Christian Husbands and Fathers Will Be Held Accountable for Leading Their Families in Calvinism’s False Gospel
Originally published January 8, 2013
I see a significant laxness towards doctrinal issues in regard to where one goes to church, especially from husbands, and fathers. “But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD (Joshua 24:15)” is now, But as for me and my household, we will follow the elders. Certainly, the church has never been fuller of mindless, man-following, wimpy husbands.
Husbands are supposed to be like Christ. Christ washes His church in the water of truth. Yes, I know the womenfolk can think for themselves. Here at PPT/TANC, it is mostly women who show theological aptitude in our correspondence with friends of the ministry. Nevertheless, Ephesians chapter five makes it clear that men are responsible for leading their families in truth—not alone, but they are certainly to be in the lead or at least a co-lead for crying out loud. And by the way, elders are nowhere to be found in Ephesians five. Men, Reformed elders have NO authority in your home, period! YOU, and you alone are the pastor of your home. And if you are mixing it up with some Reformed elders who do not get that (and few do), take this advice from someone who learned the hard way: go to your local police station and get a restraining order based on stalking laws, and then notify the local press that you have done so.
Christ said that those who learn His truth and apply it to their lives, and teach others to do the same will be great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19). But many husbands in our day want to be great in the eyes of pompous philosopher kings. Christ warned that the LEAST of His commandments were not to be “relaxed.” Many pathetic, spiritually effeminate husbands in our day allow their families to attend Reformed churches that teach the following:
1. Progressive justification.
2. Gospel contemplationism.
3. The complete eradication of self-worth and confidence in applying God-given talents to life.
4. Elder absolution.
5. “Community” as the focal point of all life in Christ.
6. Elder intermediate interpretation of the Bible.
7. Antinomianism.
Basically, they have relinguished total control of their families to sectarian brute beasts. They would do anything that a Reformed elder told them to do, and often do so accordingly. Look, we deal with this. Even husbands who leave Reformed circles have a sort of Stockholm syndrome. They are full of fear, and their life is in turmoil just because they asked a few questions. I correspond with people who are in these groups and are afraid to leave. They are clearly brainwashed, but a consistent comment is, “The leadership doesn’t like to be questioned.” We have even offered asylum to one person in the form of housing, work, and legal counsel. Huh? Right, these groups, i.e., New Calvinism, use “biblical counseling” to gather data on people and then clearly use that information to control them. This is commonplace in the movement. Unless you want a couple of hundred people knowing about sin that you have repented of when you are “brought up before the congregation”—you will play ball the way the elders want you to. Or else.
Doctrinal discrepancy is reason enough, but many husbands relinquish their responsibility before God to lead their home and support this tyranny with their money. After all, not tithing can get you brought up on church discipline in these churches. This is yet another thing that is becoming commonplace as this Reformed movement grows unhindered and unquestioned.
But I have to believe that there will be a day of reckoning, and doctrinal ignorance will be no excuse.
paul
The Bob Jones DisG.R.A.C.E. Report: Hope for Change if God Cooperates
Editor’s Note: It has been 15 months since the original release of the Bob Jones University G.R.A.C.E. report, and BJU abuse survivors are STILL incredulous that nothing has changed!
bjugrace.com/2015/03/23/an-open-letter-to-bob-jones-university-from-the-survivors-of-the-abuse-response-task-force
Originally Published December 11, 2014
G.R.A.C.E. stands for “godly response to abuse in the Christian environment.” GRACE is a mediatory organization funded by the institutional church that investigates sexual abuse within Christian environments such as churches, missionary societies, and universities.
Their investigative report process in all cases so far has been slower than mud sliding to the top of Mount Everest. In the case of Bob Jones University, the report will finally be released tomorrow as the Christian community awaits with bated breath. Gag.
I am not going to spend much time on this post because I prefer to let the dead bury their own dead in regard to all of this institutional church drama. GRACE, and their approach, is predicated on Protestant Gnosticism and will not help anyone or do anything towards solving this problem. Boz Tchividjian, the director of GRACE, believes a false gospel and is a blind man leading the blind.
Let me keep this post simple and short because I have written other articles that delve deeply into what the mystical Boz believes, and I will do so by focusing on the closing words of Steve Pettit who read a statement today in regard to the GRACE report. Pettit is the President of BJU. At the end of what he stated must happen as a result of the GRACE report which apparently informed BJU of what was going on in their own university, he said that what must happen will happen by, watch it, here it comes…”the grace of God.”
Right. You see, there is only one thing worse than rape: people bringing about change in their own efforts. The “godly response” must be grounded in what Jesus did, not anything we do. And note that this change comes about by the “grace” of God. Let me rephrase that to clear things up for you: “This will happen by the justification of God,” or “This will happen by the salvation of God,” or “This will happen by the gospel of God.”
They all believe the same thing: we are sanctified by the same gospel that saved us. And you know, this is really “hard work” because of our tendency to do things ourselves, or in our own efforts like you know, Penn State. Sure, they slam-dunked the problem, but God didn’t get any glory. We can’t have that! And as Pettit also stated, the “process” (there is still a process?) is going to take a really, really long time. Hopeful yet?
Apparently, God deliberately takes a long time to deal with these situations so that we will know it has nothing to do with anything we do, but what Jesus has done. That’s the “godly response.”
Now back to the Boz. Why is the mere reporting of all of this such a big deal? Pharisees like us are inclined to say, “A report, so what?” Well, how were you saved? “By faith and repentance.” There you go. The report is designed to elicit deep repentance which results in the manifestation of change brought about by God’s grace, not anything we do. That brings me to the final words of Boz in regard to his statement on the report:
As this historical process comes to an end [no kidding], we continue to pray that the words of this report will fuel hope and healing in the lives of many as well as bring about transformational changes in the life of Bob Jones University. To that end, we look forward to having a front row seat at watching God work.
Right. We only need the GRACE reports to show us how wicked we are, and how much we need God’s grace, then we sit back and watch “God work.” And you know, when it comes to rape God is in no big hurry to stop it lest we believe we did something in the process. If it takes a really, really long time, it must surely be of God.
And these guys are getting paid for this stuff with your hard earned tithe money. You may want to give that some thought.
paul
If You Are a Protestant; i.e., Baptist, Methodist, ect., You Represent a False Gospel
The Protestant Reformation was never about interpreting the Bible literally, or by its plain sense. The official interpretive policy of the Reformers was historical-redemptive. What’s that? It means the Reformers interpreted the Bible as a salvific metaphysical narrative. This philosophy calls for reality to be interpreted as a prewritten movie of sorts, and the Bible is the script. Bible “stories” are prototypes for interpreting our lives according to redemption, and prophecies foretell how the movie will unfold historically. Supposedly, God decided to write the narrative for His own glory and self-love.
The soteriology of the Reformation is a product of this worldview. That’s why orthodoxy plainly contradicts the plain sense of Scripture or its grammatical sense. Of course, Reformers past and present claim they are grammarians, but that refers to grammatical sentences that explain redemptive-historical state-of -being. In other words, historical-grammatical hermeneutical processes are only a means to explaining historical-redemptive metaphysics which enables them to claim grammatical interpretation. They do this knowingly lest they would be found telling the truth about something.
Before we focus on how Protestant orthodoxy defines itself as biblically unregenerate, let’s answer the question in regard to Protestants being so confused about this very simple truth; how did it happen? From the Reformation moving forward in time, people started interpreting the Bible grammatically from a state-of-being perspective. This was never meant to be, but the natural inclination of people is to interpret reality grammatically, or literally so to speak. This resulted in Protestantism, and all of its various stripes, being half pregnant with “under grace.” The Bible’s definitions of the lost and saved, viz, “under law” or “under grace” became confused.
Actually, it became very confused. Historical-redemptive interpretation enables one to interpret every verse of Scripture as being about salvation while grammatical interpretation demands a dichotomy between Christian living and salvation. The former calls for a salvation process while the latter calls for salvation being a onetime finished work. In 1970, a think tank known as the Australian Forum rediscovered this fact and has brought the church back to its authentic roots via the New Calvinist movement.
Now let’s look at how Protestantism defines the so-called “Christian” as being “under law.” There are myriads of examples, but I will use a select few. John Calvin stated the following in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
3.14.10 – Even were it possible for us to perform works absolutely pure, yet one sin is sufficient to efface and extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness, as the prophet says (Ezek. 18:24). With this James agrees, “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all,” (James 2:10). And since this mortal life is never entirely free from the taint of sin, whatever righteousness we could acquire would ever and anon be corrupted, overwhelmed, and destroyed, by subsequent sins, so that it could not stand the scrutiny of God, or be imputed to us for righteousness. In short, whenever we treat of the righteousness of works, we must look not to the legal work but to the command. Therefore, when righteousness is sought by the Law, it is in vain to produce one or two single works; we must show an uninterrupted obedience. God does not (as many foolishly imagine) impute that forgiveness of sins once for all, as righteousness; so that having obtained the pardon of our past life we may afterwards seek righteousness in the Law. This were only to mock and delude us by the entertainment of false hopes. For since perfection is altogether unattainable by us, so long as we are clothed with flesh, and the Law denounces death and judgment against all who have not yielded a perfect righteousness, there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins. Wherefore the statement which we set out is always true, If we are estimated by our own worthiness, in everything that we think or devise, with all our studies and endeavors we deserve death and destruction.
3.14.11 – We must strongly insist on these two things: That no believer ever performed one work which, if tested by the strict judgment of God, could escape condemnation; and, moreover, that were this granted to be possible (though it is not), yet the act being vitiated and polluted by the sins of which it is certain that the author of it is guilty, it is deprived of its merit. This is the cardinal point of the present discussion.
Calvin makes two things perfectly clear from the Reformed perspective: “Christians” are still judged by the law and its demand for perfection, and therefore, no “Christian” can please God via a righteous work. Simply stated, “under law.” Anyone reading this post should be familiar with many Bible verses that call us to please God with our works, but nevertheless, I will cite the following:
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
In this passage, the apostle Paul clearly delineated between the lost and the saved, and in regard to “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God,” John Calvin would say, “Yep, that’s us!” While Paul clearly stated that Christians are no longer under the law’s demand for perfection; Calvin clearly contradicts him. While Paul defines a true believer as someone who CAN please God, Calvin flatly denies it…in writing.
Calvin defines the Christian as under “the law of sin and death” while Paul defines the Christian as under “the law of the Spirit of life” which is the same as being under grace. If you reread the excerpt from the Institutes, Calvin defines the Christian in nearly the exact same way that Paul described the unregenerate. Paul distinguishes how the Spirit uses the law in regard to the unsaved versus the saved. For those under law, the Spirit uses the law to condemn only. The Reformed concur because they say this continually drives the Christian back to the cross for continued atonement for “present sin.”
In contrast, the Spirit uses the law to sanctify believers (John 17:17), and does not use the law to keep so-called Christians under condemnation. This demands a progressive salvation versus a salvation that is finished. The Australian Forum framed it this way:
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 (Present Truth: Law and Gospel; Volume 7, article 2, Part 2).
John Piper, the contemporary “elder statesman” of the New Calvinist movement stated it this way:
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 (Counted Righteous in Christ: Page 123; 2002).
To be under the righteous and perfect demands of the law to remain justified is clearly… “under law.” Also, note that both contemporary Reformers and Calvin always cite James 2:10 as a proof text:
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
But it is no mere oversight that they fail to contrast that with love fulfilling the whole law as well (Gal 5:14, Matt 22:40, Rom 3:10). James 2:10 is “under law” while Galatians 5:14 ect. refers to “under grace” (Rom 6:14).
Those who call themselves Protestants identify with a false gospel, but granted, could be confused enough to be saved. However, confusion in the Christian life is not good and is obviously indicative of what we see in the church.
paul
It’s All About the “O” – Mohler, DeYoung, Lucas: We Own You
Originally posted September 15, 2012
“You could be in a church that is subtly indoctrinating your family with the idea that they are owned by the government; in this case, church polity.”
Join a New Calvinist Church if you will, but let it be known: they now own you. Newsflash for the husbands: Calvinist elders believe they have the ultimate say and authority in your home. And another thing: the gospel they hold to rejects synergism in sanctification as works salvation. So, guess what? If your wife buys into that, you are now in what they call a mixed marriage. You are now dangerously close to divorce court as the divorce rate in these churches has skyrocketed.
In our recent TANC 2012 conference, author John Immel nailed it—it boils down to who owns man: in the Christian realm, does Christ own you or Reformed elders? In the secular realm, does man own man or does government own man? Recently, our President stated that government owns man. Recently, in a trilogy of articles by three Reformed pastors published by Ligonier Ministries, it was stated that the church owns Christians, and I will give you three wild guesses as to who represents the authority of the church. That would be the elders.
So it’s all about the “O.” It’s all about “ownership.”
As we shall see, these articles plainly state the Reformed tradition that came from Catholic tyranny. The Reformers never repented of the same underlying presuppositions concerning man’s need to be owned by enlightened philosopher kings. The Reformation was merely a fight for control over the mutton with the Reformers seeing themselves as the moral philosopher kings as opposed to the Romish ones. Their doctrine was just a different take on how the totally depraved are saved from themselves. But both doctrines reflect the inability of man to participate in sanctification.
The three articles posted were: Should I Stay or Should I Go? by Albert Mohler; Where and How Do We Draw the Line? by Kevin DeYoung; and, Who Draws the Line? by Sean Michael Lucas. All linked together for your indoctrination convenience.
Al Mohler states in his ownership treatise that Christians have “no right” to leave one church for another because of preferences. Emphasis by underline added:
Far too many church members have become church shoppers. The biblical concept of ecclesiology has given way to a form of consumerism in which individuals shop around for the church that seems most to their liking at that moment. The issue can concern worship and music, relationships, teaching, or any number of other things. The pattern is the same, however – people feel free to leave one congregation for another for virtually any reason, or no reason at all.
Church shopping violates the integrity of the church and the meaning of church membership. When members leave for insufficient reason, the fellowship of the church is broken, its witness is weakened, and the peace and unity of the congregation are sacrificed. Tragically, a superficial understanding of church membership undermines our witness to the gospel of Christ.
There is no excuse for this phenomenon. We have no right to leave a church over preferences about music, personal taste, or even programming that does not meet expectations. These controversies or concerns should prompt the faithful Christian to consider how he might be of assistance in finding and forging a better way, rather than working to find an excuse to leave.
Where to begin? First of all, while many New Calvinist churches will bring you up on church discipline for leaving because of “unbiblical” reasons, those reasons vary from church to church. So, not only do the reasons for leaving vary among parishioners, but what constitutes proper “biblical…. ecclesiology” in regard to departure varies as well. Mohler states in the same post that doctrine is a valid reason to leave a church, but yet, one of the more prominent leaders of the New Calvinist movement (CJ Mahaney), who is strongly endorsed by Mohler, states that doctrine is not a valid reason to leave a church. CJ Mahaney substantiated that New Calvinist position and clearly indicated what New Calvinists are willing to do to enforce that position when he blackmailed the cofounder of SGM, Larry Tomczak:
Transcript of Phone Conversation between C.J., Doris and Larry Tomczak on October 3, 1997 pp. 10-11:
C.J.: Doctrine is an unacceptable reason for leaving P.D.I.
Larry: C.J., I’m not in sync with any of the T.U.L.I.P., so whether you agree or not, doctrine is one of the major reasons I believe it is God’s will to leave P.D.I. and it does need to be included in any statement put forth.
C.J.: If you do that, then it will be necessary for us to give a more detailed explanation of your sins [ie, beyond the sin of leaving for doctrinal reasons].
Larry: Justin’s name has been floated out there when there’s statements like revealing more details about my sin. What are you getting at?
C.J.: Justin’s name isn’t just floated out there – I’m stating it!
Larry: C.J. how can you do that after you encouraged Justin to confess everything; get it all out. Then when he did, you reassured him “You have my word, it will never leave this room. Even our wives won’t be told.”
I repeatedly reassured him, “C.J. is a man of his word. You needn’t worry.” Now you’re talking of publically sharing the sins of his youth?!
C.J.: My statement was made in the context of that evening. If I knew then what you were going to do, I would have re-evaluated what I communicated.
Doris: C.J., are you aware that you are blackmailing Larry? You’ll make no mention of Justin’s sins, which he confessed and was forgiven of months ago, if Larry agrees with your statement, but you feel you have to warn the folks and go national with Justin’s sins if Larry pushes the doctrinal button? C.J., you are blackmailing Larry to say what you want!―Shame on you, C.J.! As a man of God and a father, shame on you!
This will send shock waves throughout the teens in P.D.I. and make many pastors’ teens vow, “I‘ll never confess my secret sins to C.J. or any of the team, seeing that they‘ll go public with my sins if my dad doesn‘t toe the line.”―C.J., you will reap whatever judgment you make on Justin. You have a young son coming up. Another reason for my personally wanting to leave P.D.I. and never come back is this ungodly tactic of resorting to blackmail and intimidation of people!
C.J.: I can‘t speak for the team, but I want them to witness this. We’ll arrange a conference call next week with the team.
Doris: I want Justin to be part of that call. It’s his life that’s at stake.
C.J.: Fine.
(SGM Wikileaks, part 3, p.139. Online source)
Of course, this example and many others makes Mohler’s concern with the “integrity” of the church—laughable. But nevertheless, Mohler’s post and the other two are clear as to what common ground New Calvinists have on the “biblical concept of ecclesiology.”
Besides the fact that parishioners “have no right” to leave a church based on preference, what do New Calvinists fundamentally agree on in this regard? That brings us to the article by Sean Michael Lucas :
Because the church has authority to declare doctrine, it is the church that has authority to draw doctrinal lines and serve as the final judge on doctrinal issues. Scripture teaches us that the church serves as the “pillar and buttress of the truth.”
So, even in cases where New Calvinists believe that doctrine is an acceptable reason for leaving a church, guess who decides what true doctrine is? “But Paul, he is speaking of doctrine being determined by the church as a whole, not just the elders.” Really? Lucas continues:
In our age, this understanding—that the church has Jesus’ authority to serve as the final judge on doctrinal matters— rubs us wrong for three reasons. First, it rubs us wrong because we are pronounced individualists. This is especially the case for contemporary American Christians, who have a built-in “democratic” bias to believe that the Bible’s theology is accessible to all well-meaning, thoughtful Christians. Because theological truth is democratically available to all, such individuals can stand toe to toe with ministerial “experts” or ecclesiastical courts and reject their authority.
Creeped out yet? Well, if you are a blogger, it gets better:
Perhaps it is this individualistic, democratic perspective that has led to the rise of websites and blogs in which theology is done in public by a range of folks who may or may not be appropriately trained and ordained for a public teaching role. While the Internet has served as a “free press” that has provided important watchdog functions for various organizations, there are two downsides of the new media, which ironically move in opposite directions. On the one side, the new media (blogs, websites, podcasts, Facebook, Twitter) allow everyone to be his own theologian and judge of doctrinal matters. But because everyone is shouting and judging, the ironic other side is that those who are the most well known and have the biggest blogs gain the most market share and actually become the doctrinal arbiters of our electronic age. In this new media world, the idea that the church as a corporate body actually has authority to declare doctrine and judge on doctrinal issues is anathema.
Lucas continues to articulate the Reformed tradition that holds to the plenary authority of elders supposedly granted to them by Christ:
For some of us, again reflecting our individualism, such understanding of the church unnecessarily limits voices and perspectives that might be helpful in conversation. But restricting access to debates and judgments about theology to those who have been set apart as elders in Christ’s church and who have gathered for the purpose of study, prayer, and declaration actually ensures a more thoughtful process and a surer understanding of Christ’s Word than a pell-mell, democratic, individualistic free-for-all. Not only do we trust that a multiplicity of voices is represented by the eldership, but, above all, we trust that the single voice of the Spirit of Jesus will be heard in our midst.
So, bottom line: the priesthood of believers is a “pell-mell, democratic, individualistic free-for-all.” Still not creeped out? Then consider how they answer the question in regard to elder error:
Of course, such slow and deliberate processes do not guarantee a biblically appropriate result. After all, the Westminster Confession of Faith tells us that “all synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred” (WCF 31.3). Sometimes, entire denominations err significantly as they prayerfully consider Scripture and judge doctrine. Such error, however, does not negate Jesus’ own delegation of authority to the church and set the stage for a free-for-all.
This brings us to another issue that DeYoung propogates in his post: since Reformed elders have all authority, their creeds and confessions are authoritative and not just commentaries. Hence, they declared in the aforementioned confession cited by Lucas that even though they may be in error, they still have all authority. Whatever happened to the Apostle Paul’s appeal to only follow him as he followed Christ?
DeYoung:
Those who wrote the ancient creeds, such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian Definition, were not infallible, but these creeds have served as effective guardrails, keeping God’s people on the path of truth. It would take extraordinary new insight or extraordinary hubris to jettison these ancient formulas. They provide faithful summaries of the most important doctrines of the faith. That’s why the Heidelberg Catechism refers us to the Apostles’ Creed, “a creed beyond doubt, and confessed through the world,” when it asks, “What then must a Christian believe?” (Q&A 22–23).
FYI: If you see something in your own Bible reading that contradicts a Reformed creed or confession, you are partaking in visions of grandeur.
This is the crux of the matter, the question of authority. It is almost crazy that Christians don’t have this issue resolved in their mind before they join a church. You could be in a church that is subtly indoctrinating your family with the idea that they are owned by the government; in this case, church polity.
Let there be no doubt about it, New Calvinists are drooling over the idea of another Geneva theocracy with all the trimmings. And someone shared with me just the other day how this shows itself in real life. “Mike” is a local contractor in the Xenia, Ohio area. He is close friends with a farmer in the area who lives next door to a man and his family that attend a New Calvinist church.
One day, his new New Calvinist neighbor came over to inform him that he needed to stop working on Sunday because it is the Lord’s Day, and the noise of his machinery was disturbing their day of rest. Mike’s friend told him, in a manner of speaking, to hang it on his beak. Mike believes what transpired after that came from the neighbor’s belief that he was a superior person to his friend, and that his friend should have honored the neighbors request by virtue of who he is.
The neighbor has clout in the community, and to make a long story short—found many ways to make Mike’s friend miserable through legal wrangling about property line issues; according to my understanding, 8” worth. It was clear that Mike’s friend was going to be harassed until he submitted to this man’s perceived biblical authority.
New Calvinists have serious authority issues, and you don’t have to necessarily join in official membership to be considered under their authority. A contributor to Mark Dever’s 9 Marks blog stated that anyone who comes in the front door of a church proclaiming Christ as Lord is under the authority of that church.
It’s time for Christians to nail down the “O.” Who owns you? Are you aware of who owns you (or at least thinks so)? And are you ok with that?
paul
Calvinist T4G Orthodoxy: Library Size Matters
Originally published July 6, 2013
What do you think of the T4G gang and their “Study Tour”? This is where the key speakers associated with T4G conferences past and present show off their vast libraries. I have posted the video links at the end of this article.
Think about what this is saying. It clearly emanates the idea that vast para-biblical knowledge is needed to understand God’s word. It is also saying that unless you have the money to purchase such a library, you aren’t qualified. These guys are to be revered, respected, and obeyed because they have the knowledge. It’s spiritual caste on steroids.
This is clearly a power play to control people through intimidation—if you’re not a thinker. Basically, if you have a Bible and the internet, your access to information and the efficiency thereof makes their libraries look like an outhouse. But again, the most egregious idea that stems from this is that the Bible doesn’t contain adequate information in and of itself for life and godliness. In order to really grasp the Bible, you need all of that information from guys who lived in medieval times and had the compassion of alligators.
Can you imagine the Apostles putting on such a display? What are these guys thinking? Do they really want a pastor from Harlem seeing this video? What should he make of it? Good grief! These videos speak for themselves as these men flaunt their resources before the world in arrogance that staggers the imagination.
Al Mohler:
Ligon Duncan:
http://vimeo.com/groups/27420/videos/9237570
Mark Dever (This video is particularly disturbing):
CJ Mahaney:
John I used to teach the truth MacArthur:
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment