LAW and Calvin’s False Gospel
Here I am, some thirty years after being saved, and looking back; and I can tell you that theological training from the pulpit to the saint is abysmal. Hence, today’s Christian landscape. If Christians are ignorant in regard to their relationship to the law, they are open to just about any proposition that would come down the pike—Reformed theology far from being excluded.
As previously discussed here at PPT, the primary problem with Reformed theology is that it fuses justification and sanctification together, but another glaring contradiction to truth is its view of the law. One stands amazed that the election/freewill debate is even the issue.
Let’s begin by looking at the truth concerning the relationship of the law to Christians. First, “law” is really a biblical term that is speaking of the word of God as a whole. The word is used interchangeably throughout the Bible with “Scripture, “word,” law and the prophets,” etc. Only thinking of law as the Ten Commandments or biblical imperatives is not helpful. Matthew 4:4, as well as many other texts, refer to the Bible as being God’s complete philosophical statement to man in regard to life and godliness.
Second, there is an anthropological law of God written on the hearts of every person born into the world:
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them (Romans 2:15).
Therefore, sadly, antinomian Christians will display worse behavior than the unregenerate that follow the law written on their hearts. All people are also accused or defended according to this inherent natural law by their consciences. Even after salvation, Christians are to utilize this aspect of our design in sanctification (1Timothy 1:5, 1:19, 3:9, 4:2, 2Timothy 1:3).
But the law also poses a continual confrontation and dilemma for the unbeliever. Without Christ, it is their only ticket to heaven—good luck with that one, and the violation of one law is all it takes to condemn in the first place (James 2:20), plus the law provokes sin. Somehow, knowing of a law tempts the unbeliever to actually break it—leading to death. So, God sent the law to increase sin as a way to show the unbeliever their need for Christ (Romans 5:20, 7:5 Galatians 3:24,25).
Now, this is the part that is hard to get our minds around, but when we are saved, the law is abolished…for justification purposes. All men are born “under the law.” It is a covenant that they are born under, but it also enslaves them to sin. When we are saved; ie. when we die in Christ, the covenant of the law is cancelled in the same way that a marriage covenant is cancelled when one of the spouses dies, and we are also freed from the enslavement of the law as well (Romans 7:1-4). We are then raised to new life in Christ that totally changes our relationship to the law—we are now free to obey it and experience the blessings of the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1;25). It is utterly awesome to study all of the different ways other than these in which the word of God frames the law’s different relationship to the believer verses the unbeliever. Rather than the law being nothing more than a covenant of condemnation constantly pointing us to Christ, it is now what we need to be equipped for every good work (2Timothy 3:16,17). So, our relationship to the law must always be framed according to the following: ….for justification, or ….for sanctification.
But here is the HUUUUUUGE problem with Reformed theology, and Calvinism in particular: the relationship between the law and the believer does not change after salvation. They even say in broad daylight that it still shows us our need for the cross, or still leads us to Christ. Supposedly, we are therefore continually sanctified by the death of Christ. This is blatant heresy of the worst order. What more do I really need to make my case other than the highly acclaimed cross graphic below?
Like the law’s relationship to the believer before salvation, the law points to a continual need for the cross (or gospel). The relationship doesn’t change. This fact is articulated well by Michael Horton on page 62 of Christless Chritianity:
Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.
So, in other words, if we move on to “something else” other than the gospel, we lose “both.” Both what? Sanctification and justification—if we move on to a different perspective on the law that isn’t gospel focused; ie, a continual need for the same gospel that saved us. All law must be seen as grace “disclosed in the gospel.” This unchanging relationship to the law in regard to salvation is plainly aped by John Calvin in book 3, chapter, 14, and sections 9-11 in the Calvin Institutes:
Although we see theft the stains by which the works of the righteous are blemished, are by no means unapparent, still, granting that they are the minutest possible, will they give no offense to the eye of God, before which even the stars are not clean? We thus see, that even saints cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation.
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.
Please note, since our relationship to the law is not changed, “….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.” And, “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.”
Notice that Calvin frames sanctification in a linear law that demands perfection to remain justified. We rather contend that law in regard to justification has been abolished and replaced with a different relationship to the law.
I strongly suspect that the Reformed gospel is grounded in the Platonist view of truth which holds to the idea that truth is immutable. Hence, to say that the law has a different relationship to the believer verses the unbeliever would be to believe that the standard of the law changes. This breaks a fundamental rule of Platonist metaphysics. It also explains the Reformed rejection of anything that smacks of dispensationalism. Furthermore, to abolish the law….for justification, and uphold it ….for sanctification, would be an enablement for man (or the general population of the saints) to participate in interpreting truth, which is a clear violation of Platonist epistemology. More research is needed, but this is where my strong suspensions are leading me.
Nevertheless, Calvinism is still plainly guilty of fusing justification and sanctification together with an unchanging relationship to the law following. In the Reformed mind, the law remains the standard for maintaining justification, and believers remain under it….for justification. Which is a huge problem.
paul
John Calvin: Gnostic Extraordinaire
“If you believe that going to a Reformed ‘biblical’ counselor is about change, I have some oceanfront property in Xenia, Ohio that I would like to sell you.”
“In the first sentence of the Institutes, Calvin completely circumvents one of the primary purposes of God’s word for the believer.”
Note: You can click on charts to make them bigger.
It’s really not rocket science. The much touted idiom for Reformed thought is, the objective gospel outside of us. What does this mean? It means that all truth, wisdom, knowledge, and reality is contained in the knowledge of God which =’s “the gospel” which =’s the “personhood and works of Christ.” The dirty little Reformed secret is that the effects of the knowledge of God continues to remain outside of us even after salvation. Recently, New Calvinists have had to come clean on this to some extent by admitting that total depravity also applies to believers, and much to the consternation of Sanctified Calvinists who don’t know that they have been sanctified from Reformed soteriology. TANC is in the process of producing a 12 step program for recovering Sanctified Calvinists. The first step is to admit that Calvin was a Gnostic: “Hi, my name is Bob, I unwittingly promoted a Gnostic for ______years.” Hi Bob. The second step is vital for rebuilding self-esteem: “Hi my name is Bob, I have never been a Gnostic, and I am not totally depraved.” Hi Bob.
Obviously, if you are totally depraved, you can’t know anything that actually becomes a part of you and changes your behavior. Sanctified Calvinists must come to grips with the logical conclusions that follow the idea that GRACE remains completely outside of the believer. Reformed thought eventually referred to the antithesis of the “true gospel” as “infused grace.” In other words, the new birth does not change the individual by making grace a part of him, and thus making change possible via the new creaturehood. If words mean things, and they do, total depravity does not = change. Hence, grace does not enable individuals to perform works.
This line of thought educes statements from the likes of Tullian Tchividjian who boasts that he has never done one work that pleased God and looks to this as the assurance of his salvation. These fanatical concepts are running amuck and unfettered in today’s church because they came from Calvin, and nobody wants to take on Calvin. This is because too many have not paid attention for too long and now don’t want to look stupid. Basically, instead of thinking for themselves, and studying for themselves, they followed others.
John Piper teaches that the crux of the Reformation was the idea that grace remains outside of us after salvation. In other words, grace changes our position, but not us. And he is exactly correct in his assessment. He, like the Reformers, attributes infused grace to the very root of all evil as demonstrated by the following chart published by a Reformed think tank (I discuss Piper’s Reformed view of this in detail: chapter 4 of The Truth About New Calvinism):
I have a lot of work to do in order to nail all of this down specifically, but the basics are pretty simple: if you note the chart above carefully, and think about it, the only place to go from there is Gnosticism—Gnosticism makes it work—Gnosticism is the practical application—nothing else works. By the way, a primary contributor to the above chart was Graeme Goldsworthy. Think about that one for a while. Graeme Goldsworthy was also a contributor to an article entitled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” In the article, the new birth is explained away by the Gnostic concept of “emphasis.”
Plato, the father of Gnosticism, believed that matter was a form or shadow of the true, good, and beautiful. The forms were certainly TRUE in regard to being a reality, but man’s basic problem was that he/she EMPHASIZES the shadows over the true form. Likewise, the new birth is true, but is merely a form of the true gospel. Focusing on the new birth (ie., our responsibility to exercise our redeemed will to obey God), “eclipses” the true Sun (a play on words). The life-giving ray of the Sun that manipulates dead matter and gives it form is a constant theme throughout the Calvin institutes and literature like Pilgrims Progress. We are frozen blocks of ice until the Sun shines its light on us and changes the form of the block gradually, but obviously, the block of ice has no participation in the process.
Calvin presents this Gnostic epistemology in the very first sentence of his Institutes. He states:
Our wisdom insofar as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts; the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two proceeds and gives birth to the other. For in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts toward the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; no, that are very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone.
So, ALL wisdom concerns knowledge of ourselves and God, but the knowledge of ourselves must come first through God. And, since God is the good, and we are the evil, God is the knowledge of the good and we are the knowledge of the evil. All of the Calvin Institutes are framed within this prism—the knowledge of good and evil. I have made a chart below to illustrate this:
As we delve deeper and deeper into the knowledge of both, the glory of God is manifested. As illustrated by the following chart that is a viral illustration in Reformed circles. The knowledge of the good coupled with the knowledge of the evil makes the cross bigger; or in other words, the glory of God:
Of course, this is eerily similar to the lie in the garden. I wouldn’t drive a theological stake on this, but it seems that God called His creation good (including Adam and Eve), and the serpent came along and told Eve that there was also a knowledge of the evil that God was keeping from them. They rest is history. So, God redeems us, and once again His creation is good (as in the new birth made possible by Jesus Christ), and here comes the Reformed crowd with the knowledge of God’s goodness and the news that we are still evil, and the knowledge thereof. Creepy, if you think about it. And I suggest that you do. Go ahead, it’s safe for you to do so—Calvin and Luther are both dead.
Even though we do not really change according to Reformed thought, what does change? Before I address that, let me first answer the cat-cries that I presently hear. Notice in the very popular Reformed illustration above that we don’t change, the cross does. It gets bigger. We get worse in our own minds which also makes the cross bigger. We are the knowledge of the evil and are totally depraved accordingly. If you believe that going to a Reformed “biblical” counselor is about change, I have some oceanfront property in Xenia, Ohio that I would like to sell you. Come now, let us reason together, how do the totally depraved change?
According to Reformed thought, we don’t change; we manifest God’s glory; ie, “spiritual formation” or “transformation” or “reorientation of the heart.” Regardless of how change-like their terms sound; once again, ask yourself how the totally depraved change, and remember—we don’t change, only the manifestation of God’s glory does. This transformation takes place by “knowing.” We are transformed into the image of what we know. This is also a Gnostic concept. In fact, Calvin quotes Plato accordingly in book 1, chapter 3, section 3:
This did not escape the observation even of philosophers. For it is the very thing which Plato meant (in Phoed. et Theact.) when he taught, as he often does, that the chief good of the soul consists in resemblance to God, i.e., when by means of knowing him she is wholly transformed into him.
As an aside that I am not going to address deeply here, Reformed thought holds to the idea that anything more than obtaining the knowledge of the good while letting any result thereof happen naturally—is works salvation. As some in that camp state it: “You can’t just leap from the command to obedience.” Right. You have to know that the command is a command that we can’t keep, and see it as a work that Christ has already accomplished for us—anything more than that is works salvation. What we know about the command will create a manifestation of God’s glory. “Ya, like, we will then obey, right?” No, no, and no. Again, how do the totally depraved obey? Again, how do we obey if only the cross grows, but not us? By the way, the cross illustration above also illustrates Luther’s Gnostic concept of law/gospel. The law is meant to drive us to despair of self-righteousness (knowledge of the evil via the good) which drives us back to the foot of the cross. See illustration below:
This is only true of unbelievers, but for the born again believer, the Bible is God’s full philosophical statement for life and godliness (Matthew 4:4, 2Tim. 3:16). In the first sentence of the Institutes, Calvin completely circumvents one of the primary purposes of God’s word for the believer.
Much more research is needed, but one gets a hint of how this all supposedly works in real life as Calvin refers to the ideas of Socrates and Aristotle as well in book 1, chapter 5, section 3:
Hence, certain of the philosophers have not improperly called man a microcosm (miniature world) as being a rare specimen of divine power, wisdom, and goodness in containing within himself wonders sufficient to occupy our minds [emphasis mine] if we are willing to employ them.
This seems to indicate that God is satisfied with man contemplating Him in their minds only, while what happens in the outside world is totally in God’s control. The fact that Reformed thought holds to the idea that all occurrences in human history point to God’s glory in one way or the other—is no big secret. Therefore, since God is not the creator of evil, but preordains it for his glory, all human occurrences should be seen as either a manifestation of the good or a manifestation of the evil, or the knowledge of good and evil as well, but with both purposed for glorifying God accordingly. So, a bad event is knowledge of evil which glorifies the good by contrast, while good things that happen are obviously knowledge of the good as well. What is true of the “believer” in his mind, is also true in the metaphysical world. When we contemplate the goodness of God in our mind, the cross is bigger. When we see our own depravity—the cross is bigger; likewise, good and bad events in the world make the cross bigger as well. This explains the Reformed infatuation with tragedy. Do I think this philosophy is at the core of why there is so much indifference in the church to spiritual tyranny and abuse? YES.
Moreover, it explains why there is no concern over the fact that Reformed theology’s European legacy is aflame with the Witch Wars (in some villages, the female population was completely eradicated), the Inquisition, the Peasant Wars, the Thirty-Year War, the First English Civil War, the Second English Civil War, the Third English Civil War, and the Levellers’ rebellion against Puritan tyranny. These were all religious wars involving theocracies—mostly of the Reformed stripe.
Because the Church of England wasn’t lopping of enough heads to satisfy the Puritans, they tried to bring their show to America, but the founding fathers shut them down. There is a reason why America has never had a religious war. Nevertheless, their very first theocracy resulted in the very same European behavior: the Salem witch trials. As a memorial to the glorifying knowledge of the evil, New Calvinists signed the Danvers Statement on Puritan Manhood and Womanhood at the same location.
The restrained tyranny is now manifesting itself in New Calvinist “churches.” Abuse and tyranny will always follow the philosophy.
And of course, for the glory of God.
paul
Calvinism and New Calvinism: When the Black Lamb of the Family is the Patriarch
“Nevertheless, it is interesting to see the tacit admissions that Calvinism has a history that makes some Calvinists, ‘uncomfortable.’”
There are a lot of Presbyterian pastors that I have much respect for. And I understand their dilemma: Lutheran = Luther, Methodist = Wesley, etc., and Presbyterian = John Calvin. I mean, this is tough: “Hi, my name is Fred. I have been a Presbyterian all of my life, which is a denomination founded on a murdering mystic despot.” Geez, I feel for them—I really do.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to see the tacit admissions that Calvinism has a history that makes some Calvinists, “uncomfortable.” This is where New Calvinism is like a distinguished family getting a visitation from a long lost relative with a long dark past. It’s like already having several dinner parties planned in a small town where a past relative is new in town, and meaner than a junkyard dog, and starts blabbing about family roots. That’s when you cancel the dinner parties or preplan your responses: “Well, many of our relatives are uncomfortable with that part of our family tree.” It is then hoped the guests will be polite and not mention that it is the root of the tree.
As will be thoroughly documented in The Truth About New Calvinism: Volume 2, New Calvinism has the history, doctrine, and character of authentic Calvinism down pat—they are the incarnation of the original article to a “T.” This is a simple thing; the present-day church being awash in spiritual abuse is merely Calvin’s Geneva: act 2. It is what it is. And thanks to the Australian Forum, all of the heavy lifting in regard to the research has been done.
These thoughts bring me to an article that was sent to me by a reader. It was from The Aquila Report which is “Your independent source for news and commentary from and about conservative, orthodox evangelicals in the Reformed and Presbyterian family of churches.” Recently, Aquila reported on a family forum held (I think) in Dallas TX where the Reformed family tried to get some understanding between them and the part of the family tree that showed up again in 1970—wreaking havoc on the rest of the family in the form of Sonship Theology and New Calvinism. Unfortunately, in regard to Powlison, Keller, and Duncan, et al, these are your daddy’s Presbyterians. Presbyterians that have truly grown in grace, but kept the name, are in a quandary to say the least.
The article was reposted on The Aquila Report by Matt Tuininga , a blogger of the United Reformed stripe. It is a commentary on an article written by sociologist Phillip Jenkins who, in the original article written by him, states uncanny parallels between early Reformed clans and Islam. Tuininga begins his post this way:
In a fascinating column in RealClearReligion the famous sociologist of religion Philip Jenkins compares the radical Islam of figures like Sayyid Qutb (author of Milestones and an intellectual father of modern day Islamism) with 16th Century Calvinism.
Well, that’s not good!
But then Tuininga adds this:
Jenkins’s overall point is to demonstrate that a religion often evolves in positive ways only by first passing through dark times.
I’m not sure that’s Jenkins’ overall point, but hey, let’s roll with it. This would then indicate that the “dark” side of the family tree is back with a vengeance in the form of New Calvinism. And be sure of this: the only difference between the behaviors is the filter of American jurisprudence. I have dealt with New Calvinists first hand (some well-known), and trust me, they would light me up with the green wood in a heartbeat if they could get away with it. What they actually did wasn’t much less.
Incredibly, Tuininga then makes the exact same point that author John Immel has been making for years and propagated on Spiritual Tyranny .com and in his book, Blight In The Vineyard. Tuininga quotes Jenkins with conspicuous undisagreement:
In the case of the West, he suggests, the Enlightenment followed the radicalism and iconoclasm of the Reformation; Protestants had to destroy much of what came before them in medieval Christianity in order to forge new ways to the future.
The fact that America’s founding fathers were children of the Enlightenment which was a pushback against European spiritual despotism was a major theme of our 2012 TANC conference. Immel presented the thesis brilliantly, and left little room for denial in regard to the fact that the Reformers were separated from Rome on doctrine (both false, by the way), but not the underlying philosophy that leads to spiritual tyranny. Overall, knowing beforehand that people are not lining up to hear this proposition, we are happy with how the conference turned out and are looking forward to next year.
Hence, “Protestants had to destroy much of what came before them in medieval Christianity in order to forge new ways to the future” focuses on iconic superstition and conveniently leaves out superstitions like the truth test to determine if someone was a witch: if you can swim, you get hung or burned at the stake; if you can’t swim—you drown. Suspicion equaled certain death, so I imagine woman of that era were particularly well behaved. The present-day replacement is the Patriarchy Movement.
ADMISSION
Tuininga continues:
In the process of making this argument Jenkins accurately portrays a side of 17th Century Calvinism that most present-day Calvinists would find troubling. Speaking of the Dutch Reformed iconoclasts of the 1560s, he writes,
“Beyond smashing images, the insurgents had other ideas that look strikingly familiar to anyone familiar with radical Islam today, with thinkers like Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Mawdudi.
The Calvinists of the 1560s sought to remodel society on the basis of theocratic Old Testament law strictly interpreted, with the role of the sovereign measured by how far he or she submitted to God’s will. Some thinkers devised a pioneering theory of tyrannicide, justifying the removal of any allegedly Christian ruler who betrayed Christ’s true church. Protestant radicals pursued a harsh policy of reading rival believers out of the faith, defining the followers of images as utterly anti-Christian, deadly enemies of God.…
In the English-speaking world, the heirs of 1566 were the Puritans, the radicals who dreamed of an austere New England. When Puritans seized power in England itself in the 1640s, their agents toured the country, smashing statues and windows in every parish church they could find. By the 1640s, at the height of Europe’s death struggle between Protestants and Catholics, Calvinist ideas that to us seem intolerably theocratic dominated not just the Netherlands, but also New England, Switzerland and Scotland, and were struggling for ascendancy in the whole British Isles. Religious zeal often expressed itself through witchcraft persecutions.”
DENIAL
….To be sure, what Jenkins describes here was not true of all Calvinists. John Calvin himself, living in an earlier century, explicitly rejected the sort of strict allegiance to the Old Testament civil law that Jenkins here describes, and he absolutely rejected the theories of tyrannicide and rebellion articulated by some of his followers. But Jenkins nevertheless accurately describes a strand of Calvinism, and his description of the violence and disorder that was sparked by radical Calvinist notions of what allegiance to God in the public square demanded is truthful, if not representative of the whole tradition.
In regard to Calvin himself, this is blatant denial in the face of historical fact that is not even difficult to find, but he finishes with this head-scratcher:
But Jenkins nevertheless accurately describes a strand of Calvinism, and his description of the violence and disorder that was sparked by radical Calvinist notions of what allegiance to God in the public square demanded is truthful, if not representative of the whole tradition.
The “whole tradition”? Is it a “strand” or the “whole tradition”?
THE DINNER PARTY
….One question we might ask here is to what extent was this old militant Calvinism different from the Islamism with which our nation is in conflict today. If Calvinists today were advocating theories of resistance and revolution, or if they were suggesting that the current U.S. government of Barack Obama is illegitimate such that Christians do not owe it allegiance, would the state have to launch a campaign against them as well? What if they were defending tyrannicide, based on the belief that Barack Obama is a tyrant?
Actually, this is not so theoretical. If there is one thing I have learned since starting this blog, it is that there are a number of Calvinists out there today who would espouse virtually all of these views (perhaps even tyrannicide? I’m not sure …). I don’t think most Reformed Christians give the time of day to these thinkers, but there is a minority that is with them all the way…. But I would like to ask those who find these arguments persuasive, do you really want to go back to the heyday of Calvinist revolution and theocracy? Is it the American project that you reject – with its commitment to religious liberty and the separation of church and state? And if so, how do you distinguish your own cause from that of the Islamists, especially the more respectable groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, or the intellectual followers of Sayyid Qutb? To those who, like me, find this brand of Calvinism profoundly troubling, how do you reject it without some sort of distinction between the two kingdoms, between the kingdom of Jesus, and the political institutions of this age?
Well, obviously, Tuininga has no intentions of cancelling his dinner parties. And hopefully, the guests won’t bring up the new family in town who claim kinship: while the children of other families build snowmen and sandcastles, the children of the new family in town build guillotines and gallows. And the New Calvinist’s constant haranguing of the “American dream” has become a constant drumbeat. The particular video of a New Calvinist stating that “every corner of the Earth belongs to us” is also particularity chilling. Just two weeks ago, Susan and I sat under the teaching of a well-known college professor at a Christian University (who is a New Calvinist). His message was absolutely nothing short of a Communist manifesto. Recently, I have received emails from people who attend a Southern Baptist church that is strongly influenced by David Platt. His social socialist gospel is beginning to give people the creeps big-time.
John Immel is way ahead of the curve on this stuff. I recently heard John Piper say that he didn’t believe in a marriage between church and state; I DON’T BELIEVE HIM. In fact, I am going to attempt to meet with people who have information on this for my upcoming book project. More and more, a formula is emerging that seems to explain everything: a united front of denominations (think: John MacArthur hanging with CJ Mahaney etc) who can all agree on a central theme/doctrine: the total depravity of all mankind including Christians, and the need for philosopher kings to save humanity from themselves with the use of the sword if necessary. And by the way, agreement with a knowing nod from Communists and Muslims lingers not far behind. This formula begins to make sense of perplexing love affairs; such as, MacArthur/Mahaney, Horton/ Warren, Piper/Warren, Piper/Wilson, Obama/Warren, Mohler/United Nations, Dever/United Nations, etc., etc., ect., add cold chills.
A SORT-OF ADMISSION
But lastly, to bolster this point, Tuininga’s conclusion is to die for:
Jenkins appreciates the fact that the violence and revolution associated with early Calvinism was an important part of the story of how the democratic liberties and political structures that we take for granted came to exist. Calvinism had its own growing pains, and the best political theological insights from its earlier years need to be extracted from a number of assumptions and applications that were inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture. But not every Calvinist views things this way. That’s why we need to keep making the point.
Can we say, I-m-m-e-l? John has shared something with me that I agree with: in my own words; America’s founding fathers were humming Willy Nelson’s “You Were Always on My Mind” while framing the Constitution, and the “you” pertained to John Calvin in particular. While I think that Tuininga would give tacit merit to that assertion….
The Dinner Party:
Host:
….Calvinism had its own growing pains, and the best political theological insights from its earlier years need to be extracted from a number of assumptions and applications that were inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture. But not every Calvinist views things this way. That’s why we need to keep making the point.
Guest: (Polite silence)
paul
Susan Dohse: “Christian Bully” is Not a Cute Oxymoron
Don’t you all just love the English language? An oxymoron is a statement that is seemingly self-contradictory. Anti-missile missle, false hope, holy war, turkey ham, white chocolate, jumbo shrinp, oven fried, and harmless sin are a few you may have used or are familiar with. I have invented a new oxymoron: “Christian bully.”
I am a busy person. But aren’t we all? My weekends are precious to me. I prefer to spend time with the men in my life, my husband and teenage son. When Paul related to me some of the comments said about him, and really us, that were posted on his blog I had to stop what I was doing (trying to make my granddaughter a dress) and reply. You see, as a teacher of 39 plus years I have had the wonderful experience of watching, listening, and dealing with bullies. I dealt with bullies when I taught at Xenia Christian ( born-again bullies, is that another sanctified oxymoron?), when my sons attended Nazarene Christian, as well as when they attended public school. There are even bullies in preschool.
It came to a point while dealing with my son being bullied at his Christian School, turning the other cheek just wasn’t enough, so da mama bear had to call in the big guns, the Xenia Police. Unfortunately, the bullying took on another form, an underground, subversive form; equally as harmful and devasting to my son. So I allowed my son to learn martial arts. It took time, but because I told my son to begin defending himself, and I would defend him to the school, the bullying aimed at him stopped. Why? Because I encouraged him to stand alone on the side of right, and I would defend him as long as he did the right thing.
There are many stories of children being bullied and defending themselves, and being rebuked for it. My son was one of them. The focus was and still is on the second, defensive hit, or push, not the first strike that started it. Teachers, principals, and parents are highlighting the retaliation, not the instigation. This is how schools practice “zero tolerance” by punishing the target and not addressing the problem that made the person think he had to defend himself in the first place. I taught my son that staying neutral when he saw someone being bullied looks like you are siding with the bully. He was able to defend some student friends of his not only by “might” but by speaking out against the bullies loud enough for teachers to hear.
When adults, professing Christian adults, take on being bullies, it is rather disgusting. Especially when the “Christian bullies” use an arena that is designed for the discussing of ideas. This needs to be addressed. Remaining neutral only gives bullies pemission to continue bullying. Will it stop? Probably not. It will rear its ugly head in another form. However, this time I cannot sit back and remain neutral.
I can’t reach through the computer screeen and backfist the bully. (By the way, my sons got me interested in martial arts, and I have earned a blue belt. Not bad for a fat-assed sixty year old woman.) That parenthetical comment is the reason for my post. There are detractors who read our blog and then choose to make the most assinine comments on several kinds of social media. Recently we have been referred to as being “gluttons,” and in regard to me specifically, “stupid ” for marrying Paul. There is no room here to document all that Paul has been called on various social networks and blogs.
These Bullies (our son calls them internet trolls) pobably have never met me, have never seen a full length photograph of me, have never sat down to dine with me, taken me out to dinner, or observed my eating habits. So to accuse me of gluttony is peculiar.
Let me set the record straight. I have struggled with my weight since birth. I was a big baby, (big baby is an oxymoron), and have been through various phases of sizes over the years. I have been a member of weight loss groups such as Weight Watchers, and First Place with varying degrees of success. My doctor encouraged me to continue to eat and make healthy choices, exercise, and be happy with the progress I have made. Paul and I have been on a lifestyle change since we were married 1 year and 7 months ago. The success has been slow but we have each lost weight and are living healthier lives. When I read of my husband and I being called gluttons on various social networks, I become mad. Not just fulll of righteous indignation, but down to earth MAD! The oxymorons, (Christian bullies) and the unkind statements made need to be addressed. I will not remain neutral.
Gluttony is an overemphasis on food, excessive eating and drinking, a serious failure in self-discipline. Not all overweight people are gluttons. I have a relative who is as thin as a toothpick and can outeat a Sumo wrestler at an all you can eat buffet, but beause she is thin she is never accused of being glutton, although she truly is one. I have been a member of churches where pastors and deacons are morbidly obease and they are not publically addressed as gluttons. I have been to Contemporay Christian concerts where leading band members have a weight issue, and I have viewed internet films of Christian teachers who could stand to take off a few pounds, but, again, I do not hear these detractors communicate disgust for their messages with bully-type statements.
Now, the detractors who accused Paul of being a glutton will probably say that they didn’t call me one as well. Yes, you did. When Paul and I were married we took on a wonderful new relationship referred in Scripture as “one flesh.” The reference is engraved inside of our wedding bands, and our wedding vows reflected the desire to be a three-fold cord as a testimony to our family and friends, many of whom are unbelievers. The smartest thing I did was to marry Paul. He brought peace to a chaotic situation, the love of God’s Word to a spiritually starving home, and leadership to a floundering family. How dare you acccuse me of being mentally numb, or lacking intelligence, or as oxymorons put it, “stupid”, for marrying Paul. It does appear that you are following in the footsteps of the man you hold in high regard, John Calvin. Study his life and message and you will discover a bully that deserves a medal.
Why is it in the arena of ideas people have to resort to insults and name-calling when disagreeing? Perhaps it is because the one slinging insults and using name-calling tactics have no ideas to discuss.
Discuss, even disagree with what we write, but don’t be an oxymoron, “Christian” bully.
Signed,
Susan, who is madly in love with Paul.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
15 comments