Hashtag for Calvinists
If you’re going to hold to reformed theology, you might as well be honest about it.
Andy
A Clarification on my Anti-Reformation, Anti-Protestant Stance
It is true, I have totally written off every Calvinist that has ever lived in regard to having any value for sanctification or justification except for two, one being Dr. Jay Adams. After all, I don’t want to be extreme.
So, what’s my excuse for excusing Adams? He brings something to the table that isn’t Reformed. Sure, he may argue that it is Reformed, but nevertheless the results are the same: people find a measure of real help in a contemporary church where there isn’t any help. In fact, the consensus is in: people are better off after they leave church. This ministry has witnessed several marriages on their way to divorce court until the couple simply stopped going to church. In fact, I dare say their marriages are getting better.
We are in a Protestant Dark Age. A movement is needed where the wisdom of God found in the Scriptures is rediscovered in Western culture. What needs to be rediscovered specifically? It starts with the knowledge that the Bible is written for the able individual. That’s first.
Secondly, the issue of how we interpret reality must be addressed. The Reformers did not interpret reality literally, and that tradition was passed down to all that followed them. In the church today, by and large, the pastorate does not interpret state of being in the same way that congregants do. The Reformers reinterpreted every word and term according to their own worldview. For example, “God’s glory” really means “God’s self-love.” Stated simply, John 3:16 in reverse.
The Reformers devised an ingenious indoctrination system of sliding metaphysics. They redefined every word and term, and allowed the listeners to assume what they meant by each word and term. In the process of using these words and terms in a certain way, listeners are slowly indoctrinated in accordance with the primary goal of the Reformers: a desired functionality albeit foggy understanding.
Let me give some specific examples. Total depravity. From the beginning in Reformed thought, this included believers. So, while assuming total depravity pertains to the unregenerate only, many are eventually indoctrinated into the original Reformed idea that this also includes believers.
Sola scriptura. The assumption is Scripture alone, but the Reformers knew that few would ask the following question: “What exactly did the Reformers believe about the Scriptures?” Sure, Scripture alone, but for what purpose?
Election. The assumption is that this argument focuses on man’s ability to choose God for salvation, but it goes much, much deeper than that and is directly relevant to what the Reformers believed about reality itself. Few know that Calvin believed in three classes of elect: non-elect, temporarily elect, and the final elect, or those who persevere.
The Reformers believed that reality is a narrative written by God in which mankind is written into the script. Reformers such as Jonathan Edwards believed that man has no will per se, but God preordains every thought that precedes every act of man which makes it seem as if man has a will. My wife Susan will be doing three sessions on Jonathan Edwards at this year’s TANC conference. Many will find her research fairly shocking.
Sola fide. The assumption is faith alone for salvation/justification. By far, this is the one that the Reformers get the most mileage out of. Using this assumption, they continually talk about sanctification in a justification way. Eventually, sanctification becomes justification. Eventually, the Christian life becomes perpetual re-justification which is the Reformation gospel in a nutshell.
Protestantism is truly the super-cult of the ages.
And the institutional church finds itself in a huge dilemma. Traditional institutional worship beginning with the Reformation was tailored for perpetual re-justification down to the alter call routine. The Lord’s Table is a solemn ceremony where additional grace is imparted through repentance. In reality, the first century assemblies met for dinner, and the fellowship meal was supposed to remind them of their fellowship with God and His Son. It was all very informal and not for the purpose of imparting additional grace.
The gatherings were an extension of worshipful living specifically designed for private homes and nothing more. The institutional version is an extension of two pillars of Reformed theology: the doctrine of progressive justification, and the politics of church-state. Hence, traditional institutional worship necessarily circumvents the original intent of Christ’s mandate for His assemblies.
With all of that said, Adams supplies a little help that can be found right now in the institutional church, and at least for the time being, we need to seize upon everything we can get. I am not talking about those who think they are helped by adopting a Reformed worldview of zero-sum-life (viz, “second generation” biblical counseling). I am not talking about those who seem to stand strong in the face of adversity because they see all of life as nothing but a divine prewritten narrative for the sole benefit of a divine self-love. No, here is my reasoning in regard to Adams per a comment I posted yesterday:
God used Jay Adams to save my life. How? Jay emphasized the need for biblical counseling using a grammatical approach to the Scriptures. This approach proffered the idea that seizing upon the literal promises of God in the Bible is curative. Of course, this would seem evident. That gives hope; if I follow God’s instruction on this, God will do that.
In the midst of the hell I found myself in, I could begin to please God. Nothing could keep me from doing so except myself, and in God’s timing, and in God’s way, it would be curative as well.
As someone who prided himself as a knowledgeable, objective evangelical, Jay’s teachings exposed the fact that I was really a functioning mystic that used all of the orthodox verbiage. While I disagree with Jay on many things, this is the powerful approach that he brings to the table.
“Christians” have a choice to make in regard to how they will interpret the Scriptures and reality itself: grammatically, or according to Christocentric Gnosticism. I am not talking about pseudo grammatical interpretation used for a purely redemptive outcome, I am talking about authentic exegetical interpretation, not cross-centered eisegesis leading to the antinomianism of “second generation” biblical counseling.
And, Jay is an example to all of us in practicing our gifts faithfully to the end. There is no retiring from a love for the ministry that you are called to whatever it is.
May the Lord give God’s people many more years of his living sacrifice.
Am I willing to give a Calvinists credit where credit is due? Yes, if he brings something to the table that can give life. If we were in a time when the laity has retaken its rightful place in Christ’s mandate supplying ample sanctification wisdom, would I recommend Adams in any regard? I am not sure, my due to him in this particular age notwithstanding. But for the time being, we must scrape up everything we can get until the laity obeys its calling, as long as it is truly worth scraping up.
The Reformation has failed. A resurgence of it commenced in 1970. By 2008, it dominated American evangelicalism and continues to do so today. But, the chickens are coming home to roost. Its leaders are dropping like flies. The damage control is now unmanageable. The institutional church is a train wreck while the Nones and the Dones are laying about everywhere on the landscape. The latest trail blazer of the neo-resurgence to fall at the hands of his own gospel sanctification Reformed doctrine is Tullian Tchividjian. He is one of seven of the most visible leaders of the movement to resign for misconduct in less than two years. Others have been the focus of controversial bully-like conduct in the same time frame, along with numerous Neo-Calvinist mega church pastors who have resigned for sexual misconduct, three in the Orlando, Florida area alone.
The answer is NOT Reformation—the answer is a laity revolution. The laity has been conned into investing huge sacrifice in Reformed academia, and to what end? Who will deny that the laity understands less about Christian living than we ever have? Rather than seeking God’s face on our own, we run to orthodox sand boxes like The Warburg Watch and play with the same regurgitated Reformed talking points. This only serves to help the failed Reformation with its damage control. It only serves to send the message that being confused is acceptable.
But we do not serve a God of confusion. It’s time for the laity to stop worshiping Reformed academia and give honor to the one who sanctifies us with truth—not the traditions of mere men.
paul
Susan Dohse on Plato, Augustine, Calvin, and the Reformation
TANC 2013 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny
Transcript: Susan D. Dohse MEd.
Plato
I’m Susan Dohse. I’m married to Paul Dohse for two years, and it has been an adventure. My role in this year’s conference has changed. This year I became Paul’s research assistant. The pay stinks, but the fringe benefits are really nice. Unlike last year when I spoke from personal experience, which though difficult and emotional at times, was easier than this year’s assignment. This year I was asked to step outside my preschool box and share what I’ve learned through not personal experience but personal study and research. And I am thankful for the World Wide Web, computers, and the Internet even though I fuss and say unkind things to the computer, I am thankful that the Lord created those on the eighth day. If I had to find answers to the questions that I had in the old-fashioned way, by using the card catalog and the Dewey Decimal system, I wouldn’t be here this morning. I would still be at the library roaming the stacks. My role in this year’s conference is to share my research. My goal though is to provoke you to think. What I want to share is only an introduction. It’s not even a scratch on the surface of what there is to know about these historical figures. It’s up to you though to continue the research project. So you do have an assignment. I want you to think of me as just a grain of sand, an irritant in the oyster that over time though yields a pearl.
Matthew 7:24-27, Jesus is speaking here. “Therefore, whosoever hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will liken him unto a wise man who built his house upon a rock. And when the rains descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house, it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. And everyone that hears these sayings of mine and does them not shall be likened then to a foolish man who built his house upon the sand, and the rains descended and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and great was the fall of it.”
The foundation of thought that I want to illustrate is built upon a historical figure that I just knew initially in a Jeopardy quiz show fashion, you know. Student of Socrates, Greek philosopher, The Republic. Who is Plato? Well, if I were to ask you to tell me something that you know or you’ve been taught about this man, I’m certain I would get classic textbook answers. Greek philosopher, student of Socrates, established the first university called The Academy, wrote The Republic, I would give you credit for being correct. For over 2,500 years, Plato has been studied, admired, modified, personalized, and deified. He has been described as a great thinker, lover of wisdom, a crusader against error, and an enemy of falsehood. Well, after reading hundreds of pages about him, I cannot help but agree that he was a man of great intelligence. He was a mathematical genius, an advocate of education. In your list of trivia facts, would you also include pagan, polytheist, crusader against individuality, founder of communistic, socialistic, and Darwinian evolutionary thought, enemy of God, hero of the reformers?
Born in 427 BC, the son of noble and wealthy Athenian parents with the blood of ancient kings of Attica flowing through his veins. It was this status in life that gave him the way and the means to pursue his quests. Unlike others of his day, he didn’t have to earn a living and go to school at night or hold two jobs to pay for his education. He was of the ruling class of Athens, a privileged elite.
At the age of 20, Plato came to Socrates and asked to be his pupil. And Socrates saw before him a handsome youth, broad shoulders of an athlete, a noble brow of a philosopher, the limpid eyes of a poet. Those aren’t my descriptive terms. This is how Socrates described him. Socrates accepted him as a student, and this became the beginning of a tender and an intimate relationship that lasted until Socrates’ death. The respect and admiration of the student for his teacher was profound and lasting.
Well, after Socrates was executed, Plato and the other disciples of Socrates took to the world, and they traveled the ancient world. Now whether of fear that they would be arrested and also executed because of their association with Socrates or because they wanted to be foreign exchange students is not really well documented. Plato went to Cyrene where Theodorus instructed him in mathematics. He went to southern Italy where he studied the science of numbers under three of the most learned doctors of the Pythagorean mathematical system of his day, went to Egypt to receive instruction from those learned doctors and priests of that ancient land. Some records say he visited Persia, Babylonia, and even India. So he returns to Athens and establishes his Academy, the first university in Europe where he taught until the age of 81.
So up until his return to Athens, we can say letter P for professional student, P for pagan polytheist. Plato regarded the sun, moon, stars, and planets as the visible gods. These heavenly bodies do not come into beings and then pass away. Plato attributed divine souls to the sun, moon, stars, and planets because they followed that intelligible course through the sky. He also held [SOUNDS LIKE] the invisible gods, the gods of the civilized life where the king was Zeus. These gods care about humans. They’re aware of whether we are good or evil. Though invisible, they can reveal them themselves when they want to. They are not standards of justice, beauty, truth, and goodness, but they were living beings who have the perfect knowledge of those standards. Plato wrote, “I do believe that there are gods, and that in a far higher sense than that which any of my accusers believe in them.”
P for platonic wisdom which unites with methodology. P for philosopher ruler. Plato referred to himself as a philosopher ruler. He stressed the importance of living the life of a philosopher by worshipping ideas. The search of ideas, the appreciation of ideas, the participation of the ideas—that’s the life of a philosopher, and that’s what he taught, and that’s what he believed. So the life of Plato was a tireless quest for those ideas. His life is a sustained effort to live by those ideas and to teach others to do so.
P, political scientist, his political philosophy was explained in his writing The Republic. The ideal state, he says, should be divided into three classes of citizens, and each class has its own particular duty to be performed and a special virtue to be developed. The lower class, the laborers and the artisans, their immediate task, acquire skill. The second class, that’s the warriors, and they’re given the opportunity to develop courage and fortitude at their stage of evolution. And the ruling class, those are those men who have learned how to govern themselves and are therefore fit to govern others. I quote from Plato, “Unless philosophers become rulers or rulers become true and thorough students of philosophy, there will be no end to the troubles of the state and humanity.” When each state concentrates upon its own duty and virtue, there will be a well-balanced and harmonious state in which all of the citizens will work, but not for the interest of self but for the common good of the whole. The state will be in charge of production and that sphere of physical goods and life. (more…)
Five Damning Facts About Calvinism
I. It’s daily re-salvation by preaching the gospel to yourself every day.
II. Its progressive justification defines “Christians” as under law—the biblical definition of a lost person.
III. Forgiveness for “present sin” that “removes us from grace” can only be found through membership in a local church under the authority of elders who forgive sin on God’s behalf.
IV. John Calvin’s three categories of elect include those who are temporarily elected and therefore receive a greater damnation. Therefore, entering the “race of faith” gives one a chance that the non-elect do not have, but a double portion of eternal suffering if one is not of the “perseverance” category.
V. Any act of love performed by a “saint” is works salvation. All works must be imputed to the “believer” by faith alone. Moreover, the focus must be living by faith alone well enough in order to “stand in the judgment covered by the righteousness of Christ and not a ‘righteousness of your own.’” That must be the focus, not loving others. Calvin believed all acts of love performed by the “saints” fall short of perfection, and are therefore unacceptable to God.
Calvinists can talk about love all they want to; their soteriology excludes the possibility.
The Calvinist Grand Quandary
Originally published August 28, 2014
“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 message 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 knowledge of new creaturehood that will radically change one’s life. 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. It is a choice to leave one master for another. Remember, everyone is under one master or the other. Choosing Christ who purchased you from the Sin master is hardly works salvation through a “commitment” to change. It’s not really a “commitment” but an acknowledgment that the new birth will bring about change in your life and you will be involved in the effort. Again, that’s not what saves you because justification and sanctification are completely separate; one is a finished work and the other is a progression of applied holiness. When you are born again, you are as saved as you will ever be and are infused with the fullness of the Trinity. The concern of anti-lordshippers that “commitment” is works salvation shows their conflation of justification and sanctification which makes them guilty of progressive justification and subsequently the pot calling the kettle black.
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 more 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
Addendum:
In Hinduism, which is the best example, the spiritual strata is Bhramin, Kshatryia, Vaishya, Sudra, and Untouchables. But listen very careful to what Karma is in Hinduism. THIS IS KEY. I am citing Swami Bhaskarananda: Chapters IX to XI from the book “The Essentials of Hinduism,” Heading; “Predestination”:
Karma is the infant stage of Hinduism where saints believe they are responsible for their own actions, but as growth moves forward, the mature saint…
He becomes convinced that God has been doing everything by using his body, mind, energy and the senses. He feels that he is only an instrument in the hands of God, and whatever God has been doing to him is for his ultimate spiritual good. At this high level of spirituality the doctrine of predestination becomes the only valid doctrine to him. To him the doctrine of karma ceases to be a valid doctrine.
Therefore, these two doctrines, even though apparently contradictory to each other, are valid for people at different stages of spiritual growth.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment