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.
The Problem with Contemporary Biblical Counseling: Justification “Runs in the Background”
Originally published June 13, 2014
“Jay Adams has often pointed out that people are clueless in regard to the fact that there are about 200 different counseling theories in Psychology. Think about that. When people go to a psychologist for help they are no doubt clueless in regard to the perspective that they will be counseled from. Nevertheless, if biblical counseling is about sanctification, and it is, there are at least as many different theories on how justification ‘runs’ with sanctification.”
The fact that our justification is a finished work is critical to the gospel. If justification is not finished, its proper maintenance by faith alone without works becomes a balancing act between works and faith in sanctification. You have an integration of two things where one calls for faith alone and the other calls for a faith that works.
Therefore, when justification and sanctification are fused together, the Christian life will be marked by confusion, fear, introspection, and a paralyzed, stagnant Christian life. Sound familiar? A radical dichotomy between justification and sanctification frees the believer to aggressively love without fear that anything they do in sanctification will affect their justification. There is no fear in our justified position.
A false gospel cannot help people. All in all, the contemporary biblical counseling movement is saturated with the idea that justification is progressive. Point in case; biblical counseling superstar Lou Priolo believes that justification, “runs in the background.” In a guest post written for Jay Adams’ Institute for Nouthetic Studies, Priolo stated the following:
To my way of thinking, the place of the doctrine of justification in the believer’s life is much like the operating system on a computer. I’m a PC guy. My personal computer operates under a Windows operating system. Windows is always up and running, but most of the time, it runs in the background. I don’t see it. I can go for days without looking at it (although I know it is functioning as long as the other programs are operating properly). Occasionally, I have to go to the control panel to troubleshoot a problem, make some minor adjustments, or defrag my hard drive, but I don’t give it another thought because I have faith that it is doing what it is supposed to do. So it is with my justification. It is always up and running. Though I am not always consciously thinking about it, everything I do flows from it.
If one carefully examines this statement by Priolo, many disturbing anti-gospel ideas could be pointed out, and oddly, Jay Adams himself has written against these very ideas. Particularly, the idea that “everything” we do is powered by, or “flows” from justification. This is no whit different from what Tullian Tchividjian, John Piper, or even Joseph Prince believes.
Justification cannot be both finished and “running.” If justification runs in sanctification, what do we have to do to keep it running properly? That’s a huge problem by virtue of the very question itself. If the race we run as Christians, the one Paul talked about, is powered by justification, and we can be disqualified from that race; well, the ramifications in this issue speak for themselves.
No wonder that confusion, chaos, controversy, and a civil war between “first generation” biblical counseling and “second generation” biblical counseling are the order of the day in those circles.
Jay Adams has often pointed out that people are clueless in regard to the fact that there are about 200 different counseling theories in Psychology. Think about that. When people go to a psychologist for help they are no doubt clueless in regard to the perspective that they will be counseled from. Nevertheless, if biblical counseling is about sanctification, and it is, there are at least as many different theories on how justification “runs” with sanctification.
Who will finally stand up and say, “Enough of this madness!”? Who will finally stand up and say one is finished and one is progressive. Come now, are we saying that one runs in a race that is finished? Indeed, I stood dumbfounded when Voddie Buacham’s answer to that question from me was, “yes.” Is this nonsense the very reason that the world does not take us seriously? We are unable to clarify the gospel we proclaim. Call the world totally depraved if you will, but they are not stupid.
paul
Abused Women and a Gym Membership: A Comparison
I presently have a membership at LA Fitness. Why? Because they are reasonably priced, don’t require a contract (sort-of), and have the best facilities in the world, hands down.
So anyway, at least in my case (I can’t speak for other members there), when I joined LA Fitness, I paid for the first month and the last month upfront. At some point in the month that is paid for, they automatically withdraw money from my account for the next month. Roughly a week before the end of the month, the payment didn’t go through.
That’s when the phone calls started; daily, and at least two phone calls per day. Regardless of the fact that they were informed that the problem with the account would be reconciled in a few days, the calls continued. Remember, this is during a time period when the present month is paid for, and the following month as well. Moreover, the callers talked like Valley Girls in regard to pitch and speed. Remember them? They were made famous by the 1982 Frank Zappa song that he recorded with his 14 year old daughter, “Moon.” Some of the callers talked so fast I couldn’t understand what they were saying.
The final straw for me was a phone call at 8:45 am on Sunday. Play that song, and then imagine stumbling around on a Sunday morning grappling for the coffee pot after a week from hell, seeing the call on your cell phone, answering, and well, play the YouTube vid.
They (LA Fitness: remember that this young lady was only doing her job) kept me on hold until the card cleared, and then finally proclaiming my salvation, informed me that I would be taken off of the harassment list. She called it the “[call] list.”
My friends, this is harassment and abuse. Plain and simple.
So, now I have a choice: will I stay in this abusive relationship because of the excellent facilities? No I will not.
But Paul, it wouldn’t have happened if the money was in the account.
Sound familiar? That’s what we call “victim blaming.” Because the victim started it, or was to blame on some wise, the abuse is excused. See, I could say: “I love the facilities, and after all, if I had made sure the money was in there, I wouldn’t have been abused. I will therefore stay in the relationship.”
Yes, I could say that, but I will not tell myself that, nor will I do that. Why? Because if I do, I become a participant in evil according to the end result. My reasoning is neither here nor there, the final outcome is the real issue; bad behavior is not held accountable.
Sure, sure, LA Fitness will hardly go broke because of my departure, but that’s not one of the primary points. Ineffective revenge is not one of the primary points; the primary points are principle and boundaries that prevent self-destruction. Now, of course, I am not saying that keeping my membership at LA Fitness would be self-destructive—it’s merely an analogy. Or is it? The significance of principles is that they can be applied unwittingly from the mundane to the dramatic.
We are dealing with three points here: inadvertently condoning bad behavior through lack of accountability, living by principles, and gain, boundaries that prevent self-destruction.
Women and men both partake in the fallacy of weak boundaries, but the title focuses on women because our culture is more sensitive to the issue of abuse in regard to women.
No women should stay in any relationship with anybody or anyone in any place where boundaries are refused and ignored. It doesn’t mean they lack love, it means they have standards. It means they live by the principle of mutual respect. Neither does it mean there isn’t a process that lays the ground rules when needed, but it does mean that the line can be crossed in the process even when it is fully understood. Think, “temporary separation” to clarify boundaries.
We don’t stay in a relationship with a spouse regardless of anything because of the spouse’s facilities. Our children are not exempt from boundaries because we love them. Unaccountability is not love. Facilitating disrespect for others is not love. Trust me, if a child does not respect the parents, they will hardly respect anyone. And in all of this, we should all have boundaries in regard to helping those who will not hold others accountable.
This is a shot out of nowhere, but I want to interject it: do you support a church that will not hold its denomination accountable? Is the only boundary that of, “Our particular congregation didn’t do it”? Do you still support the denomination because of its facilities?
If you want to believe you have no value, if you want to believe your tolerance is a show of the same grace and mercy you received, if you think a boundary-less life is a humble life, let me remind you, the world already has a savior, so don’t try to be one. Stop making yourself God under the guise of humility, and trading your dignity for a bowl of soup.
Likewise, LA Fitness crossed the line. I will now pay more for lesser facilities—but I retain my self-respect which is predicated on my principles.
Your facilities are not enough when you cross the line.
paul
If You Don’t Have “A Righteousness of Your Own,” You Are Condemned
“And frankly, that’s exactly what Protestantism teaches: that righteousness is on loan from Jesus.”
In vogue among evangelicals is the idea that we have no righteousness of our own. If we lay claim to a good work that pleases God, we must sanctify it with, “It wasn’t I who did it—it was Jesus working through the Spirit.”
To take credit for a good work is to steal the glory from God, and lay claim to a “righteousness of our own.” This idea is rooted in Martin Luther’s alien righteousness. It is the belief that all righteousness remains outside of the believer.
The result is a confused endeavor to do Christianity without doing anything; after all, “The just shall live by faith.” Therefore, Protestantism still struggles in the clarification of how we do Christianity without doing anything; after all, “It’s not about our doing, it’s about what He has done.” Protestantism is fraught with these doing it without doing it truisms.
Actually, Luther and Calvin articulated how the Christian life is done without doing, but Protestantism wouldn’t be any more popular than the Branch Davidians if Protestants knew the true tenets of Protestantism.
But here is the primary problem: Protestantism is a slick works salvation gospel. Basically, it turns doing nothing into a work; you do nothing to keep yourself saved. People assume that doing nothing with intentionality to obtain an objective is not doing anything. In reality, doing nothing is still doing something; it’s a “choice,” and deciding to do something or not do something is doing something in both cases.
The linchpin is Protestantism’s redefinition of the new birth which is redefined as an ability to better see what we can’t do, rather than a new creature who does things because of who we are.
Hence, if we have no righteousness of our own, we are condemned. If you are the least bit familiar with the New Testament, you know of the interpretive duo of “gift” and “reward.” Once you receive a gift, you own it, right? Salvation and the righteousness that comes with it is a GIFT. Rewards come in this life and the life to come as a result of how we put the gift that we now own into use. Primarily, the Bible calls that “love.”
But now think with me for a moment. If something is not a gift, what is it? Right, it’s a loan, and what do we know about loans? Right, you have to pay them back. And frankly, that’s exactly what Protestantism teaches: that righteousness is on loan from Jesus. We have no righteousness of our own; we only have the righteousness of Jesus. The gift of righteousness is really righteousness on loan from Jesus, and we receive the benefits by antinomian faith alone payments (doing nothing).
Let’s clarify the Protestant payments a little more. Because of this construct, Protestants have to categorize works into two categories: works of self-righteousness, and faith alone works. Faith alone works usually consist of praying, faithfulness to church attendance, tithing, and behaving well at church. Works of self-righteousness are pretty much everything else, but particularly thinking that you know something well enough to debate the pastor.
Because Protestantism denies that we own the gift of righteousness, they must now define REWARD as final salvation, and they most certainly do in no uncertain terms. Think about that: the final equation of Luther’s alien righteousness is salvation as reward for living by faith alone. That’s a huge problem.
One of the keys to understanding all of this is Hebrews 6:10,
“For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do.”
Why would it be “unjust” for God to “overlook” YOUR “work”? Because you have earned it. This isn’t complicated: salvation/righteousness is a gift that you can’t earn, but nevertheless this righteousness is part and parcel with your new being, and you are rewarded for how you put it to use for love’s sake.
The conclusion of the matter is simple: Protestantism is a false gospel that circumvents love because we supposedly have no righteousness of our own. It makes ownership synonymous with being the originators of righteousness which also defies the reality of a “gift” as well.
paul
What is the Gospel?
Is the gospel a declaration about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? Are people saved because they believe those facts?
Granted, they have to believe those facts to be saved, but they must not only believe that Christ died for our sins and was resurrected three days later, they must also believe something else about those facts:
Salvation is a choice to follow Christ in that same death, burial, and resurrection. He accomplished such so that we can follow Him in it.
Salvation is an intellectual ascent AND a choice. The choice is also referred to as “repentance.” You are not only turning from an indifference to God’s truth, you are turning from who you are to whatever God wants to make you.
This is called the new birth, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You can do absolutely nothing to effect this new birth, you can only ask for it. It is the desire to turn from who you are to whatever God makes you. If you understand that, and want that, God has promised it to you if you ask for it.
Being saved encompasses the belief that you have passed from death to life. The Bible then commands us to proceed with life based on certain assumptions. First, we must know that we cannot be condemned for any sin. Secondly, we make it our goal to please God by putting off the former ways and learning the new ways of the Spirit. Spiritual growth is a true colaboring between ourselves and the Spirit. Our focus is putting off the old ways and putting on the new ways of the Spirit. This is the laser focus of discipleship.
A contrary focus on our supposed continued need for the same gospel that saved us, and a focus on how “sinful” we are is a denial that we have passed from death to life. Instead of our goal being love, our goal becomes a deeper and deeper appreciation of why Christ had to die for us. This is functioning on a completely different assumption:
It denies that we have passed from death to life, and makes our greatest sin that of not understanding how sinful we are resulting in a supposed lack of gratitude for Christ’s sacrifice. It assumes that the old us is still alive, and able to supply ample fodder for showing us why Christ had to die for us. Instead of the Bible showing us the new way of the Spirit, it supposedly shows us the old way of sin leading to a greater appreciation of the cross.
This is the theme we hear constantly in the institutional church, on Christian radio, and in contemporary praise music. And unfortunately, it tells us what we really believe about the gospel.
The new birth is redefined as a mere ability to see how sinful we are, and not an ability to be a transformed person—a true kingdom citizen—a true child of God. Transformation is redefined as an increased ability to see how sinful we are and plunge the depths of our total depravity. The idea that we can actually change and better learn Christ is declared to be arrogant, prideful, and… “having a righteousness of your own.”
This is a slick, deliberate play on words that subtly denies the new birth. It takes the reality that righteousness did not originate with us, and makes it tantamount to having NO righteousness that is a part of our true being. We remain unchanged except for an ability to SEE only, and the righteousness of God that comes part and parcel with being born of Him remains apart from us. We are merely vessels that “reflect” God’s righteousness, but it remains separate from our new identity.
In other words, we really don’t perform any love that pleases God, our only goal is to plunge the depths of our own sinfulness that results in God “reflecting” His love on us and others. This coincides with rhetoric we hear in the church constantly such as, “It wasn’t I who did it—it was the Spirit working through me.”
Passages like Galatians 2:20 are then twisted to make the case.
Consequently, instead of a proper dichotomy being drawn between GIFT and REWARD, salvation ends up as our reward for living a life of faith alone in… “what Jesus HAS done, not anything I do.”
Again, this not only denies the new birth, but makes “Christians” unwitting participants in a damning endeavor to keep ourselves saved by faith alone which is defined as a mere ability to see our need for a savior more and more. “Jumping directly from the commandment to obedience” is supposedly works salvation.
Jesus said, “You must be born again,” and this is exactly why He said it. Water baptism has nothing to do with a church membership found nowhere in the Bible, and it is not only about what Jesus did, it is a testimony that you have followed Christ in a literal death and resurrection.
Salvation is the abandonment of who you are, and trusting what God will do by recreating you into His own child. It is a matter of trust, because…
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 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.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment