are a Christian, self-justification in sanctification is a complete impossibility. But notice that it is conceded that such is a possibility by referring to it as a question of being the “chief problem.” Also note that the concern isn’t those who attempt to be saved by their works which then cannot be called sanctification to begin with, but that self-justification in and of itself is possible in sanctification. The very question verifies what Powlison really believes. Works justification CANNOT take place in sanctification. Where works justification is present, sanctification cannot exist. The very framing of the question shows that Powlison doesn’t believe that the two are mutually exclusive. Moreover, we need them to guide us through the very tricky business of figuring out what is our “own performance” in sanctification resulting in “self-justification” verses what isn’t our own efforts in sanctification. Again, their very premise is a biblical impossibility, but reveals what they really believe.
Powlison is a cultist extraordinaire. That’s what he is. Like all New Calvinists.
paul
Calvinism’s Repenting Your Way Into Heaven and the Folly of the Election/Freewill Debate
My Grandmother was of a vein of Freewill Baptists that believed in Jesus plus perpetual salvific repentance for salvation. They based this on 1John 1:9; “If” you are faithful in confessing known sin, you are forgiven and washed from unknown sin as well. According to this brand of gospel, when one believes on Christ, all their past sins are forgiven, but ongoing sin must be confessed to maintain salvation. Basically, it’s Jesus plus praying your way into heaven. Fortunately, I believe my Grandmother eventually rejected that approach to salvation.
Works salvation can be very subtle. It is anything that requires something of us in sanctification to maintain justification. That’s key: the crux of the issue is the fusion of justification and sanctification. When the two are fused, even doing nothing in sanctification to maintain our justification is works salvation because we are doing something in sanctification for justification even if doing something is doing nothing. Unless the two are completely separate, justification depends on something we do or don’t do in sanctification. Hence, even doing nothing is a work. It’s abstaining from works to maintain our salvation.
That’s what makes this Freewill Baptist doctrine a false gospel—something is required by us in sanctification to maintain justification because the two are still connected. Now, Freewill Baptist, as the very name implies, are Arminians, not Calvinistic. They differ on election, but not salvation. And trust me, the salvation gig is what matters, not the election gig.
I can now hear the cat cries from Calvinists because they are being compared to Freewill Baptists. But they are no different in regard to the gospel because the relationship of sanctification to justification is what matters and NOT election. Nobody is going to hell for their views on election/freewill, but taking part in the maintaining of God’s call is a different matter altogether. And Calvinists believe nothing different on that wise than the Freewill Baptists.
The Freewill Baptist, the aforementioned strain, believes that the same repentance that saved you also sanctifies you all the way to heaven. It’s a perpetual salvific repentance. It’s a perpetual “washing.” Thing is, Christ made it clear that this washing only takes place one time (John ch. 13). Calvinists believe that the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you; e.g., “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” But specifically, they also believe that daily forgiveness must be sought in order to maintain our salvation. Here is what Calvin wrote:
Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God (Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 45: Catholic Epistles).
And….
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death (CI 3.14.11).
In regard to the gospel, there is no difference between Freewill Baptists and Calvinists, and that’s why the freewill/election debate makes no difference as well.
paul
Discovery: Making People Do Right is Part of Life
Internet activism against abuse in the church is just about full throttle in our day. Is that a good thing? One stops to ponder in the middle of any war to reevaluate the overall value of the stress involved. Let’s face it; anybody who would enjoy all of this would have to be a little twisted. I think we all enjoy what we have learned and our personal growth through it all, but could do without the stress and bad feelings.
The culmination of last week was a teachable moment in regard to this question. The week was saturated with actions by me to make people do what is right. It started with the end of a business to business relationship. The other company is very large and did not terminate our contract correctly which threatened to cost my wife and I thousands of dollars. These are very powerful people who are not used to being stood up to by little people like me. My wife (Susan) and I discussed it and decided we would fight and let the chips fall where they may.
I became amazed at all of the options we had at our disposal that put this company on a level playing fighting field with us. But then I realized why that is: others didn’t back down either and took action to prevent injustice for others. Also, it is often the case that when you back down from fighting for what is right, you are not the only one that loses. Losing that money would have prevented us from helping others that we usually help on a regular bases.
An order of published books arrived and the printing quality was substandard. It was not only right to hold the printer accountable for wrongdoing, but it was a decision for our contributors as well. They deserved to get what they paid for. Making my son do his best in school is not only right, it is best for him as well. As I won these battles for right last week, I found myself mentally and physically spent. I awoke from falling asleep, sitting up at my desk, and began to type this post.
And I started typing for this conclusion: those fighting for the spiritually abused in the church fight a good fight. The fight is hard because many looked away for many years. Their decisions to be cowards were not only made for themselves—they also made those decisions for others. And a horrible price was paid.
But our decision is to fight the brute beasts of our day who fancy themselves as God’s anointed and their cowardly golfing buddies. The fight is long and hard, but we will not relent. Making people do right is a part of life, and the decision to fight is rarely for us alone.
paul
It’s Time for the Laity to Fish or Cut Bait, and Happy Anniversary Julie Anne
“Calvin believed the Reformers were given a mandate by God to rule the world; hence, the out-of-control tyranny in the American church.”
I will take this opportunity to wish Julie Anne Smith a happy anniversary. I received an email stating that she opened her blogshop one year ago today. She sent me a tweet from The Gospel According to Calvin blog (TGC). As Charles Surgeon said,
There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.
Wow. Really? Progressive justification is the gospel? Don’t think so. Otherwise known as The Gospel Coalition, the tweet promoted a new book. Books written by New Calvinists are the neo-orthodoxy of the day. And there are people in the world who insist that Hitler was really a good guy. They are called Neo-Nazis. Today, we have Neo-Calvinists. It’s really time for the laity to fish or cut bait; how much longer are we going to continue to allow the philosopher kings to treat us like idiots? After reading the link that Julie sent me, it begs the question: How stupid do these guys think we are?
For some time they have been trying to rewrite Reformed history. That’s what the Resolved conferences were all about. And now there is a new book out attempting to cover Calvin’s bloody tracks leading from the Geneva theocracy. TGC is promoting the work via a review by heretic Michael Horton who like Tim Keller, constantly gets a pass on promoting naked mysticism.
Calvin believed the Reformers were given a mandate by God to rule the world; hence, the out-of-control tyranny in the American church. I will keep saying it: I lay the present-day spiritual abuse tsunami at the feet of Calvinism. The arrogance that follows their delusional vision is seen in how stupid they think the average parishioner is, and Horton’s review is a typical example. He states the following in the review:
Manetsch sets the context by noting the early reformation of the Genevan church reduced the city’s clerics (including monks and nuns) from 500 to 15, turning the convent and two monasteries into a public hospital and school. He observes the Ecclesiastical Ordinances, drafted by Calvin in 1541, established a rotation of ministers in all the churches to avoid the impression the ministers were preachers, not pastors…. Few historical figures have suffered more in terms of rumors passing for fact. It’s long been observed by specialists (Roman Catholic as well as Protestant) that Calvin was far from the Ayatollah one typically finds in the paragraph devoted to him in high school textbooks. Manetsch dispels these rumors with close attention to primary sources.
Does Horton really think that we are not going to consult the Googleberg press on this? Literally fifteen seconds later, here is what I was reading from Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances written for Geneva:
Here follows the third order, or elders
Their duty is to supervise every person’s conduct. In friendly fashion they should warn backsliders and those of disorderly life. After that, where necessary, they should report to the Company [of pastors] who will arrange for fraternal correction…As our Church is now arranged, it would be most suitable to have two elected from the ‘council of 24’, four from the ‘council of 60,’ and six from the ‘council of 200’. They should be men of good repute and conduct…They should be chosen from each quarter of the city so that they can keep an eye on the whole of it.
And let there be no doubt about it: this is the vision that the New Calvinists have for the American church. As Southern Baptists, we call it, “aggressive Calvinism.”
I just call it Calvinism. Shorter, more to the point, and truer.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
12 comments