Calvinism and the Cultural Spoon Feeding of Control and Tyranny
I inadvertently stumbled upon the fact that Mark Dever’s 9Marks blog has pulled down their post on John Calvin’s power of the keys. The article was an accurate rendition of the Reformed doctrine, but apparently not nuanced enough. One of the classic marks of cultism is truth on the installment plan or a bite at a time. You don’t actually show the pie in all its glory, you feed the pie to folks in truism-size bites until they become the pie without realizing it. It matters little to Calvinists if you understand how you are controlled, just so you are controlled.
Said another way, you never see the bottle of Christocentric potion, you only open wide and let Mark Dever et al spoon-feed it to you. So, as a service to inquiring minds that want to know, I dug up an article that I wrote about the overly overt Calvinist article. Enjoy.
Leeman’s article supplies the Cliff Notes to his book and explains something that I have seen among New Calvinist groups for a long time: they believe elders have the authority to determine/declare the salvation of a person. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant, God will honor it. I have seen firsthand how this teaching enables New Calvinist leaders to control parishioners. You see, I only write articles like “New Calvinism and Hotel California” to keep my sanity, but there is more truth to it than I like to admit. Unless you want to lose your salvation, you’re not leaving a New Calvinist church unless they say you can. And contending against their doctrine, well, that’s not for the faint of heart.
Leeman states the following in the article:
If the sinner still does not repent, round 4 ensues, which involves removing the individual from the covenant community—treating him like an outsider. Sometimes this is called “church discipline” or “excommunication.”
Jesus then invokes the keys of the kingdom again: whatever the church binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever the church looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. And Jesus is not addressing the apostles or the universal church here. He’s envisioning a local church. The local church, it appears, has been given the apostolic keys of the kingdom. As a result…
The local church has heaven’s authority for declaring who on earth is a kingdom citizen and therefore represents heaven.
And….
Jesus has authorized the local church to stand in front of a confessor, to consider the confessor’s confession, to consider his or her life, and to announce an official judgment on heaven’s behalf. Is that the right confession? Is this a true confessor? It’s just like Jesus did with Peter.
And, when do new Calvinists have the authority to do this? According to Leeman:
Matthew 18, which is filled with even more earth and heaven talk than Matthew 16, presents a crystal clear picture of this authority in the context of church discipline. But the ability to remove someone from membership presupposes an overarching authority to assess a person’s gospel words and deeds and to render a judgment. This authority begins the moment a person shows up in the church building doors claiming, like Peter did, that Jesus is the Christ.
In case you missed it: “This authority begins the moment a person shows up in the church building doors claiming, like Peter did, that Jesus is the Christ.” Told ya. In a New Calvinist church, they think they have authority over you whether you’re a member or not.
And what if they are wrong about their declaration? According to Leeman:
Will the local church exercise the keys perfectly? No. It will make mistakes just like every other authority established by Jesus makes mistakes. As such, the local church will be an imperfect representation of Christ’s end-time gathering. But the fact that it makes mistakes, just like presidents and parents do, does not mean it’s without an authoritative mandate.
Oh well, stuff happens, right?
Leeman ends the piece, like all New Calvinists do with a back door of escape in case somebody who matters calls them out on such outrageous teachings:
Does all this mean that what a local church does on earth actually changes a person’s status in heaven? No, the church’s job is like an ambassador’s or an embassy’s. Remember what I said about visiting the U.S. Embassy in Brussels when my passport expired. The embassy didn’t make me a citizen, it formally affirmed it in a way I could not myself. So with a local church.
This statement completely contradicts everything he said prior. If Christ binds it in heaven, WHY WOULD IT NOT CHANGE THE STAUS OF THE BELIEVER? Is it bound or not?
Of course, the message he wants parishioners to get is the authority part and the supposed fact that an elder declaration concerning a person’s salvation carries some hefty weight. But his contradiction makes my point. In Matthew 18, there is no such authority even being discussed, that’s why Leeman necessarily contradicts himself. By the time you get to the fourth step, several people are involved in what’s usually a messy situation. Several different scenarios could be in the mix here. Why did Jesus go from telling it to the whole church to discussing two or three people? I believe that Jesus is saying that heaven will honor the ones in the situation that are conducting themselves truthfully—even if it is only two people. I don’t think Jesus is assuming that church discipline always goes well.
Regardless of how weak you think that argument is, clearly, the salvific status of the person is not in view here. Only fellowship status is in view; they are to be treated “like” an unbeliever, NOT DECALRED AN UNBELIEVER. How do we know this? Because in the situation at Corinth regarding the guy that committed a sexual sin of the baser sort, Paul assumes that he is a believer, even in the midst of his excommunication:
1 Corinthians 5:5
Hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
If one examines the Scriptures carefully, there is really no such thing as “church discipline” to begin with. There is self-discipline and the Lord’s discipline. We change a believer’s fellowship status so that the Lord will discipline them, but the church does not do the discipline. This point is much more than mere semantics and keeps so-called “church discipline” in proper perspective. There is much woe in the church because many elders think they do the discipline and not the Lord.
paul
PPT Called Out By Pastor Matt Higgins, and I Totally Accept the Challenge
I have been called out by the pastor of Calvary Heights Baptist Church in Martinsville, IN, and I intend to answer his challenge fully, personally, and expeditiously. In a recent post written by him, two of my articles were cited as examples of “discernment” blogging. For the other bloggers cited, see the endnotes.
Said pastor, Matt Higgins, defines “discernment bloggers” in this way: stalkers (trolls) who partake in witch hunts, and spend all of their time searching the internet for pastorate error to write about. The catchall nomenclature used by these bloggers is “heretic” which is a word Higgins claims they don’t properly understand, yet his corrective definition of “heresy” is something that I will address in this post. Also, according to Higgins, they seek to destroy ministries and force pastors to resign. Furthermore, according to Higgins, discernment bloggers are busybodies who have no right to address heresies taught in local churches they are not members of; they are sticking their noses in other people’s family matters. Moreover, according to Higgins, they are cowards who aren’t accountable to anyone and don’t have to face the pastors they criticize. They “hide behind” their PC monitors. Lastly, Higgins is calling on me to repent along with all other discernment bloggers. All in all, the crux of this probably boils down to his view of elder authority.
Since I do not desire to be a coward, perhaps Higgins and I can meet together along with the elders or deacons at Calvary Heights Baptist Church. Since they pay his salary and have enabled him to falsely accuse me publically on the World Wide Web, maybe I will make the three hour drive out on a sunny Sunday afternoon and confront the whole lot of them. While we are at it, I could make sure the leadership of the church understands what this YRR type really believes. For certain, I am going to make sure the congregants thoroughly understand his soteriology. Trust me, especially in Southern Baptist circles, on average, 90% of a given SBC congregation has no real idea what these guys coming out of Southern or SW really believe.
First of all, let me define for Pastor Higgins what a discernment blogger is and why PPT is not discernment blogging. If he is going to bash discernment bloggers, he should know what one is. A discernment blogger seeks to save the Protestant institutional church from harm and error. I do not believe the Protestant church is worth saving, and I can prove it was founded on the false gospel of progressive justification. I write about pastors to make that point, and could care less how many people follow them and whether or not they remain employed. However, I do believe people should have truthfully informed choices. For example, let’s make sure Higgins’ congregation really knows what he means when he speaks of the new birth just in case there may be a misunderstanding.
Secondly, if Higgins wants to bash discernment bloggers for using the word “heretic” while not knowing what it really means, he should also know what it really means before he criticizes others. The biblical definition of “heretic” follows: it is a person who belongs to a sect that divides with errant doctrine, or “sectarianism,” not the definition Higgins offered in his lame effort to correct others.
This brings to mind some things that his congregation may be interested in. I suppose it’s possible that Higgins may not qualify as a New Calvinist, but from what I gather so far, I seriously doubt it. New Calvinism is a super-sectarian movement that has split innumerable churches and families since 1970 and slowly integrates dictatorship-like leadership into local churches. The present emphasis on church membership and small groups at Calvary Heights Baptist is an all too familiar step to the iron fist control eventually demanded by New Calvinist pastors. Here is a schematic of how it works. Perhaps this is looking familiar to some at Calvary. Ironically, the discernment blog culture that Higgins decries skyrocketed in 2009 as a direct result of the New Calvinist movement which is based on gospel contemplationism and Calvin’s Sabbath Rest salvation whether the New Calvinist label is rejected or not.
Thirdly, notice how criticism of pastors and possible harm to the local church is the bottom line with Higgins and not the substance of the complaints. Why is that? Probably because like most YRR types that come out of Southern or SW, he believes the local church and the body of Christ are synonymous; ie., you’re saved by church membership and submission to “men of God.” Depending on what octane of YRR he is, he may also believe in elder absolution in the form of Calvin’s “power of the keys.” Basically, church discipline, not confined to public sins of the baser sort but rather anything that the elders deem sin, is a process that actually blots you out of the Book of Life upon elder authority.
People being excommunicated for merely asking too many questions is now an epidemic in SBC churches accordingly. If you are at Calvary and feeling pressure to become a formal member, and have not yet signed on the dotted line, you better pause and get educated as to what is going on in the SBC right now.
Note the double standard: Higgins, in the post being addressed here, bemoans discernment bloggers sticking their noses into the business of local churches, but yet, what happens if someone is excommunicated from a local SBC church in a given association? Right, they notify the other churches that the person is under discipline. See the double standard? Heresy charges against teachers who teach publically is a local issue, but grievances against parishioners who commit local sin is public? Really?
Another assertion by Higgins that didn’t make my introductory list is the idea that discernment bloggers claim infallibility. This is just more irony as Higgins argues from the standpoint of the Nicene Creed and Reformed orthodoxy in general. I doubt discernment bloggers claim infallibility, but I know they do reject Al Mohler’s assertion that Reformed elders are preordained of God to save God’s people from ignorance. If someone at Calvary can do it without being brought up on church discipline, they may simply ask Pastor Higgins, “Are you preordained by God to save me from ignorance?” If Higgins denies it, a good follow-up question would be, “So, you completely disagree with Al Mohler on that, right?”
A book could be written here if I addressed every creepy red flag raised by Higgins in his single post, but one may simply take note of his idea that pastors are ONLY accountable to “Christ and Scripture.” Calvary would do well to think about that statement and what it reveals about his mindset.
But my dog in the fight is not my disdain for the run-of-the-mill New Calvinist tyranny running amuck in the SBC (I am perfectly content to let the dead bury their own dead), but that he came into my locale looking for a fight. His parishioners may excuse his bullying and cower under it, but I will not. He has zero authority.
So, is this what Calvary pays him for? To police discernment bloggers?
Dear friends, if he has a problem with discernment bloggers that he doesn’t even know, who apparently have not even talked about him until now, what will become of those at Calvary who dare to express an opinion?
paul
Endnotes:
https://1peter315.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/three-reasons-why-rick-warren-is-a-heretic/
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/is-n-t-wright-wrong-on-jesus/
http://surphside.blogspot.com/2012/01/matt-chandler-is-no-different-than-john.html
http://www.firstplumbline.net/html/francischan.html
https://biblicalconnection.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/quoting-heretics-tim-keller-and-others/
http://www.atruechurch.info/macarthur.html
http://truthwithsnares.org/2012/07/02/ed-stetzer-defends-mystic-francis-of-assisi/
http://www.jesusisprecious.org/wolves/billy_graham.htm
http://defendingcontending.com/2009/11/05/piper-the-slope-to-heresy/
http://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2013/01/wayne-grudems-pneumatology-identifies.html
http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/18042-reformed-pastors-and-the-kjv/
Why New Calvinist Church Discipline is Against American Laws
Originally published August 17, 2013
There is something that everybody is missing in regard to so-called “Redemptive Church Discipline.” The New Calvinist movement is a return to authentic Calvinism. I read the Calvin Institutes almost daily, and I can tell you that the New Calvinists are making every effort to conform to every detail thereof. It is almost as if the Calvin Institutes are a higher authority than the Bible.
But there is a problem. Whether the Calvin Institutes or the Westminster Confession, those documents were prepared for a church/state venue. American laws are based on the separation of church and state. During the time that European government was in bed with the Reformation, the church could compel individuals to do certain things under threat of government force.
While seeking to have that same authority in the lives of American parishioners without government force, they are improvising through other means resulting in the violation of American civil liberties. When it gets right down to it, according to American law, you can’t restrict a person from the commission of a legal act by threatening to defame them publically. Church covenants with articles stating that parishioners cannot leave a church without the permission of the elders may be a violation of the law in and of itself. It’s a threat regarding loss of reputation if you exercise your legal right to leave a church. New Calvinist elders routinely tell parishioners that they cannot leave a church for doctrinal reasons. That’s against the law.
Furthermore, the so-called “Matthew 18 process” almost always ends up in excommunication if someone vacates their membership in-between one of the steps. I understand that they may be avoiding the issue in that way, but you absolutely can’t humiliate them publically for refusing to stay in the process. Leaving a church is not illegal; therefore, you can’t disparage them publically. Threatening to publically humiliate a person if they vacate membership (or any other legal act) is considered to be coercion under the kidnapping statute in most states.
I am presently doing research in preparation for a home church model. I am amazed to see how the New Testament model has a peaceful solution for almost every scenario. But in regard to this subject, the crux is fellowship versus authority. If a person leaves a church in the midst of a church discipline issue (for lack of a better term), they have merely vacated fellowship with the assembly on their own. That’s the only end result anyway if you’re in America, no? Trying to have authority over that person without government backing is where things get iffy.
Moreover, in many situations, the elders of a church really have no legal authority to ban a person from church property unless they are causing a disturbance. This has led to many ugly confrontations and legal challenges. A private home is different. If a home fellowship doesn’t want a person there for whatever reason, the homeowner can have the person removed by the local police if necessary. This is just one of many examples where home fellowships don’t find themselves in legal dilemmas.
The primary reason is that home fellowships are based on, well, fellowship and not authority. Breaking fellowship versus having some sort of authority over the person are two very different things, and the former circumvents a lot of unnecessary drama.
paul
Addendum:
“Telling it to the church” would only involve telling it to the home fellowship of maybe 20 people. Somebody showing up at another home in that network is probably going to incite a phone call to the original fellowship anyway. Secondly, it cannot be restated enough that if a “member” leaves in the middle of the Matthew 18 process, the same result of no fellowship is accomplished anyway. The institutional church creates a bunch of unnecessary drama because of its penchant for authority.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment