PQ’s Questions Strike at the Heart of Calvin’s Heretical False Gospel
“Calvin said justification’s standard is the law. Therefore, He made much of the Christian’s inability to keep the law perfectly. His obsession with the Christian’s inability to keep the law perfectly, exposes his gospel for what it is: patently false.”
“Moreover, the Apostle Paul states with all certainty that there is NO law that can give life. If Christ kept/fulfilled/keeps the law for us in order to keep us justified, that is saying that there is a law that can give life.”
Just wondering what you truly mean by “there is no law in justification.” I understand that “we are now justified apart from the Law,” but Christ also made clear that he “came to fulfill the Law.” His fulfillment of the Law is the basis of our justification because we could not fulfill the Law by our own merit or might. This seems like a vague thought that could be misconstrued very easily. Also, I wonder from where your conclusion that “Calvinism propagates a grace based upon works” comes?
That thought is nowhere in the Institutes or in Spurgeon. Is this merely a tactic of logical reduction? Clearly, if we attempt to drag the notions of God’s sovereignty or our free will to their logical ends (in the realm our minds can fathom), we end up with heresy on either end. Either God is a moral monster, punishing those whom he controls, or God must alternatively have his hands tied to the whims and will of man. The truth lies in between and demands humility.
I would propose that if you read Spurgeon or Calvin in their entirety rather than pulling out of context quotes, you would recognize that they have arrived at the same truth concerning the Christian’s responsibility in justification and sanctification as you have; they only took different theoretical pathways to get there. For the note, I do not publicly claim either side of the party, because that only ends in argument. It just frustrates me when people occupy the fading minutes of this age with jabbing at the theoretical ideas of brothers in Christ who practically ministered the gospel to thousands.
Clearly Calvin made his mistakes, yet so have we all. The fruit of their lives (and the lives of Piper, Platt, and Driscoll today who hold ‘reformed’ beliefs) cannot be refuted, whether or not you agree with their understanding of how grace is applied. None of this is meant in a rude way. You are an intelligent person. I only wish you would use your intelligence for defending what is clear in Scripture rather than arguing over mysteries that no man can understand this side of eternity.
PQ,
Thank you for these good questions; they address the crux of Reformed heresy. Frankly, the whole election issue isn’t even on my radar screen, Calvin et al misapplied the law to gospel. Spurgeon’s tenure was little more than a regurgitation of Calvin’s false gospel. It is possible that no other ministry in the history of the church has been more predicated on a mere man.
The Reformers made perfect law-keeping the standard for justification. In other words, a perfect keeping of the law is required for Christians to remain justified. This fuses law with justification, and fuses justification and sanctification together. Who keeps the law for us as justification’s standard is beside the point; there is no law in justification.
When justification and sanctification are fused together, justification can no longer be a finished work, and therefore requires a standard. The Reformed divide justification into three parts: Objective justification, subjective justification, and final justification.
There is no subjective justification; objective justification and final justification were determined upon the just before the foundation of the earth. This isn’t necessarily the election issue; this may be more about how God weaves His omniscience and sovereignty together. At any rate, this is just another Reformed fallacy on the list: the idea that Calvinists believe in election. They don’t. It is a gargantuan red herring.
The Christian can only gaze upon justification. He/she cannot touch it or affect it. It is finished. It is a gift. Its fullness is incomprehensible to the mortal; it is the very righteousness of God imputed to our account. This is a righteousness imputed to our account APART from the law. Our ability to touch justification in any way is works salvation. Salvation is of God alone.
So, Calvinism fuses justification and sanctification together, fuses the law with justification, and fuses under law and under grace together. Calvinism turns Pauline soteriology completely upside down. Calvin said justification’s standard is the law. Therefore, He made much of the Christian’s inability to keep the law perfectly. His obsession with the Christian’s inability to keep the law perfectly, exposes his gospel for what it is: patently false. Hence, he also fused justification and sonship together with the law. Sin as a member of God’s family is also a sin that makes us unjustified. This makes the unregenerate and the regenerate all the same. It makes those under law and those under grace of the same camp.
The verse that speaks to this issue most follows:
Romans 3:19 – Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
First, the law has NOTHING to say to those under grace. It only speaks to those under law in “whatever” it says.
Second, the purpose of the law for those under it is clearly stated: “so that” those under the law “may be” “held accountable.” Hence, Christians are not accountable to the law….for justification.
Thirdly, in regard to justification, the law cannot tell us that Jesus keeps the law for us in order to keep us justified. That regards justification; the law has nothing to say to us in that regard.
Fourthly, no human being is justified by law-keeping. Who keeps it is beside the point, we are justified APART from the law (ROM 3:21, 28). Christ is the end of the law, not the keeping of it for our justification (ROM 10:4).
By ONE ACT of Christ we are justified, not a continuance of law-keeping to keep us justified (Hebrews 10: 10, 12, 14).
Fifthly, in contradiction to Reformed eschatology, Christians will not stand at a future judgment that determines or confirms a “final justification” according to the law because Christians are not “accountable” to the law….for justification. Only those under law are accountable to the law. This would seem evident.
Sixthly, since there is only “knowledge” of sin in the law as set against the backdrop of justification, we cannot be justified by law-keeping, even if Jesus keeps/kept the law for us because it is knowledge of sin in justification. There is no law in justification, and therefore there is no sin in justification to be prevented by law-keeping. Jesus didn’t have to keep the law or fulfill the law for our justification, because we were justified apart from the law and where there is no law, there is no sin:
Romans 4:15 – For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13 – for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Romans 7:8 – ….apart from the law, sin lies dead.
The justified Christian cannot sin against his/her justification because there is no law in justification, and where there is no law, there is no sin. No law-keeping for justification is required, because law is not the standard for justification.
The Apostle Paul makes this case by pointing out that our father in the faith, Abraham, was justified 430 years before the law existed:
Galatians 3:17 – This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Moreover, the Apostle Paul states with all certainty that there is NO law that can give life. If Christ kept/fulfilled/keeps the law for us in order to keep us justified, that is saying that there is a law that can give life.
Furthermore, there is no need for Christ to fulfill the law for us because we are no longer under it because the old self died with Christ. There is simply no need for Christ to maintain a perfect keeping of the law for a dead person. There are only two kinds of people in the world: those under law, and those under grace (ROM 6:14). The old us that was under law died with Christ. Our sinful self and our sin was imputed to Him, and then we died together with Him:
Romans 6:5 – For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
2Corinthians 5:21 – For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Now that the old self that was under law is dead, we are not held accountable to it; therefore, there is no need for it to be kept or fulfilled in our stead:
Romans 7:1 – Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Christ’s death released us from the law and any accountability to it. Why would He have to fulfill it for us? Those who are dead are no longer under it.
This is why we can zealously pursue obedience to the law in our Christian life (sanctification): because we are no longer under it for our justification. Our justification cannot be touched by anything we do in sanctification: “it is finished.” There is no law in our justified state; the law now informs our sanctification:
Roman 3:21 – But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
Justification is apart from the law, but it is a “witness” in sanctification.
Galatians 3:21 – Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?
We are not under the law for justification, but we are to “listen” to the law in sanctification.
Obviously. Paul gave a straightforward definition of sanctification:
1Thessalonians 4:3 – For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;
Paul would never command such a thing for justification sake. Sanctification is the knowledge and application of how we control our mortal bodies in the Christian life. The law informs us of that. The law is a standard for sanctification, but not justification. Fusing justification and sanctification together fuses law with justification as well, and works salvation can be the only result of that.
This brings us to the new birth. If perfect law-keeping is the standard for justification, the righteousness of the believer must be denied. But not only is perfect law-keeping not the standard for justification, it leads to the biblical misidentification of the righteous believer and fuses the identity of the unregenerate and the regenerate together.
We died with Christ in order to be released from the law as a justification standard, but we were raised with Him in order to be freed from the particular characteristic of those under law:
Romans 6:5 – For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
This is the difference between “under law” and “under grace”: enslavement and freedom are switched leading to a particular direction, not perfection. We are made righteous, but as mortals, we are still susceptible to sin. We are enslaved to righteousness, but free to sin. We are under grace. Those under law are enslaved to sin and free to do righteous acts. The regenerate do not obey perfectly, and the unregenerate do not sin perfectly:
Romans 6:5 – For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.
Romans 6:18 – and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness 19…. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.*
*Paul’s reference in Roman 7:25 to serving the law of God with his mind has to do with slavery to the law. The word for “serve” in this verse is: g1398. δουλεύω douleuō; from 1401; to be a slave to (literal or figurative, involuntary or voluntary):— be in bondage, (do) serve (- ice).
The following illustration shows how those under law and those under grace are defined by direction, not perfection.
More definition can be added here as well. Those under law are provoked to sin by the law:
Romans 7:5 – For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Romans 7:8 – But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
Once again, the word for “serve” in Romans 7:6 is the word for “slave.” And we will add yet another characteristic of those under law as opposed to those under grace; those under the law will be judged by the law:
Romans 2:12 – For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Paul is saying that those “under the law” will be “Judged” by the law as opposed to those who are enslaved to the law. Those who are enslaved by the law are “doers” of the law. Clearly, Paul is contrasting those who will be judged by the law (under law), and those who are under grace, but enslaved to the law resulting in “obedience from the heart” (ROM 6:17).
Therefore, we have definitions of under law and under grace:
- Under law – Enslaved to sin, free to do righteousness, but primarily provoked to sin by the law, and will be judged by the law.
- Under grace – Enslaved to the law, free to sin, provoked to righteousness by the law, and will NOT be judged by the law.
Christ came to end the law for justification (ROM 10:4), and to fulfill it through his followers in sanctification:
Romans 8:3 – 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.
Almost every false gospel there is in the world makes perfect law-keeping the standard for righteousness. This causes the law to be replaced in sanctification by the traditions of men, or posits the idea that there is no law standard in sanctification. The Reformers proffered the idea that Christ kept/fulfilled/keeps the law for us in sanctification in order to fulfill perfect law-keeping in justification. It completely fuses the distinctions between under law and under grace in the Scriptures.
This is another gospel.
paul
The Book of Life: Another Lost Biblical Doctrine
“Whether Protestants know it or not (that’s you), we all either believe this directly or we function that way. We are all good theologians of the cross. Luther would be proud of all of us. It’s a family tradition… Like Luther, we delight in the ‘simplicity of faith.’ Like Luther, we believe that thinking, reasoning, etc. is a filthy whore who should ‘have dung rubbed in her face to make her ugly’…. Hope of an objective future, and life wisdom, assumes that we are able to think through those things and apply them to our lives. To the Protestant, that is an ugly whore.”
Protestantism, which includes Baptists et al, is dumbed down by ecclesiastical design. On April 25, 1518, Martin Luther declared war on the priesthood of believers and sanctification via his declaration of Reformed theology in Heidelberg, Germany. The 95 Thesis was a moral treatise against Rome six months prior, but the Heidelberg Disputation was the very foundation of Reformed ideology. It called on theologians to interpret all of reality from a dual perspective: the glory story or the cross story.
True theology (the cross story) would look at man as worthless and empty with eyes of faith that can only see outward to the glory of God. This made all reality good as the sum equation of God’s goodness and man’s evil. So, tragedy only reflects man’s worthlessness and his deserved plight and the glorification of God following. The glory story was anything that recognized anything IN man at all. No goodness or grace is infused into man. True theology is a purely outward look, and only looks within to find reason for repentance that then glorifies God (“deep repentance”). Luther believed that man can experience the grace of God, but cannot participate in it. That would be works salvation. Man must empty himself to be saved and remain empty till the final judgment.
Hence, any notion that man could become good through salvation was deemed heretical, and a damning false gospel. In many ways, it was predicated on the Platonist idea that all matter is evil, and that would of course include man. The first sentence of the Calvin Institutes (CI 1.1.1) is based on Luther’s dual construct, and then the rest of the Institutes build a full metaphysical statement on the foundation of that first sentence. Pretty impressive. In that sentence, Calvin states that all wisdom is derived from a knowledge of us and knowledge of God. The two opposites define each other. Both Calvin and Luther were followers of Augustine who was the undisputed first and foremost integrationist in Western culture. Plato integrated Eastern mysticism with Western science, and Augustine integrated Platonism with the Bible. A cursory observation of world history makes this plain.
Therefore, the good Luther/Calvin cross theologian heartily agrees with, “study to show thyself approved, a workman that need not be ashamed.” But in the Protestant construct that redefines sanctification (and actually rejects it totally), what does “study” mean? What does “approved” mean? And what does “workman” mean? The Reformers did not believe anybody is approved. They believed work in sanctification (the Christian life) was equivalent to works salvation. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin believed baptism replaced circumcision, and sanctification replaced the Old Testament Sabbath Rest. Working on the Sabbath would bring death, and in the same way, working in sanctification also brings death (John King: The Complete Bible Commentary Collection of John Calvin; Genesis, Ch.2 sec.3, Ch.17 sec.13. Ibid: The Harmony of the Law, Due. 5:12-15, sec. 15).
So, “study” is really a focus on what ANY Bible text says about mankind’s wretched, sinful existence as opposed to God’s holiness. When the equation is seen, a steady flow of Christ’s obedience is imputed to our account and we remain justified. These manifestations may, or may not be experienced, but if they are, it is in the realm of the subjective where even the experience cannot be somehow attributed to us. This selfless, daily bearing of the cross and dying to self will lead to joy, but we do not know if this joy is directly linked to a Christ manifestation. The gospel is objective and remains outside of us, but is experienced subjectively. Any inward focus leads to inward subjectivity and as John Piper stated it, “imperils the soul.” See post illustration. It is merely an application of Eastern Mysticism to make sanctification by justification possible.
This is why Luther despised reason and called it a prostitute that should have “dung” rubbed in her face to “make her ugly.” Reason is the glory story. Our ability to reason has to do with an inner ability apart from God. Our “study” is limited to seeing the cross more by a greater and greater realization of our God unlikeness. Our “work” is this study and contentment in the ruin that God has sovereignly placed us in. But of course, “Contentment with godliness is great gain.” That is knowing our own place in the caste system which is sovereignly determined by birth. Supposedly, working hard at being content in our own wretched station of life is not work—it’s faith. Problem is, Luther et al considered that to be saving faith as long as it is practiced in sanctification. You do the math. There is a standard for what isn’t work in sanctification and what is work in sanctification for the purpose of remaining justified.
That is why we argue That justification must be a finished work separate from our Christian life.
But this finally brings me to my point. Whether Protestants know it or not (that’s you), we all either believe this directly or we function that way. We are all good theologians of the cross. Luther would be proud of all of us. It’s a family tradition. Look around, that’s why few Christians know theology or doctrine. In fact, such ignorance in American church culture is a Lutheran badge of honor. Like Luther, we delight in the “simplicity of faith.” Like Luther, we believe that thinking, reasoning, etc. is a filthy whore who should “have dung rubbed in her face to make her ugly.”
Meanwhile, Christians do not know the difference between sanctification and justification, covenants, promises, prophecy, and things like “the book of life.” Why would they? If every verse in the Bible is about how wicked we are as set against God’s holiness, why would we know about those actual BIBLE WORDS. Those aren’t theological words; those are words that are in the Bible.
There is a kind of Christianity in our day that has become extinct. It presumes that if you want to have peace, you have to plan for it. They believe that plan is found in biblical wisdom. Gaining wisdom + planning + applying = peace/happiness. This is opposed to the traditional Christianity of our day that assumes the Bible is not for that purpose. The assumption is that the Bible is a tool for salvific contemplationism that results in subjective manifestations of happiness.
Hope of an objective future, and life wisdom, assumes that we are able to think through those things and apply them to our lives. To the Protestant, that is an ugly whore.
The Book of Life is a massive untapped biblical subject that is a major Segway to additional understanding. For you election buffs, you might be interested in knowing that a cursory study of the subject seems to indicate that EVERYONE born into the world is initially written in the book of life. If that is true, that has major theological implications.
One of the myths about the Reformation is that it made the printed Bible available to the masses. That’s true to a point, but along with increased availability came a distorted purpose in describing its use. This protestant tradition of keeping congregants dumbed down in our day with Lutheran epistemology is exemplified by projects like BibleMesh. These programs find their roots in the Lutheran tradition.
This is why after contemplating the counsel of many different people, I have decided to not screen comments on this blog while I realize that I need a moderator desperately. While the Potter’s House may be a different story, this blog does not seek to protect people from having to stand on their own two cranial hemispheres. People who come here challenge my readers to study new concepts for themselves. The Book of Life issue was in fact brought up by one of those visitors, a doctrine rarely heard of in the church. That’s what inspired this post.
Those who come to the Potter’s House are great thinkers, but yet, the Bible is clear that a local assembly is not an acropolis. There are some who come to PPT that offer strengths that Protestants lack by design: knowledge. It is then up to my readers to show themselves approved.
Moreover, I think the time is nearly upon us when the problem is clearly seen: anti-biblical sanctification. The formal institutionalized church is never going to deal with that because its construct was designed to serve that purpose to begin with. And I don’t think censorship on this blog is a solution by any stretch of the imagination. The solution is to come out from among them while not turning our backs on assembling and fellowshipping with other Christians. An environment where what we learn from the Scriptures is not dictated. A place where we are free to explore EVERYTHING that is in the Scriptures, not just what Luther thought we should know.
Blogs serve to fill that gap until Christians become solution oriented. Leaving church is not the issue, no longer letting control freaks dictate what church is—is the solution, and then acting on it for God’s glory.
paul
Calvin: Christians Must Keep Their Salvation by Pursuing Perpetual Forgiveness in the “Church”
“Why does American Protestantism have such weak sanctification? Calvin taught that the apostle Paul went from house to house preaching about the same gospel that saved us rather than teaching the full counsel of God, that’s why.”
I can see clearly now; it all finally makes sense. As a young Scriptural zealot, many things in the Protestant church confused me. I was the Baptist stripe of Protestant. And kudos to church historian John Immel, he is right; there is always a logic behind an action.
Why so much emphasis on the same gospel that saved us? Why were we constantly calling on people to be saved in the church? Why don’t we have any more answers to life’s difficult problems than the world? Why so much fuss over the buildings? Why is the Lord’s Table such an uppity pious affair when it seems to have been inaugurated during a casual dinner? Why have I always struggled to be wowed by that “ordinance.” Why all the crosses all over the place? On the church, in the church, around people’s necks. Geez. And why is the same bad behavior that is in the Catholic Church also in the Protestant church?
Fact is, American religion was founded on the Pilgrims who are not very often called what they really were: Calvinistic Puritans armed with the first Bible to ever arrive on American soil; The Geneva Bible which was John Calvin’s commentary on the Bible.
Talk abounds concerning the foremost figures of the Reformation, John Calvin and Martin Luther. Many opinions abound, but everybody agrees that they are the fathers of the Protestant Reformation and spiritual heroes. They are the George Washington and James Madison of our faith.
New Calvinism is a return to the purest form of the Reformation found in the John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion. And there is a reason New Calvinism is taking over Protestantism by storm: Protestantism originally came from Calvinism and is well primed to be retrofitted with the original. Forget doctrine, that’s the same thing as football fans talking about stats. It’s interesting, but it doesn’t matter, the game is played on the field. Calvinism is a tradition that has little to do with the election versus freewill issue as well, that’s just a family quarrel about which sibling gets to use the bathroom next. There are two kinds of Protestants in the world: staunch doctrinal Calvinists and those who function like Calvinists. Today, that translates into New Calvinists and everybody else that’s left. New Calvinists strive to continually define the logic that drives their actions; everyone else is just coasting on the basics, but are well primed to step over to the wild side.
Why is this? We find some answers in the Calvin Institutes; specifically, 4.1.21,22. Therein we read:
Wherefore, our initiation into the fellowship of the church is, by the symbol of ablution, to teach us that we have no admission into the family of God, unless by his goodness our impurities are previously washed away (20).
Nor by remission of sins does the Lord only once for all elect and admit us into the Church, but by the same means he preserves and defends us in it. For what would it avail us to receive a pardon of which we were afterwards to have no use? That the mercy of the Lord would be vain and delusive if only granted once, all the godly can bear witness; for there is none who is not conscious, during his whole life, of many infirmities which stand in need of divine mercy. And truly it is not without cause that the Lord promises this gift specially to his own household, nor in vain that he orders the same message of reconciliation to be daily delivered to them.
This is a startling statement for any Christian paying attention. But it is also a grand example of talking about stats; i.e., Christ died once, for all of our sins and that is imputed, in totality one time, at our conversion for all past and future sins, versus how Protestants really function: a weekly focus on the gospel. Why? That’s how we keep our salvation, that’s why. New Calvinists say, “amen.” Baptists protest, but that’s how they function. I have watched it for 30+ years.
Calvin continues:
On the other hand, the Lord has called his people to eternal salvation, and therefore they ought to consider that pardon for their sins is always ready. Hence let us surely hold that if we are admitted and ingrafted into the body of the Church, the forgiveness of sins has been bestowed, and is daily bestowed on us, in divine liberality, through the intervention of Christ’s merits, and the sanctification of the Spirit.
22. To impart this blessing to us, the keys have been given to the Church (Mt. 16:19; 18:18). For when Christ gave the command to the apostles, and conferred the power of forgiving sins, he not merely intended that they should loose the sins of those who should be converted from impiety to the faith of Christ; but, moreover, that they should perpetually perform this office among believers. This Paul teaches, when he says that the embassy of reconciliation has been committed to the ministers of the Church, that they may ever and anon in the name of Christ exhort the people to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20). Therefore, in the communion of saints our sins are constantly forgiven by the ministry of the Church, when presbyters or bishops, to whom the office has been committed, confirm pious consciences, in the hope of pardon and forgiveness by the promises of the gospel, and that as well in public as in private, as the case requires. For there are many who, from their infirmity, stand in need of special pacification, and Paul declares that he testified of the grace of Christ not only in the public assembly, but from house to house, reminding each individually of the doctrine of salvation (Acts 20:20, 21). Three things are here to be observed. First, Whatever be the holiness which the children of God possess, it is always under the condition, that so long as they dwell in a mortal body, they cannot stand before God without forgiveness of sins. Secondly, This benefit is so peculiar to the Church, that we cannot enjoy it unless we continue in the communion of the Church. Thirdly, It is dispensed to us by the ministers and pastors of the Church, either in the preaching of the Gospel or the administration of the Sacraments, and herein is especially manifested the power of the keys, which the Lord has bestowed on the company of the faithful. Accordingly, let each of us consider it to be his duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it. Of the public reconciliation which relates to discipline, we shall speak at the proper place.
Why so much emphasis on the same gospel that saved us? Because it keeps saving us. Why so much fuss about buildings? Those are the temples where we find our need for perpetual salvation and forgiveness for sins that would circumvent our justification. Why are pastors put on a pedestal and allowed to rape, pillage, and steal? In them we have our absolution. Why so much fuss about the Lord’s Table and quarreling over real wine or grape juice? There is additional salvation in the sacraments. Why all of the crosses? Same thing: more gospel; more salvation. Why do we sweep scandal under the rug? It is a threat to the institution, and that’s where we find our salvation. Why does American Protestantism have such weak sanctification? Calvin taught that the apostle Paul went from house to house preaching about the same gospel that saved us rather than teaching the full counsel of God, that’s why.
Calvin’s statement about being “engrafted” into the “church” is interesting. The Potter’s House has just adopted Remnant Theology as opposed to Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, or Dispensationism. Are we engrafted into a “church” or an “olive tree”? In Romans 9-11, what does that olive tree symbolize? Something to think about.
John Immel is right, action is always driven by logic. In our present day, doctrine is getting lip service while Calvin’s logic is driving the actions. That is why nothing going on in the church makes any sense right now.
And I doubt it ever will until God’s people come out from among them.
paul
Paul Washer Speaks at a Catholic Monastery: Why is This Surprising? And Other Magic Bus Musings
Paul Washer
New Calvinist Paul Washer spoke at a Catholic monastery (Italy) in April of this year. He was a keynote speaker at the 2013 Coram Deo Conference hosted by said monastery. Of course, several “evangelicals” have their panties in a bundle over this much like they do in response to John Piper and John MacArthur cross-dressing events.
While New Calvinists claim their bro, John Calvin, saved humanity from Catholic darkness, they believe the same things for all practical purposes where the gospel is concerned. The Reformation was merely a lover’s quarrel over who can do tyranny best. It’s a fight over the mutton. As time goes on, they are figuring out that they can both have more mutton if they work together.
The core four of the Reformation, Augustine, Gregory, Luther, and Calvin were all Catholics and NEVER repented of such. Both Catholics and Reformers (Ecclesia semper reformanda) believe in pastor/pope absolution. Both believe in a “final justification.” Both believe that being in Christ is synonymous with being in the church via formal membership and submission as the clergy of both see fit. All of the doctrinal variances are nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Be sure of this: Catholicism, Calvinism, New Calvinism et al will all come together eventually—they were all spawned by the same devil. For the most part, both groups also hold to a form of Dominion Theology. That’s the anti-Semitic amillennial idea that the church will gradually subdue the earth and then Christ will return. Along the way, there will be protests on the Magic Bus of Salivation from Baptists who don’t know that they are Calvinists etc., but even though the bus has nasty stains of all sorts on the seats, dents in the body as well as some rust—that bus be goin’ to heaven baby! After all, no Magic Bus is perfect. It is a fabulous spiritual caste Magic Bus.
On the secular side of caste, we have the Novus Ordo Seclorum , or “New World Order.” Christians continue to display ignorance in their surprise that many New Calvinists are supporters of Barak Obama. Call him a communist if you will, but Catholicism/ Ecclesia semper reformanda and Communism both have their roots in Plato’s Republic. It is the basic belief that the unenlightened masses must be saved from themselves by the enlightened few. Plato’s doctrine transcended the spiritual into the political of Western culture.
This is the catalyst for the marriage of church and state. The primary concern of a socialist government is normality and peace. Religion offers up a percentage of the populous in this regard: “We have ____million followers who will do what we say.” The Roman Catholic Church weighs in huge here and the New Calvinists are very close to coming to the bargaining table with equally huge numbers as well. But a socialist government is needed to bargain with. What does the religion get in return? As throughout Western history, enforcement of their orthodoxy; for example, if you don’t tithe 10% to the church, the church can have the government arrest you. Right now, they have to settle for manipulation and false doctrine to extract the tithe.
The book of Revelation is clear that the end of the world as we know it will be accompanied by a church/state marriage with the usual wholesale slaughter of human life following. It is the grand finale of faith and force.
In the future, watch for New Calvinists becoming cozier and cozier with religions of all stripes and totalitarian ideology. In case you haven’t noticed, Catholicism is experiencing resurgence since it has become better at masking its abuse. On the other hand, New Calvinism all but completely owns Protestantism. And if the Republican party in America thinks they still have the “conservative” Christian vote, they might want to double check that assertion. There is a marked shift in political ideology among those converted to New Calvinism.
paul
John Calvin: We Keep Our Salvation By Being a Member of a Church
“Nor by remission of sins does the Lord only once for all elect and admit us into the Church, but by the same means he preserves and defends us in it. For what would it avail us to receive a pardon of which we were afterwards to have no use? That the mercy of the Lord would be vain and delusive if only granted once, all the godly can bear witness; for there is none who is not conscious, during his whole life, of many infirmities which stand in need of divine mercy. And truly it is not without cause that the Lord promises this gift specially to his own household, nor in vain that he orders the same message of reconciliation to be daily delivered to them. Wherefore, as during our whole lives we carry about with us the remains of sin, we could not continue in the Church one single moment were we not sustained by the uninterrupted grace of God in forgiving our sins. On the other hand, the Lord has called his people to eternal salvation, and therefore they ought to consider that pardon for their sins is always ready. Hence let us surely hold that if we are admitted and ingrafted into the body of the Church, the forgiveness of sins has been bestowed, and is daily bestowed on us, in divine liberality, through the intervention of Christ’s merits, and the sanctification of the Spirit.”
The Calvin Institutes 4.1.21
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
53 comments