Spiritual Communism, Obama, and the Future of America
There are many perplexing events taking place around us that really shouldn’t be that confusing at all: how in the world could Obama have won the election with this kind of economy (a first)? How could the Obama administration turn their backs on the Benghazi consulate and leave them for dead? Why would we not secure our border with Mexico immediately in the face of terrorist infiltration of our society on a large scale? How can the horrors of late term abortions be acceptable to any lawmaker? How can we take money from hard workers who are barely scrapping by and give it to those who won’t work?
“Because Obama is evil.” “Because Obama is a typical Democrat.” Because Obama isn’t a Christian.” “Obama is stupid.” Maybe, but even if those reasons are true; they are beside the main point. What Obama is standing for does not defy common sense at all if you understand his….philosophy.
Obama’s philosophy is one of two primary ancient philosophies that were among those living in the cradle of civilization. Those two primary philosophies are determined by how they answer one single question: who owns man? Now, if you hang around with my crowd, they are quick to respond by saying, “God owns man! Are you stupid?” Maybe, but this is also beside the main point.
The fact that God rightfully owns man is a given; how God has decided to execute His ownership is a much broader consideration. It begins with giving Him the glory that is due, which of course starts with the gospel. Once that is established, or nevertheless not established in the minds of many, is man created with a capability to be responsible for the sum and substance of his life before God? Stated another way: are men a herd of mindless animals created by God who need His specially anointed cowboys to manage the herd? Is mankind CAPABLE? This boils down to the philosophy of competence versus incompetence.
Sure, man depends on God for his needs—no doubt there, but past that, is there a capable colaboring involved that God expects on a Christian level, and on a non-Christian level as well? In other words, on the judgment day, will God only judge man for what he decided to do about His Son or will God judge man according to other things as well? The answer follows:
Matthew 12:36
I tell you, on the day of Judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
Man is both capable, and responsible. He is competent. And many concur—Christian and non-Christian. Does capability equal free will to choose God? I won’t go there, but it is clear that man is capable for something, and that he is free—born free if you will. It is interesting to note that procreation was going to happen with Adam and Eve regardless of the fall (Genesis 1:28), but they were only mandated to rule over creation; and not each other. This idea doesn’t exclude roles or leadership in some sort of project, but it does exclude God-appointed masters who have a special pipeline to His higher knowledge; eg, a spiritual caste system.
The latter is the other side of the argument, and qualifies the prism that I will use to clarify the rest of my thesis in this essay. Church historian John Immel organizes it this way: who owns man? Does government own man? Or does man own man? This is how I am going to frame my contention as well, but with a little twist: who owns man? Does government own man at the behest of God as a higher life form, or as a personification of an impersonal cosmic power? Or does man own man as a competent individual who will answer to nobody but God for the sum and substance of his/her life?
This is the battle of the ages. All mortal blood spilled on the earth finds its ancestor in this fundamental question. Man functions by His philosophy. The competence versus incompetence is the metaphysical argued with epistemology, determining ethics, and resulting in politics. And God is above all of it with His own metaphysical declaration—the Bible. Yet, in case no one has noticed, God Himself does not rule directly on earth—not yet anyway. Therefore, man is free, but what will one day be responsible before God at the judgment. Throughout Scripture, Christ describes Himself as a master who has gone on a long journey and assigned His servants to certain responsibilities while He is gone. When He returns, there will be an accounting.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch we call earth, the battle continues. It is a war, and has always been a war between those who demand to rule the incompetent masses by proxy, and the free, capable, and responsible. Hence, as a footnote, the latter often objects to the former demanding obedience to that which violates their consciences—stated another way by the apostle Peter: “We should obey God and not man.” Likewise, the apostle Paul: “Follow me as I follow Christ.”
For the most part throughout human history the philosophy of incompetence has reigned, and always clothed with virtue. Being guided by the enlightened who have been selected by God or the evolutionary survival of the fittest, life is for the sole purpose of serving what’s best for the whole of society, or the group. Self-identity as one who is utterly worthless unless defined by contribution to the whole is the epitome of good. Individualism is evil, and detrimental to the whole. Contribution to the whole in obedience to the government defines purpose. Carrots dangling on strings and motivations vary from hundreds of virgins, food, shelter, and clothing, to merely avoiding the boiling pot and starving beasts.
Cultural varieties are emperor worship, the government-approved god of your choice, and theocracies of all stripes. Historically, around the 6th century, its lame doctrine of mythology was replaced with the more sophisticated social engineering of Plato. Western culture is heavily vested in Platonic thought which presented the ideal society as ruled by philosopher kings. The second category of citizen was the soldiers who enforce the will of the philosopher kings. The third and lowest strata in the Platonic caste system were the producers. Again, the life purpose of the producer or common citizen was his/her ability to contribute to the group. The anti-virtue was individualism. Plato also believed that the soul mirrored the metaphysical society. One was born with a soul that matched the need of his/her environment; ie, society. This is evolutionary-like thought. One is born a philosopher king, a soldier, or a producer. Rather than man being created by God separately to rule over creation and subdue it, he is rather a product of it. Creation is the creator of man to meet its own needs as opposed to God creating man. Thus, creation is the god, not the personal saving God. Plato probably received these ideas from ancient forms of Hinduism while in exile after the execution of Socrates.
From there, this construct was adopted by the Doctor of Grace in the Catholic Church: St. Augustine. The Catholic Church throughout history has been the epitome of Plato’s Republic. Augustine’s understudies, Martin Luther and John Calvin, though the most notable figures of the Reformation—never fell far from the Catholic tree. They were merely more principled philosopher kings than the Catholic Popes. Though they railed against the Catholic Church’s supposed inferior soteriology, they retained the exact same Platonic caste system and remained endeared to Augustine. Calvin quoted Augustine on every 2.5 pages of the Calvin Institutes (or over 400 times).
The combination of these two caste systems, though estranged, wreaked bloody havoc on Europe for 300 years. The tyranny of the Catholic Church was also the tyranny of the Reformers: same philosophy, same results. From this turmoil and darkness, arose a pushback from the Enlightenment era. The founding fathers of America were a product of that movement. Our Constitution was specifically drawn to prevent the horrors of the European Dark Age. Paramount was the goal to keep philosophers of any sort from having the soldier to enforce their dogma. America is predicated on the separation of the soldier and the philosopher king. It was founded on rugged individualism and the assumed competence of man.
America was initially blighted by the Reformation caste system via the Puritans who held to Calvinism. The Bible they brought to America (The Geneva Bible) on the Mayflower was a Reformed commentary and the product of Calvin’s bloody theocracy in Geneva. Both movements failed. Tyranny eventually dies a social death.
This trifold caste system rejected by America found life as Communism in Europe after the American Revolution. Secular detractors of the philosophy who fled to the US; eg, Ayn Rand, understandably saw selfism as the contra philosophy. Of course, the wise Christian seeks a balance between “think[ing] higher of ourselves than we ought” as opposed to selfishness as a cure for the eradication of necessary self-confidence and truthful assessment of the individual. However, it is interesting that many contemporary proponents of Reformed theology in this country still rail on Rand, and make her one of the primary foes of Calvinism. So, to be against Calvinism is akin to being a follower of Ayn Rand. This, of course, is ridiculous. But don’t miss the main point: Why do Calvinists see a non-religious individual like Rand as a threat? Because they know it really isn’t about theology—it’s about the fundamental philosophical presupposition about man, and they know her understanding of such is a threat to the real heart of their theology.
This philosophical war will rage in this country till the return of Christ. It interprets most of what is before us in the news on a daily basis. We are presently in a transition. The welfare state is not the communist state. The welfare state is the transition period that communists use to convert a society into Plato’s utopia. Right now, the welfare state in America is about 47%. But there are no welfare recipients in a Communist state, only kings, soldiers, and PRODUCERS. Hence, the welfare recipients are eventually informed that they are the producers—if they want to eat.
This thesis answers many perplexities in our day. The shared belief that mankind is incompetent makes for strange bedfellows and alliances. Open borders feed the temporary welfare state that leads to Plato’s Republic. The day when the welfare recipients are informed that they are the producers. If not deceived, they could have been free producers rather than slaves of the government. Benghazi and abortions are sacrifices for the betterment of the group, as are many other considerations.
Obama was elected by the temporary welfare state which is right now at 47%. The other 53% must hold their ground and educate the public. The welfare state must be educated in regard to the fact that they are being used and headed for slavery. And if not them—at least their children. The real debate must be continually put forth:
Who owns man?
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
The Reformed Ritual of Daily Re-Salvation
“Not only does Hebrews specifically call on believers to leave the basics of the gospel and move on to maturity, it condemns a ritualism for the purpose of a perpetual cleansing.”
“It would seem that an aggressive approach to sanctification shows our confidence that our salvation is a finished work. The Reformed gospel seems to be inhabited by servants like the one Christ spoke of that hid his talent in the ground out of fear—giving the Master what was His upon return, and without interest.”
“The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” That is the authentic gospel of the Reformation. In the Calvin Institutes, there is a chapter dedicated to progressive justification: “The Beginning of Justification. In What Sense progressive.” Reformation heresy can be plainly seen if someone stops listening to the scholars long enough to think for themselves. A close examination of the doctrine reveals that there is hardly anything right about it—it turns truth completely upside down.
What do I have to say about the freewill/predestination debate? Not much, other than to note that Calvinism came from an egregiously-false doctrine. That is where the argument must refocus.
One day, I will chart all of the various categories in which Reformed theology is anti-biblical, but in this particular post, I will examine how the doctrine makes our faith a daily sacrifice for the remission of sins for justification. Rather than some kind of ritual to maintain justification akin to many other false gospels, faith alone is offered in sanctifiaction. When this is done, the “active obedience” of Christ is then either “manifested” or imputed to our sanctification, or both.
The Australian Forum, a Reformed think tank that researched and defined the tenets of Reformed theology, stated the following in regard to the Reformed gospel of progressive justification:
After a man hears the conditions of acceptance with God and eternal life, and is made sensible of his inability to meet those conditions, the Word of God comes to him in the gospel. He hears that Christ stood in his place and kept the law of God for him. By dying on the cross, Christ satisfied all the law’s demands. The Holy Spirit gives the sinner faith to accept the righteousness of Jesus. Standing now before the law which says, “I demand a life of perfect conformity to the commandments,” the believing sinner cries in triumph, “Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, His suffering and dying; mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, and suffered, and died as He did . . . ” (Luther). The law is well pleased with Jesus’ doing and dying, which the sinner brings in the hand of faith. Justice is fully satisfied, and God can truly say: “This man has fulfilled the law. He is justified.”
We say again, only those are justified who bring to God a life of perfect obedience to the law of God. This is what faith does—it brings to God the obedience of Jesus Christ. By faith the law is fulfilled and the sinner is justified.
On the other hand, the law is dishonored by the man who presumes to bring to it his own life of obedience. The fact that he thinks the law will be satisfied with his “rotten stubble and straw” (Luther) shows what a low estimate he has of the holiness of God and what a high estimate he has of his own righteousness. Only in Jesus Christ is there an obedience with which the law is well pleased. Because faith brings only what Jesus has done, it is the highest honor that can be paid to the law (Rom. 3:31) (Present Truth: “Law and Gospel” Volume 7 article 2 Part 2).
Note that the law is clearly the standard for maintaining our just standing. Romans 3:31 is cited as a proof text, but the question is: is the “upholding” of the law that Paul is writing about….for justification, or….for sanctification? Obviously, if the Forum represented Reformed theology and Luther correctly, it’s the former. But Paul states the following elsewhere in the third chapter of Romans:
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify….For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Note that justification is apart from “works of the law.” Who does the works ….for justification is beside the point—justification is “apart” from the law, and works of the law period. ONE act of obedience was necessary for the eternal justification of many minus an ongoing imputation of obedience to the law in our stead for the maintaining of our just standing (Romans 5:18).
New Calvinist John Piper echoes the Forum on law being the standard for maintaining the finished work of justification:
We are united to Christ in whom we are counted as perfectly righteous because of his righteousness, not ours. The demand for obedience in the Christian life is undiminished and absolute. If obedience does not emerge by faith, we have no warrant to believe we are united to Christ or justified (Matthew 6:15; John 5:28-29; Romans 8:13; Galatians 6:8-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13;James 2:17; 1 John 2:17; 3:14). But the only hope for making progress in this radical demand for holiness and love is the hope that our righteousness before God is on another solid footing besides our own imperfect obedience as Christians. We all sense intuitively-and we are encouraged in this intuition by the demands of God-that acceptance with God requires perfect righteousness conformity to the law (Matthew5:48; Galatians 3:10; James2:10). We also know that our measures of obedience, even on our best days, fall short of this standard (John Piper: Counted Righteous in Christ, p. 123).
“Standard”? Standard for what? Piper states that “obedience,” not necessarily our obedience, but simply, “obedience” must “emerge from faith.” That would be by faith alone, because perfection is the standard and we “fall short of this standard.” He is saying the same exact thing as the Australian Forum; ie, justification must be maintained by offering the perfect works of Christ to the Father on a continual basis.
This amounts to a daily ritualistic “preaching the gospel to ourselves.” We are progressively saved and kept “in the love of Christ” by the same way we were originally saved: faith alone and repentance, or what is called “deep repentance.” We remain totally depraved and unchanged, and keep ourselves saved by faith alone:
The flesh, or sinful nature of the believer is no different from that of the unbeliever. “The regenerate man is no whit different in substance from what He was before his regeneration.” — Bavinck. The whole church must join the confession, “Have mercy upon us miserable sinners.” The witness of both Testaments is unmistakably clear on this point.
No work or deed of the saints in this life can meet the severity of God’s law. Apart from God’s merciful judgment, the good works of the saints would be “mortal sin” (Luther), and nothing is acceptable to God unless mediated through the covering cloud of Christ’s merits. Because of “indwelling sin,” we need mercy at the end as much as at the beginning, for the old nature is as evil then as ever. Growth in grace, therefore, does not mean becoming less and less sinful, but on the contrary, it means becoming more and more sinful in our own estimation.
It is this conviction of the wretchedness of even our sanctified state—which conviction comes by the law—that keeps sanctification from the rocks of self-righteousness. It keeps the Christian’s little bark constantly pointed toward his only star of hope—justification by faith in a righteousness that stands for him in heaven. The refuge of the sinner must ever also be the refuge of the saint (Present Truth: “Sanctification—Its mainspring,” Volume 16, article 13).
Therefore, all law in the Scriptures is not for the purpose of our obedience in sanctification, but to show us what only Christ can do for us to maintain our justification:
Concerning the preaching of the Ten Commandments, the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 44, Q. 115 says this:
Q. Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?
A. First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin and righteousness in Christ; likewise, that we constantly endeavor, and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us in a life to come.
Calvinist Paul David Tripp regurgitates this continual revisiting of the same gospel that saved us in How People Change, p. 28:
Along with deep repentance, Scripture calls us to faith that rests and feeds upon the living Christ. He fills us with himself through the person of the Holy Spirit and our hearts are transformed by faith.
Notice that Christ fills us in response to the same things that originally saved us: faith and repentance (or, preaching of the gospel to ourselves every day). Doing any more than that could cause us to lose our justification:
Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both (Michael Horton: Christless Christianity, p. 62).
This all flies in the face of the plain sense of Scripture, especially the book of Hebrews. Not only does Hebrews specifically call on believers to leave the basics of the gospel and move on to maturity, it condemns a ritualism for the purpose of a perpetual cleansing.
Regarding the idea that the Hebrew writer likened a revisiting of the elementary principles of salvation to immaturity, I am in good scholarly company:
….in Hebrews, 6:1, “maturity” is envisioned as leaving the “elementary principles” and going on, or advancing, to other things (Jay Adams: Biblical Sonship, p.39).
Remember, Horton stated in the aforementioned citation that such a “move onto something else” other than the gospel causes us to “lose both.” Both what? Answer: justification and sanctification. Do the math; it’s salvation by “revisiting the gospel afresh.” We have to do that unbiblical ritual to maintain our salvation.
Christ made it clear to Peter: those who have been “washed” no longer need a bath because they are “completely clean” (John 13:10,11 [1Cor. 6:11, Heb. 10:11, 2Peter 2:22, Rev. 7:14]). Clearly, the Reformed gospel requires a return to what washed us “afresh” in order to NOT LOSE “both” sanctification and justification.
Hebrews 6:1 speaks directly to leaving “cleaning rites” (ESV footnote#3 on Heb. 6:1). This is then associated with “repentance,” “doctrine of Christ,” and “faith toward God.” This is a clear call to leave behind the foundation of salivation for maturity in the faith.
Moreover, the Hebrew writer continues with a warning about revisiting rituals that pertain to washings, or justification:
11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining[b] eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Heb. 9).
24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him (Heb. 9).
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy (Heb.10)
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16 “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” 17 Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary (Heb.10).
19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching (Heb.10).
It would seem that an aggressive approach to sanctification shows our confidence that our salvation is a finished work. The Reformed gospel seems to be inhabited by fearful servants like the one Christ spoke of that hid his talent in the ground—giving the Master what was His upon return, and without interest. I even had one proponent of Reformed theology tell me point blank that sanctification by faith alone was playing it safe: “I don’t think the Lord will fault me for letting Him have all the glory.” Again, this is an eerily similar mentality to the “lazy wicked” servant that Christ spoke of in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30).
Calvinism’s progressive justification continually lays again, and again the foundation of salvation and repentance from “dead works.” And funny, if salvation is a repentance FROM dead works, how can our present works in sanctification be “filthy rags”?
It is time that Reformed theology is exposed for what it is:
egregiously-false.
paul
Caste Systems: Are They the Key to Understanding Rape, Tyranny, Impotence, and Reformed Theology in the Church?
“So, it begs the question: how much of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine in general is part of a caste system philosophy? Are the elect, non-elect , ruling elders, and totally depraved more spiritual social strata than doctrinal truth?”
Regarding my upcoming book projects, volume two of The Truth About New Calvinism will merely trace New Calvinism back to its Reformation roots. Volume one traced it from present-day, back to the resurgence movement of 1970. However, The Reformation Myth (TRM) will delve deep into Reformation philosophy, history, its false gospel of progressive justification, and its bogus motif. The so-called Reformation is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind—that’s the thesis of TRM.
During my research for TRM, I stumbled onto the whole issue of Caste Systems. Woe, what an eye opener. What is also very intriguing in regard to the discussion thereof is the topics ability to organize and lend understanding to complex philosophical issues. That makes the concept dangerous to those who prefer their parishioners dumbed down.
Let’s begin by stealing some definitions:
A caste system is a type of social structure which divides people on the basis of inherited social status. Although many societies could be described in this way, within a caste system, people are rigidly expected to marry and interact with people of the same social class. India has a well known example of a caste system, although various forms of caste systems can be found in many other cultures as well (Online source: http://goo.gl/tcCzX).
Yes, India is caste on steroids, but that only serves to lend understanding to caste systems in general. We must also thank Indian culture for demonstrating how caste systems interact and integrate with religion. Often, caste systems come from religion, and determine the social strata, especially in theocracies. The following chart is helpful accordingly:
And….
The roots of the Indian caste system can be found in the Hindu scriptures, although the caste system was adopted by other religions in India as well. According to scripture, Indian society could be broken down into a number of different groups, known as Varnas. Brahmins, the highest caste, were scholars and priests, while Kshatriya were warriors, rulers, and landlords. Vaisya were merchants, while Sudra were manual laborers. Beyond there four basis Varnas are the Untouchables or Dalit, and the system also has a space for outsiders and foreigners who do not conform with the system (Ibid).
Massive research has been done by sociologists on this subject—it is a treasure trove of understanding. I am 56 years old, done my share of schooling, and have never been exposed to this vast topic and its implications. And as we will see, the absence of consideration regarding caste systems, and its very, very likely influence on Calvinism is downright scandalous. Add it to the list of why Calvinism is a “scandalous gospel.” Moreover, the understanding gained via this topic in the realm of spiritual abuse and tyranny is absolutely priceless.
Caste systems can take on many forms, but for now, let’s stick with the more naked forms. These are caste systems that have actually been enforced by civil and criminal law throughout history. As the former and latter excerpts note, caste systems, social and religious, are not exclusive to Indian culture. In fact, European culture has been inundated with caste systems throughout history:
According to Haviland, social systems identical to caste system elsewhere in the world, are not new in Europe. Stratified societies were historically organized in Europe as closed social systems, each endogamous, into for example nobility, clergy, bourgeoisie and peasants. These had distinctive privileges and unequal rights, that were neither a product of informal advantages because of wealth nor rights enjoyed as another citizen of the state. These unequal and distinct privileges were sanctioned by law or social mores, confined to only that specific social subset of the society, and were inherited automatically by the offspring.
In some European countries, these closed social classes were given titles, followed mores and codes of behavior according to their closed social class, even wore distinctive dress. Royalty rarely married a commoner; and if it did, they lost certain privileges. This endogamy limitation wasn’t limited to royalty; in Finland, for example, it was a crime – until modern times – to seduce and defraud into marriage by declaring a false social class. In parts of Europe, these closed social caste-like groups were estates.
Along with the three or four estates in various European countries, another outcast layer existed below the bottom layer of the hierarchical society, a layer that had no rights and was there to serve the upper layers. It was prominent for centuries, and continued through middle 19th century. This layer was called serfs. In some countries such as Russia, the 1857 census found that over 35 percent of the population was serf (крепостной крестьянин).
While the serfs were of the same race and religion, serfs were not free to marry whomever their heart desired. Serf mobility was heavily restricted, and in matters of who they can marry and how they lived, they had to follow rules put into place by the State and the Church, by landowners, and finally families and communities established certain social mores that was theirs to follow because the serfs were born into it.
In modern times, regions of Europe had untouchables in addition to the upper castes and serfs. These were people of the same race, same religion and same culture as their neighbors yet were considered morally impure by birth, repulsive and shunned, just like the Burakumin caste of Japan and Osu caste of Nigeria.
A sense of hereditary exclusion, unequal social value, and mutual repulsion was part of the relationship between the different social strata in Europe. In late 19th century through the early 20th century, millions of the outcasts, downtrodden and socially ostracized people from Europe migrated on their own, or transferred as indentured laborers to the New World (Online source: http://goo.gl/Fx4VU).
Caste systems form naturally from our tendencies to be prejudice against, in varying degrees, what makes us uncomfortable. And different usually =’s uncomfortable. Therefore, the formation of caste attitudes come naturally to us, and unless restrained, become caste systems. And, unless the brakes are applied to caste systems, the mentality can deprecate to the point of the upper social strata viewing the lower strata as less than human, and a threat to the purity of the upper strata. Can we say, “genocide” ?
This gives new brevity to the basic idea of “love” which strives to value others as much as we value ourselves. The antithesis leads to all kinds of formal, informal, spoken, and unspoken caste systems according to what people look like, talk like, have, have not, etc., etc., etc. Does Hollywood have a caste system? Do high schools have a caste system? Do churches have a caste systems? Yes, yes, and yes.
Interestingly, in regard to the founding fathers of this country, they resisted caste systems. You were pretty much judged by the game you brought to the table regardless of how you got the game. That is why there were African American congressman, mayors, and notable educators early in American history. However, the same cannot be said of the Southern states who implemented a racial caste system that was civil and criminal law:
The term caste entered American debates long before the American Civil War, in the antebellum era and has continued through modern times. Frederick Douglass, William Garrison, Horace Greeley, Harriet Stowe, William Seward, Gerrit Smith, Charles Sumner, Theodore Parker, and Cassius Clay used the term caste, rather than race or class, in their writings and speeches to discuss and inspire America to abolish slavery.
And by the way, Calvinism was the predominate religion in the South during the Civil War (at least in regard to backing the South’s apologetic). Just sayin’.
Like falling off a log, the documenting of Plato’s influence on the father of the Reformation, St. Augustine, is equal in task. The same goes for Augustine’s connection to Martin Luther and John Calvin. And to say that Martin Luther had a caste mentality would be the understatement of the century. And caste systems were part and parcel with medieval history. Even more evident is the hyper-caste mentality that influenced the views of Plato. According to Dr. TS Girishkumar:
Plato had a theory of soul which has three parts, reason, courage and appetite. The development of them shall be different in different people. When reason is dominant, and other part dormant, it is the philosopher. Courage is dominant, the warriors. Appetite is dominant, the traders and cultivators. When all three are dormant, the slaves.
This is just the copy of the Varnashrama system in Indian Philosophy. Four Varnas according to the quality of individuals, and unlike Plato’s theory, the quality is acquired and not by birth. The Brhamanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and the Sudras (Online source: http://goo.gl/JuuGU).
So, it begs the question: how much of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine in general are part of a caste system philosophy? Are the elect, non-elect , ruling elders, and totally depraved more spiritual social strata than doctrinal truth? I intend to research that question thoroughly.
How much of the abuse/tyranny problem in the church today can be related to a caste mentality? What about the indifference regarding church abuse/tyranny that we see in our day? In a caste system, the system answers to nobody about anything. Is this the dynamic that we are experiencing?
What about impotence? In society, lack of social mobility is proven to cripple society because the possible contributions of the lower strata are ignored and shunned. In the church, do caste systems limit spiritual mobility? Certainly, a plenary pushback regarding such attitudes by Christ and the apostles can be seen throughout the New Testament by word and lifestyle.
And we should not expect that the natural degenerative activity of a caste system will behave any differently in the church. Indifference towards justice, abuse, and tyranny will be the same result.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
18 comments