Why Christians Cannot Trust the Biblical Counseling Movement: Its True History and Doctrine
Introduction
The contemporary biblical counseling movement has brought counseling back to the church. Prior, the average evangelical congregation supplied comfort as much as they could while the experts were called on to treat whatever serious problem was at hand. Church was there to get people into heaven; the experts make people as comfortable as possible until they get there.
That has changed dramatically. In-house counseling addresses every imaginable life problem within the church. Biblical counseling organizations abound and their networks have inundated the institutional church. At the top of the biblical counseling empire is the Christian Counseling & Education Foundation (CCEF) and its offspring: Association of Certified Biblical Counselors, and the Biblical Counseling Coalition. Together, these organizations hold sway over at least 90% of all biblical counseling taking place in the evangelical church.
Who are they? How did they get here? What do they believe? And are they a help to God’s people, or a detriment? It is important to answer these questions because of the following fact: the present-day biblical counseling movement is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on God’s people, and the harm it will continue to inflict on souls is beyond measure.
The information in this booklet is far from complicated. The present-day biblical counseling movement has an easily defined history, doctrine, and track record regarding results. Are God’s people being helped, or hurt? And if the biblical counseling movement is a detriment to God’s people, what are the viable alternatives?
The biblical counseling movement is like clouds without water. That was Jude’s description of false teachers in his letter to the saints. Clouds offer hope that life-giving rain to a thirsty land is coming, but these clouds are merely a mist of empty promises and hopelessness. The goal of this booklet is to warn God’s people, and point to the only true hope of Jesus Christ and His truth.
Because only truth sanctifies (John 17:17),
Paul M. Dohse Sr.
The Beginning of the Biblical Counseling Movement
In circa 1960, a middle aged Presbyterian pastor named Jay E. Adams had a life transforming experience:
Like many other pastors, I learned little about counseling in seminary, so I began with virtually no knowledge of what to do. Soon I was in difficulty. Early in my first pastorate, following an evening service, a man lingered after everyone else had left. I chatted with him awkwardly, wondering what he wanted. He broke into tears, but could not speak. I simply did not know what to do. I was helpless. He went home that night without unburdening his heart or receiving any genuine help from his pastor. Less than one month later he died. I now suspect that his doctor had told him of his impending death and that he had come for counsel. But I failed him. That night I asked God to help me to become an effective counselor (Jay E. Adams: Competent To Counsel; Zondervan 1970, Introduction xi).
Therefore, it would be fair to say that whoever that gentleman was, he sparked the beginning of the most significant movement in recent church history. The experience must have profoundly impacted Adams because he was relentless in pursuing counseling knowledge in the years following. Then,
…suddenly, I was forced to face the whole problem in a much more definitive way. I was asked to teach practical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. One of the courses I was assigned was Poimenics (the shepherding work of the pastor). As part of the course, I was expected to teach the basic theory of pastoral counseling. I had less than a year to think through the problem and prepare my lectures. Where would I begin? (Ibid).
How Did the Church Get There?
To say that Christians, some 2000 years after the birth of the church, had come to live by biblical generalities, and were farming serious problems out to religious and secular experts is far from painting the church of that time with a wide brush. It’s not oversimplification; it’s the simple fact of the matter. The testimony of a mainstream respected pastor like Jay Adams is sufficient.
But how did the church come to function that way? The answer is profoundly simple; the functionality of the church was a direct result from the gospel it adopted in the 16th century. The construct mentioned in the introduction of this booklet, church gets us to heaven, experts help us cope until we get there, was a direct effect caused by the Reformation gospel. So, what was that gospel?
The Reformation Gospel
The Reformation gospel was predicated on the idea that salvation was a process, or progression. In other words, the justification of a believer had a starting point, a progression, and then finality. This is sometimes referred to as beginning justification experienced subjectively followed by final justification.
So, instead of salvation, or justification being a finished work with the Christian life progressing in complete separation from justification, the Christian life is part of the progression of justification according to the Reformers. In fact, one of the primary Reformers and the father of the Presbyterian Church, John Calvin, titled one of the chapters in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, “The Beginning of Justification. In What Sense Progressive” (book 3, chapter 14).
In that chapter, Calvin explains the crux of the Reformation gospel: beginning justification only covers past sins, but because Christians continue to sin, they must revisit the same gospel that saved them in order to receive continued forgiveness for new sins committed in the Christian life (section 11). Further clarification on this position can be seen in other sections of the Calvin Institutes:
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” (4.1.21).
On the flip side, Calvin went to great lengths in 3.14.9,10 to emphasize the idea that Christians cannot do any work that is pleasing to God because perfect law-keeping is the prerequisite for any ability to please God in any way. Therefore, Christians must continually seek repentance so that the righteousness of Christ will be perpetually imputed to our account in what we would refer to as sanctification, or the Christian life (3.14.11). Therefore, Calvin stated that the Christian life had to be a passive affair focused on perpetual repentance for new sins committed in the Christian life in order to remain justified. This meant a perpetual return to the same gospel that saved us. To Calvin, the Christian life was the Old Testament Sabbath rest if one would progress in justification:
And this emptying out of self must proceed so far that the Sabbath is violated even by good works, so long as we regard them as our own; for rightly does Augustine remark in the last chapter of the 22nd book, De Civitate Dei, ‘For even our good works themselves, since they are understood to be rather His than ours, are thus imputed to us for the attaining of that Sabbath, when we are still and see that He is God; for, if we attribute them to ourselves, they will be servile, whereas we are told as to the Sabbath, “Thou shalt not do any servile work in it.”
The Complete Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis: Jean Calvin; translated by Charles William Bingham ,1844-1856. The Harmony of the Law: Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses | Its Repetition—Deuteronomy 5:12-15. ¶2.
Note that the Christian must attain the Sabbath (final justification) by the continued “emptying out of self” which results in the continued imputation of righteousness not our own. It is a perpetual “meditation” on the Sabbath to attain the Sabbath:
It may seem, therefore, that the seventh day the Lord delineated to his people the future perfection of his sabbath on the last day, that by continual meditation on the sabbath, they might throughout their whole lives aspire to this perfection (The Calvin Institutes 2.8.30).
Spiritual rest is the mortification of the flesh; so that the sons of God should no longer live to themselves, or indulge their own inclination. So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but insomuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.
The Complete Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis: Jean Calvin; translated by John King, 1844-1856. Genesis 2:1-15, section 3.
Why then did Christians live by biblical generalities, and find themselves inept in regard to helping people? Because the Protestant gospel called for a retaining of salvation through rest and a singular meditation on the same repentance that originally saved us. Since that occurs during the Christian life, and justification is by faith alone, the Christian life must be lived by faith alone, or again, according to the Sabbath rest. Obviously, a diligent study of biblical wisdom and its application to life would not only be a very low priority, but is antithetical to the authentic Protestant gospel. This made weak sanctification in Christian living a longstanding tradition. Church became all about salvation and little else.
History
Dr. Jay E. Adams was not alone in misunderstanding the true gospel of the Reformation which led to the self-described dilemma he found himself in. Protestantism had become a soft version of the original article. Martin Luther’s alien righteousness was thought to pertain to justification only and not the Christian life as well. In other words, Luther didn’t believe Christians inherit any of God’s righteousness that becomes a part of them. Christians are only declared righteous positionally, but do not actually possess any righteousness in their being. John Calvin concurred throughout his institutes; e.g., 3.14.11.
Protestantism and its entire offspring heavily emphasized justification only because that is the very premise of its gospel though the causality became very blurred with time. According to the authentic article, sanctification is the manifestation of Christ’s life for the purpose of moving justification forward to final justification.
The “believers” role is to colabor with Christ by faith alone in order to keep things moving forward, and frankly, an endeavor to keep ourselves saved by faith alone. This requires a redefinition of what is a work in sanctification, and what is not a work in sanctification so that the obedience of Christ would continue to be imputed to us for the purpose of keeping us justified. In this way, according to the Reformers, we are “kept” by Christ because justification is not finished—it’s a process.
Hence, the Reformers classified what activities in the Christian life are of faith alone. The writings of Luther and Calvin primarily concern a formula for living the Christian life by faith alone. The crux of the formula was a perpetual return to the same gospel that saved us originally for the atonement of “present sin.” That sin is not only covered, but one also continues to be covered by the righteousness of Christ alone and NOT any righteousness inherited by us via the new birth. This is nothing new, and is what James sought to refute in his letter to the 12 tribes of Israel.
What is important to establish at this point is the fact that the Reformed community at large began to realize in 1970 that they had drifted away from the authentic Reformed gospel, and stated such emphatically. And ironically, the discovery was made by an Adventist theologian named Robert Brinsmead. This Adventist theologian turned said religion completely upside down with what was known as the Awakening Movement. Many took note, and Brinsmead was joined by two Anglicans, Geoffrey Paxton and Graeme Goldsworthy in the forming of a project named The Australian Forum. The purpose of the project was to awake Christianity to the fact that it had drifted away from the true Reformation gospel resulting in a separation of justification from sanctification, and the idea that Christians inherit a righteous state of being through the new birth.
And they were exactly correct which resulted in the Reformed community holding their noses and listening to what Brinsmead had to say. Brinsmead, Paxton, and Goldsworthy published a theological journal named Present Truth which had a massive impact on the evangelical world at large. The publication, for all practical purposes, was a contemporary rendering of the Calvin Institutes and was an astonishing articulation of authentic Reformed soteriology.
Remember, Jay Adams had been called to Westminster Theological Seminary sometime during the mid-sixties, and was buried in developing a counseling construct for the purposes of training pastors. Running parallel to his activities was the Awakening Movement which he probably paid little attention to. That is, until Westminster invited the Australian Forum to meet with the Westminster brain trust. Though it has not been established positively, the legendary Reformed theologian Edmund Clowney, who was president of Westminster at that time, was more than likely present at the meeting. Adams was not happy about the meeting because of Brinsmead, and sarcastically suggested that pork be served for lunch which in fact ended up being the case (The Truth About New Calvinism: TANC Publishing 2011; pp. 59-65).
After several years of hammering out a counseling construct for the institutional church, Adams published his counseling treatise titled, Competent To Counsel. This was a landmark publication and highly controversial. The theses of the book suggested that Christians, armed with the word of God, were competent to counsel each other and bring about changed lives. Said another way, Christianity is more than Redemption alone, but is also about changed lives for the glory of God. Adams even published another book that makes the same point: More Than Redemption. And yet another book, How To Help People Change. Adams is rightly known as the father of the biblical counseling movement, but he may better be described as the father of aggressive sanctification.
The Perfect Storm of Conflict: 1970
Ordinarily, this Christian living revolution would have dramatically changed Christianity until the second coming, but remember something else happened the same year that Adams unveiled his counseling treatise in 1970: the advent of the Australian Forum. Therefore, you had two antithetical movements growing side by side in the Protestant community, especially in the halls of Westminster: the resurgence of authentic Protestantism and the biblical counseling movement. One emphasized the fusion of justification and sanctification, and the other emphasized the separation of the two.
Early in Adams’ tenor at Westminster, a counseling wing of Westminster was established named, The Christian Counseling & Education Foundation, or CCEF. This was a biblical counseling think tank of sorts, and the academic counseling wing of Westminster as well. Its embodiment included proponents of both movements. Later, an accreditation organization was formed known as The Association of Nouthetic Counselors, or NANC. The purpose of the organization was to certify biblical counselors. This organization was also embodied with proponents of both movements.
Be advised that it is unlikely that many were conscious of the historical distinctions between the two movements. All in all, the differences were chalked up to disagreement in regard to application, but not anything that pointed to any questions regarding the Reformation gospel itself.
That would change when a contemporary of Jay Adams at Westminster, Professor John “Jack” Miller developed the Sonship Discipleship program. Clearly, the program was based on the authentic Reformed gospel recovery movement. As the movement grew, Adams, who was gaining significant notoriety as the father of the biblical counseling movement, was called on more and more to weigh-in on the movement.
This resulted in a contention between Miller and Adams which consummated into Adams writing a book published by Timeless Texts that contended against the program: Biblical Sonship; An Evaluation of the Sonship Discipleship Course. Adams published the book in 1999, the movement began circa 1986, or about 16 years after the resurgence began in 1970.
Take note: though the program was based on the Reformation principle of fusing justification and sanctification together, it was wreaking havoc on the Protestant church during this time, and that is why Adams jumped into the fray. The point being that Presbyterianism was functioning according to Calvinism Light, and when the original article began to emerge, many Presbyterians, including Adams claimed the Sonship program was not according to the Reformed tradition. Several of these like confrontations pepper church history—usually in the form of antinomian controversies.
It is important to pause here and establish the fact that these controversies arise because Calvinists often misunderstand what Calvin really believed, and this misunderstanding is most prevalent among Bible scholars and Christian academia at large. This is because seminaries rarely teach anything new, but are merely institutions that regurgitate the traditions of men.
This is established by the fact that at the beginning of the 1970 resurgence, the Reformed community themselves admitted that the original gospel of the Reformation had been lost. Also, the very nomenclature of their ministries admit it as well; i.e., “The Resurgence,” “Modern Reformation,” etc.
More to the point, Reformed scholar John H. Armstrong, who co-authored a book with John MacArthur Jr., stated the following in an article titled Death of a Friend on August 31, 2010:
One summer, in the late 1970s I believe, I attended a small gathering associated with the ministry of a popular magazine of the time called Present Truth. The magazine actually opened my eyes to the need for recovering gospel truths in an age that was fast losing its grasp on the grace of God. Two teachers were leading this small gathering and there could not have been more than 75 people in the room. One of those in the audience, and sharing insights only as a humble participant, was Dr. Don Bloesch. I was impressed that a man of such profound scholarship would take the time to share in a small event where he was not a featured speaker. Don believed something important was going on in that room and wanted to interact with it. So did I.
Why was Armstrong impressed with Bloesch’s willingness to participate in a small Australian Forum Bible study using their theological journal Present Truth? First, because Bloesch was a Reformed heavyweight, but back to the main point: this is one of a myriad of open admissions that the Reformed community at large misunderstood the authentic Reformation gospel. Nevertheless, Jay Adams misunderstood Calvin for the better, and in a big way.
Yet another example of this can be seen in Dr. John Macarthur Jr.’s keynote address at the 2007 Shepherd’s Conference: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist. One blogger aptly described the fallout this way:
John MacArthur’s first message at the Shepherds’ Conference set off shock waves throughout the reformed evangelical church by upholding Premillennialism as being the only consistent position for any person who holds to the doctrine of sovereign electing grace.
online source: faithbyhearing.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/macarthur-why-every-self-respecting-calvinist-should-be-a-premillenialist/
Amillennialism posits the idea that Israel lost its election (Supersessionism or Replacement Theology) because of rebellion, and this was MacArthur’s contention. If God sovereignly elected Israel, how could they lose their election? However, that idea is in fact perfectly consistent with John Calvin’s theology. He separated election into three categories of people, the non-elect, the called, and those who persevere until the end. The called, are in-fact temporarily illumined but then fall away at some point (The Calvin Inst. 3.24.7,8). Moreover, the massive Reformed pushback against this assertion by MacArthur was completely void in regard to this fact, viz, according to Calvinism, one can lose their election. Calvin stated such in no uncertain terms. In the final analysis, most Calvinists have no idea what Calvin believed.
Meanwhile, back to Westminster
Let’s now resume our place in contemporary history at Westminster Theological Seminary. We have two notable Calvinists teaching at the same seminary representing two different Calvinist gospel camps, and teachers from both camps are participating in CCEF and NANC. This is where Jay Adams began to come under serious attack within Reformed ranks, mostly from two mentorees of Dr. Miller, David Powlison and Paul David Tripp. These two men are key figures because they were working hard to develop a counseling version of the Reformed resurgence gospel to answer Adams’ counseling construct that heavily emphasized learn and do. In fact, one of the mantra’s among Adams counselors was, “the power is in the doing.”
At any rate, the counseling construct developed by Powlison and Tripp while at Westminster is known as Theology of the Heart, and was heavily predicated on Miller’s deep repentance model that aligned well with Luther and Calvin’s ideology and practical application of gospel contemplationism. Their pilot program was operational from circa 2003 to 2005, and culminated in an impressive treatise in 2006 titled How People Change authored by Tripp and another former student of Powlison’s at Westminster.
During the pilot program with the same name as the book, Powlison listed himself as a “contributor.” This was for the express purpose of plausible deniability because these men knew that the counseling construct they were promoting was counter intuitive to most evangelicals. The pilot program “tested” the material in hundreds of local churches between 2003 and 2005.
In the introduction to the book (Punch Press 2006), Tripp in essence states that if anyone has a problem with the book, they should blame him, but Powlison should get credit for anything they agree with (the earliest literature from the program named Powlison as the actual “developer” of the curriculum). This was/is a ploy to make the book disagreement proof and protect the face of Theology of the Heart, David Powlison. This good cop—bad cop ploy has been utilized several times to defer criticism of the book.
Consequently, the 2006 NANC conference was fraught with plenary session addresses and workshops that presented a host of contradictory views. Clearly, the civil war between the generally accepted relationship between justification and sanctification (the two are separate), and the gospel recovery movement was in full swing. During a biblical counseling seminar at John Piper’s church, Powlison stated outright that the difference between “first generation” biblical counseling and “second generation” biblical counseling was two different gospels. However, this was the elephant in the biblical counseling room that no one wanted to talk about:
This might be quite a controversy, but I think it’s worth putting in. Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for conversion. And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification. And actually even came out and attacked my mentor, Jack Miller, my pastor that I’ve been speaking of through the day, for saying that Christians should preach the gospel to themselves. I think Jay was wrong on that (David Powlison speaking at John Piper’s church May 8, 2010).
Ironically, Adams’ primarily criticism of secular psychology has always been the lack of continuity plus the various and sundry theories of change that number over 200 within the discipline, but even though the biblical counseling movement doesn’t have that many varying theories, they are split on the issue that makes the whole discussion worthwhile, the gospel of Jesus Christ.
This is the first reason the biblical counseling movement must be utterly rejected out of hand—because no one in the movement will draw a deep line in the sand in defense of the gospel. These difference are treated as matters of opinion concerning method instead of what it really is, a contention between two different gospels with heaven and hell in the balance.
The one thing both camps unwittingly agree on is that the biblical counseling industrial complex must be preserved at the expense of the gospel. In the final analysis, those who function in this way cannot help people change, and will most likely do more harm than good. The movement is pregnant with counselors who lack conviction and love for the truth. They are best avoided at all cost.
The issue concerning these two different gospels is far from complicated: if one must preach the gospel to themselves every day, that must mean they still need the same gospel that originally saved them, which means their salvation is not a finished work, which also means that they must play some role in finishing their salvation—this would seem evident. If Justification is not finished, works salvation is unavoidable on every wise, and a gospel contemplationism dubbed as a faith-alone work by no means changes this reality.
And incredibly, this is verbally conceded often. Consider what John Piper said in his three part series, How Does The Gospel Save Believers?
We are asking the question, How does the gospel save believers?, not: How does the gospel get people to be believers? When spoken in the power of the Holy Spirit, the gospel does have power to open people’s eyes and change their hearts and draw them to faith, and save them. That’s what is happening on Tuesday nights and Wednesday nights this summer. People are being drawn to Christ through the power and beauty of the gospel. But I am stressing what Paul says here in verses 16 and 17, namely, that “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” Believers need to be saved. The gospel is the instrument of God’s power to save us. And we need to know how the gospel saves us believers so that we make proper use of it (August 16, 1998, part 2).
This is the very essence of the Reformation gospel: the idea that salvation is a process in which the “believer” is gradually drawn to Christ for a final salvation. The only way that this process towards final salvation can continue is if we continually return to the same gospel that saved us. This is egregious heresy perpetrated in broad daylight.
Eventually, Jay Adams was driven out of any association with CCEF and NANC and started The Institute of Nouthetic Studies (INS) with Baptist pastor Donn Arms. INS experiences a significant contention with CCEF and NANC until this day, but unfortunately, the contention primarily focuses on sanctification issues, viz, heart theology, and not the truthfulness of the true gospel. The CCEF/NANC camp applied its latest slap in the face to Adams by changing the name of NANC to The Association Of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC).
INS has two individuals on their staff that also have close relations to CCEF and ACBC. Adams and Arms are to be commended for their confrontation regarding the application of Theology of the Heart to counseling people, but unfortunately, they have not yet made it a salvific gospel issue.
The Big Lie
Primarily, people go to counseling for one reason: because they see a need for change in their lives. The brain trust of the CCEF counseling empire and their aforementioned affiliates know that they do NOT believe that people change. The magnum opus of heart theology, How People Change, is a misrepresentation of its counseling construct and they know it. As we have seen, the authentic Reformation gospel rejects the idea that people can change in totality.
Therefore, the goal of biblical counseling is to teach people to see life differently. If they merely see life differently, wellbeing occurs regardless of what is happening in the material world. What happens in the material world is entirely God’s business and not yours. Right seeing is the goal, not right doing, the doing is God’s job—not yours.
In fact, according to the construct that has taken over the biblical counseling culture, any counseling that emphasizes doing is a false gospel. We, as John Piper often likes to say, must practice a “beholding as a way of becoming.” But remember, the “becoming” speaks to a progression of mere seeing while God himself manifests the doing in the material realm. This booklet will not explore all of the metaphysical constructs that may be applied, but one example comes from page 215 of How People Change:
When we think, desire, speak, or act in a right way, it isn’t time to pat ourselves on the back or cross it off our To Do List. Each time we do what is right, we are experiencing what Christ has supplied for us.
In other words, we are only experiencing the works of Christ and not actually doing the work ourselves. There are many philosophical applications for this approach including subjective Idealism. This is the idea that reality is defined by how it is perceived. In other words, there is really no material world per se; it only exists in the minds of individuals. Therefore, change a person’s thinking and you change their reality.
Another approach is realm manifestation. The invisible world manifests reality in the visible world by whatever means, but those who dwell in the material realm are only experiencing what the invisible realm is manifesting. For the most part, the Reformers, particularly Martin Luther and his spiritual mentor Saint Augustine seemed to believe something along these lines.
Luther stated in the Heidelberg disputation that the Christian life is lived subjectively; i.e., we really don’t know when we are doing a work or when God is doing the work. However, to believe that whatever we do is evil, and whatever good is done is only experienced by us, but not us doing it, is saving faith. To believe that we can actually do a good work, according to Luther, is mortal sin. To experience a good work as us doing it is only venial sin if we disavow our ability to do any good work and attribute the work to God only:
He, however, who has emptied himself (cf. Phil. 2:7) through suffering no longer does works but knows that God works and does all things in him. For this reason, whether God does works or not, it is all the same to him. He neither boasts if he does good works, nor is he disturbed if God does not do good works through him. He knows that it is sufficient if he suffers and is brought low by the cross in order to be annihilated all the more. It is this that Christ says in John 3:7, »You must be born anew.« To be born anew, one must consequently first die and then be raised up with the Son of Man. To die, I say, means to feel death at hand (Theses 24).
This is also how Luther defined the new birth. Since we, even as “Christians,” can only do evil, we only seek to live a perpetual “lifestyle of repentance” as Paul Tripp et al call it resulting in a resurrection experience. But remember, we are never sure when these experiences are actually from God, but joy may be an indication, though we are never certain. Remember, this connects us back to “justification experienced subjectively.”
Hence, we get ourselves to heaven with an ability to “stand in the judgment by faith alone” by revisiting our original salvation. THIS IS KEY, the new birth is not a onetime event which makes us a new creature, the new birth is redefined as a perpetual death and rebirth experience, or a perpetual repeating of our original salvation in order to keep ourselves saved by this living by faith alone formula. Simply stated, it is daily resalvation. We must be resaved or rejustified daily by “preaching the gospel to ourselves every day.”
There is actually a formal doctrine from the Reformed tradition that defines the new birth in this way, it is called mortification and vivification. It is a perpetual reliving of our original baptism in order to keep ourselves saved. It is returning to the same gospel that saved us daily in order to remain saved. We focus on our need for repentance (mortification, or death), and we then experience perpetual resurrection (vivification, or a joy experience) in ever-increasing levels.
Though identified with the Reformed tradition, the father of contemporary biblical counseling, Jay Adams, believes the new birth to be a onetime event and would reject a proper understanding of mortification and vivification. In the same year that he unveiled his biblical approach to a more aggressive sanctification, the Australian Forum began to awaken the Reformed community to the fact that they had lost their way. Roughly sixteen years later, the original article began to be integrated into the biblical counseling movement which put the movement at odds with the very man who started It.
Jay Adams believes that Christians can change because they are born again. They don’t merely experience a subjective justification; their changed behavior is proof of the new creature. Adams stated in no uncertain terms in the aforementioned treatise against Sonship Theology that justification is a declaration, and sanctification is NOT powered by it. In contrast, sanctification is powered by regeneration, or the new birth. The Christian can change through obedience to biblical wisdom and is helped in doing so by the Holy Spirit.
But this clearly puts Adams at odds with the true Reformation gospel, and his hesitancy to completely break ties with CCEF et al will only continue to muddy the waters while Adams is accused of propagating a “behavioral model.”
Yet, a behavioral approach to change is hollow because it ignores the need for Christ and his power to change first the heart and then the behavior. Instead, even the Christian version of the approach [Adams] separates the commands of Scripture from their Christ-centered, gospel context (How People Change 2006, p. 26).
This is egregiously disingenuous. On pages 64 and 65 of the same book, Tripp describes Christians the same way Luther would: “alienated enemies” who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” and “dead,” and “When you are dead, you cannot do anything.” Tripp goes on to say on page 65 that denying we are unchanged is to deny Christ. The key to change is not getting better, but seeing ourselves for who we really are. This entails a peeling away of layers to see the “sin beneath the sin” as their mentor Dr. John Miller put it. So-called “heart change” is really just an ability to see or perceive, NOT an ever-increasing ability to do anything.
Conclusion
The biblical counseling movement as it now stands is not about change. Unfortunately, the movement’s willingness to knowingly state otherwise is indicative of its character. It is predicated on this lie and a false gospel. It cannot help people, and must be utterly rejected in totality.
Moreover, in our endeavor to find real change via the Scriptures, Christian academia must be held at arm’s length and viewed with suspicion in all respects. The very character of every Christian academic must be questioned, and their gospel assumed false. Why? Because after 2000 years and trillions of dollars, what do we have? Nothing more than those who proudly call themselves Calvinists while having no idea what Calvin really believed! We are not obligated to follow their zeal not according to knowledge resulting in our own demise.
Secondly, Christians need to educate themselves in regard to full-orbed reality. Unfortunately, a lack of knowledge in the area of world philosophy, a discipline we are often told we do not need, is essential in understanding the foundations and functioning of traditional Protestantism. Clearly, the Reformers forced the Bible into their own philosophical presuppositions. The Bible must be perceived grammatically, literally unless stated otherwise, and according to its historical backdrop.
Thirdly, Christians must discern who we are! Are we merely declared righteous because Jesus obeys for us, or are we actually recreated as righteous beings through the new birth? And what is our relationship to the law accordingly?
Fourthly, we need to take up Jesus Christ on His promise to lead us in all truth if we seek it. We ourselves need to seek this truth while ceasing to listen to a Christian academia that has failed miserably. They have done little more than create mass confusion, and have charged us trillions of dollars for the privilege of doing so.
We live in an information age, and it is time for a new movement by those who originally made up the church:
“Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.”
In the same way the Corinthian church was vexed by the bondage of academia as if God chose the haughty things of the world rather than the meek, we find ourselves in the same tyranny and bondage to aristocratic lords. Let us break free and break bread together as noble first century Bereans, and let us change for the glory of God, and help others to do the same.
We will close, perhaps ironically, with the verse of Scripture that Jay Adams chose as the thesis of his groundbreaking work, Competent To Counsel:
“As far as I am concerned about you, my brothers, I am convinced that you especially are abounding in the highest goodness, richly supplied with perfect knowledge and competent to counsel one another”
~ Romans 15:14 (Williams)
The Truth About Predeterminism: A Historical and Biblical Evaluation
Good evening and welcome to False Reformation blogtalk radio. I am your host, Paul M. Dohse Sr.
If you would like to join the discussion tonight and add to what we are learning, call 347-855-8317 and remember to mute the speakers on your laptop or PC. And by the way, the question or comment does not have to pertain to the subject at hand—it can be off-point.
I am very excited to share what my research has yielded since I began this ministry in 2006, working at it part time until April of 2010, and thereafter full time until now. Resources can also be found at tancpublishing.com.
Tonight we will be discussing the subject of predeterminism, otherwise known as God’s election or predestination. Now, I realize that election and predestination primarily speak to God preselecting who will be saved and not saved, while predeterminism deals with the wider spectrum of human events.
Let me set the table for tonight’s discussion. Starting out in Reformed beliefs can be simple enough. God preselected those who will be saved, and left the rest to their own devices. And, there seems to be Bible verses that state this plainly.
You might even believe that election and freewill are both 100% true. You might believe that this is a paradox. I heard Rick Warren tell John Piper that this is his position, since the Bible states both, both are equally true. You could also argue that paradoxes like this exist in science. Let me give you an example from Dr. Bo Grissom as stated in last year’s conference:
Consider, for example, the physics of light where two seemingly contradictory theories are used side-by-side to explain its different properties.
The wave theory is used to understand the oscillation aspects of light (e.g., Polaroid sunglasses), while at the same time the particle theory is employed to explain other applications (e.g., photoelectric solar panels). Although these two theories are totally incompatible, each provides useful information in certain technical applications.
To date, scientists simply use the appropriate theory as needed for a particular design problem. There is no worry about whether light actually exists as a wave, or as a particle, just because it is not yet fully understood. This same approach may be taken in the spiritual realm and is probably the best stance to take in dealing with the apparent contradiction between individual free will and God’s total sovereignty.
When we extend this God’s predeterminism from salvation to every aspect of life, we are not just talking about election and predestination, or whether one is a 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 point Calvinist, we are now talking about determinism or predeterminism. Hence, the word used in our title tonight. And this is where we must go because Protestantism was founded on hard determinism not soft determinism.
The Protestant tradition is based on Redemptive Historical hermeneutics. What’s that? It is the belief that every facet of human life is predetermined. It is the belief that reality and the state of being is a prewritten story or grand narrative written by God. This is known as metanarrative, or metaphysical narrative, or a grand metaphysical narrative. In regard to authentic Protestantism, all of history is a predetermined gospel, or redemptive narrative also known as the “divine drama.”
This is also the basis of mythology which is NOT superstition. Mythology is merely the most ancient and basic foundations of religion. It is the idea that a force, nature, cosmos, or personal God has prewritten history. The story, as it unfolds, is the state of being. The author of being is always an invisible force who manifests his/her being in the material realm.
Mythology in its various forms also has mediators between the invisible and material. These are elitist guides who have special insight into the invisible realm that cannot be understood by the general populous. Therefore, in order to guide the masses, priests, philosophers, or whatever you want to call them, explain truth to the masses in a way that they can understand it, namely, via a story.
For the most part, people in cultures don’t take the mythological stories literally, they understand that the guides are merely repackaging what they are unable to understand in a way that they can apply it to their lives. Ancient cultures were not stupid people driven by superstition; they understood the mythological narratives to be creeds and catechisms to live by that come from purer truths that only the guides can understand.
Superstition then, is an unreasonable understanding and application of the mythological narrative. That’s what superstition is. It may also include many personal quirks applied to the superstition as well.
So, from the cradle of society comes mythology, and its orthodoxy is metanarrative. This of course requires a spiritual and social caste system or a empirical pecking order. This is why Hinduism is the most ancient of religions—because mythology is the most ancient of religions.
In this ancient construct, everything is predetermined in the story written by the force or personal God, and life is ONLY experienced. It’s like standing in the rain. You feel the rain, you experience the rain, but you have no control over the rain—the rain is a story that you only experience—your part in the narrative is only experienced.
In Hinduism, which is the best example, the spiritual strata is Bhramin, Kshatryia, Vaishya, Sudra, and Untouchables. But listen very careful to what Karma is in Hinduism. THIS IS KEY. I am citing Swami Bhaskarananda: Chapters IX to XI from the book “The Essentials of Hinduism,” Heading; “Predestination”:
Karma is the infant stage of Hinduism where saints believe they are responsible for their own actions, but as growth moves forward, the mature saint…
He becomes convinced that God has been doing everything by using his body, mind, energy and the senses. He feels that he is only an instrument in the hands of God, and whatever God has been doing to him is for his ultimate spiritual good. At this high level of spirituality the doctrine of predestination becomes the only valid doctrine to him. To him the doctrine of karma ceases to be a valid doctrine.
Therefore, these two doctrines, even though apparently contradictory to each other, are valid for people at different stages of spiritual growth.
Hang on to all of this as we are going to plug it back in later. This will all come together for you as we progress.
At this juncture, I am going to inject another key term: the total inability of man. Can we state anything other than the obvious fact that Hinduism representing the foundation of ancient religion is one soul with the total inability of man? Absolutely not.
When I first became a Christian, I was, I guess what you would call Arminian. I only borrow the term to make a point because Christianity is not either Calvinism or Arminianism, that’s perhaps the biggest red herring of all time.
I was later persuaded into believing what is often referred to as sovereign grace. Or, election. I was never crazy about it though I believed it to be true. To me, there were certain Bible verses that made individual election unavoidable.
Fast forward to the TANC Research era. When my research found that Protestantism was founded on the false gospel of progressive justification, I pretty much deemed the election issue as a diversion from the real issue of the gospel, and pronounced the election issue irrelevant.
I then adopted the aforementioned paradox view and stuck it in my back pocket. I am not going to take the time tonight to discuss why I decided to revisit the issue, but I did. And here was my approach:
I found the issue of law and gospel to be very definitive in the Bible, what I call “theological math,” and assumed that a deeper and deeper objective understanding of law and gospel would lead to more understanding of the more subjective and mysterious biblical issues. What we know are building blocks to what we don’t know. If not, conclusions are merely leaps in logic.
Deuteronomy 29:29 makes it very clear that there are things we are responsible for knowing and doing, but to some degree we are not going to understand everything. BUT, we also need to milk the objective cow for all we can get out of it. You stick with what you know positively and see where it leads you.
And here is where I have been led: I believe freewill is a metaphysical pillar. I believe it is one of the major tenets of being. I also believe that it better answers the more difficult questions such as, “Why did God allow sin into the world?” That is, if He did in fact allow it—we must remember that is a presupposition. God is not limited in any way by perceived attributes. Example: God is omniscient, but does that mean God in unable to not know something because of His omniscience? What if God doesn’t want to know something? Is He UNABLE to not know?
I have come to believe God did not elect individuals, but rather elected the means of salvation which includes people groups and Christ Himself. I believe God is sovereign and intervenes in the freewill affairs of men to guarantee predetermined outcomes which DOES NOT include every detail of life and history.
The Bible says that God created hell for the Devil and not man; therefore, men go to hell because they choose to go there against God’s desired will. Though the fall caused man to be ashamed and hide from God—God seeks him out and reasons with him.
This brings us to some very important reasons to consider the truthfulness of predeterminism. First, the primary pundit of predeterminism is the Protestant tradition. As we discussed prior, Protestantism is the false gospel of progressive justification. Therefore, predeterminism is fruit from the poisonous tree.
Secondly, and most importantly, the Reformed tradition has made the sovereignty of God the gospel itself. Don’t miss this; note this term: “sovereign grace.” We must understand that sovereign grace is a specified gospel. It is a soteriology or doctrine of salvation—please don’t miss this. Individual election is not a separate issue from the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to the Reformed camp.
A key concept of sovereign grace is the total inability of man. In 2008, Calvinist John MacArthur stated the following at a conference:
The doctrine of human unwillingness and inability is perhaps the most attacked doctrine wittingly or unwittingly. The idea that sinners are completely helpless to redeem themselves or to make any contribution to that redemption from sin and divine judgment is the most attacked because in the big picture, it is the most despised doctrine.
Consequently, it is the most distinctively Christian doctrine, contrary to all non-Christian views of men. All religions in the world are some form of a works righteousness system. And at the foundation of all those religions other than the true faith in the true gospel is the idea that people can be good and good enough to contribute to their salvation, to somehow merit favor with deity and a happy after life.
Because this is the universal foundational doctrine of all false systems of religion, it is therefore the most – because, I should say, the opposite of it is the foundation of all these religions, it is therefore the most attacked Christian doctrine. It is distinctively Christian because it affirms the absolute inability of man to do anything to contribute to his salvation.
That’s a crock. What MacArthur said is the well-traveled narrative and historical motif, but the exact opposite is true. The carte blanche religiosity most prevalent in all of human history is determinism. This has always been true in the secular realm as well. In the secular realm it is known as freewill skepticism. Somebody sent me a great video on this a couple of days ago and I found it most fascinating.
But look, mankind has been so saturated with a propensity towards determinism that its philosophical truisms pepper our speech. Quote, “Don’t tempt fate.” “It’s our destiny.” In sports: this team or that team is a “team of destiny.” “Oh well, I guess it just wasn’t meant to be.” One of the biggest hits ever was Doris Day’s Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be Will Be). In 1964 you couldn’t go anywhere without hearing that song.
So, like the video I was sent the other day, MacArthur who I think represents the general mentality well is proffering the idea that freewill skepticism is counter intuitive—historically, the exact opposite is true. Calvinism is an extremely old shoe. It’s just a chip off the old block of ancient mythology—it follows that tradition.
So, freewill skeptic philosophers as well as Calvinists talk often about free will’s relationship to “American individualism.” And this is the next step to our discussion: determinism goes hand in hand with collectivism, and freewill goes hand in hand with individualism. Let me explain how this works.
If whatever rules the universe in the invisible realm has representatives or mediators in the material realm, that means the majority of humanity cannot know reality. The other alternative is what got Socrates executed. He taught that truth was intuitive to everybody and leveled the playing field which was a really bad idea because only 10% of the population made up the ruling class.
Therefore, his understudy Plato had to get out of Dodge and become a foreign exchange student for a while, but he studied in India and came back to Athens with a much better idea: the philosopher kings are able to obtain the gnosis and teach it to the masses, the warriors inforce the dictates of the philosopher kings, and the sole purpose of the masses is the collective good.
This was never more or less than Plato’s version of the Hindu caste system. The value of an individual is based on their ability to contribute to the common good as judged by the philosopher kings and enforced by the warriors if necessary.
Where did the crux of this system begin? In the garden with the serpent and Eve. The serpent, in essence said, “Eve, you aren’t able to correctly ascertain what God really said, you need me, a spiritually superior being, to properly interpret what God really said.” That’s where all of this starts. It worked well in the garden, why in the world would the construct ever change, right? This also makes mediators the obvious shoe-in for social engineering or societal wellbeing.
Now we have to figure out who the mediators are, right? How do we figure that out? Who is to say? That’s where predeterminism comes in as well. The mediators are always preordained by God before the foundation of the earth. This goes hand in hand with the social class strata.
Social classes determine who the rulers are, the warrior class, and the artisans. It becomes a matter of lineage or pedigree. And as you know, this has never changed in many, many cultures. In many cases upward mobility is forbidden.
Traditionally, collectivism, again, the idea that the worth of an individual is determined by ability to contribute to the common good, is the doctrine that is always associated with determinism and its spiritual caste. The preordained mediators keep the masses in tune with good karma. Immature citizens think they can actually control their fate, while the wiser artisans and producers know that whatever force they worship is completely sovereign. Hey, if the force didn’t want that philosopher king in power, he or she wouldn’t be in power. And of course, some cultures take it a step further and deem the rulers as the actual material manifestations of a god or several gods. Examples of this would be Japanese emperor worship during WWII and the Pope (the “Holy Father” of the Catholic Church).
I am going to pause here and mention how these ancient traditions show up in the contemporary Protestant church. The president of Southern Seminary, Al Mohler, stated at a conference in Florida that pastors are God’s appointed preordained ministers to save His people from ignorance. That’s what he said. In the Puritan tradition, upward mobility was considered a violation of the fifth commandment because it didn’t honor the social class you were born into. Folks, this is all the same stuff! A book written by Calvinist Paul David Tripp, How People Change, is a 200 + page treatise on how to become part of God’s metaphysical divine drama. You are not in control of anything, you just need to be able to see the world through eyes of faith; i.e., all of life is the unfolding of a preordained redemptive narrative (see endnote at end of transcript).
In addition, Calvin’s three-fold election construct that we discussed last week is identical to the election doctrine of Gnosticism, a later version of Neo-Platonism. The hylic coincide with Calvin’s non-elect, the psychic are the partially initiated, or temporarily illumined, and the pneumatic are the fully initiated or Calvin’s lot that persevere till the end. This is all the same stuff.
Now, we are getting ready to close the first segment so anyone wanting to call in can start ramping up while I finish the first segment with individualism which is mostly identified with freewill. Individualists commonly believe that they do not need a mediator to understand God or reality. Secondly, individualists would reject predeterminism out of hand. Thirdly, they would reject social caste out of hand and deem it as tyranny. Fourthly, they believe happiness is found in accomplishment and would reject anything that hinders upward mobility. Fifthly, they would reject total inability.
However, individualism is what is counter intuitive. Individualism is a unique American experiment which finally happened after man suffered unspeakable misery for 10,000 years at the hands of collectivism. EVERYONE agrees that there has never been a country like America in the history of the world. Well, why not? Why did it take so long? Because individualism is not our natural bent—collectivism is. No? After all of the mass graves and misery amassed by collectivism, why are politicians worldwide still hell-bent on implementing it?
Ever heard of the tower of babel? We wouldn’t even have the individualism that we have now unless God confused the languages. Man was continually commanded by God to spread out, fill the whole earth and subdue it. What did they do? They all gathered in a Hindu huddle at the tower of babel.
That’s the first segment. Conclusion: Calvinism is far from being unique. It’s just the same old warn-out collectivism that has been wreaking havoc on mankind since the garden. Determinism is nothing unique, the total inability of man is not unique—IT’S ALL THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN UNTILL AMERICA CAME ALONG. Status quo religious books like the Quran are saturated with the idea of predeterminism from the front cover to the back cover. I could go on and on with example after example.
Segment 2
What about the gospel of sovereign grace? This is a gospel that is defined by predeterminism. Apart from predeterminism, all gospels are deemed false—it must have the determinism element. Freewill is tantamount to a false gospel because it leaves room for man to have a role in the salvation “process” that supposedly starts with beginning justification which is experienced subjectively and ends with final justification. It’s a process of salvation instead of the finished work of salvation being applied to the specific point in time when a person believes the gospel. The life of the born again believer now becomes part of the salvation “process.”
Supposedly, saving faith can ONLY ASK to be part of the salvation process via John Calvin’s Sabbath rest where we must rest from our works because the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us. We must rest from our works in the Christian life because it is now part of the process. Accordingly, no saint can know positively if they are the called class of elect, or the class that perseveres. Again, this is akin to the Gnostic election classes of hylic, psychic, and pneumatic. The called, like the psychic, are temporarily or partially illumined and have no way of knowing whether or not they will persevere until the end. Assurance is clearly ambiguous.
This is authentic Protestantism’s definition of saving faith. Ability to choose in any part of the salvation process is tantamount to the ability of man and therefore akin to works salvation. Not unlike spiritual maturity in Hinduism, as the good Protestant grows spiritually, he/she realizes more and more that they have no real role in the salvation process, but only experience God’s prewritten metaphysical narrative. Spiritual growth is defined by a progression from soft determinism to hard determinism.
In the Protestant “gospel of sovereign grace,” soft determinism is the minimal requirement because having freewill is tantamount to the ability to choose which is considered works salvation. Individuals then grow into their final salvation by evolving into hard determinism. This is by no means unique, but very prevalent among the world’s religions including movements like radical environmentalism.
Do Calvinists believe in total inability? Well, many environmentalists believe the very existence of man is detrimental to the earth!
Hard determinism is comfortable with the idea that there is no assurance of salvation which of course is a direct contradiction to the book of 1John. As far as the Reformed stating this in no uncertain terms, chapter 5 of It’s Not About Election is chock-full of citations from Calvin, Luther, and contemporary Calvinists like John Piper.
However, there is a get out of fate free card, right? What is it? The Reformed power of the keys. Simply stated, if you are a member of a Reformed church and you obey the elders and they like you, if you “humbly” put yourself under their authority with issues of error being beside the point—YOUR’RE IN because whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven. Do you want to go to heaven? Well then, keep your mouth shut and put your money in the plate.
Now, back to this sovereign grace gospel and the next point about it—it makes God’s sovereignty paramount to the gospel and not God’s love. If man has a choice, or freewill which speaks to ability, this would violate God’s attribute of sovereignty. It would deny God is sovereign in all matters of life and being. In other words, God’s sovereignty and freewill are mutually exclusive. Beside the point that this again limits God because of an attribute assigned to Him, the stated biblical cause of God saving the world because of love is changed to God saving the world because of His sovereignty.
This also posits the idea that sin came into the world because of God’s sovereign will and not His permissive will. The unavoidable conclusion also posits the idea that sin coming into the world was God’s desired will. In contrast, God may have chosen not to know anything about what would come out of freewill as a creative principle. The Bible never states that God knew sin was going to come into the world and decided to permit it for some reason. The Bible states that sin was “found” in Satan at some point (Ezekiel 28:15).
Built-in inherent weaknesses or propensities are not part of God’s creation. Rather, God’s attribute of freewill assumes good results because all that God creates is good. Obviously, Lucifer and Adam were created with freewill, but nevertheless, freewill is not the problem. Reformed soteriology makes freewill synonymous with sin, and makes any kind of ability sin as well.
Many in the Reformed camp deny that they believe God’s sovereignty and freewill are mutually exclusive, but total inability assumes freewill is both impossible and sinful, so they cannot have it both ways. In their minds, man is only free to sin because freewill itself is sinful.
In reality, and according to the Bible, God is capable of being sovereign, but often chooses not to be. Again, he is not limited by any of His own attributes. God flexes His sovereignty in electing outcomes (sovereign will) and keeping promises through intervention, but at times chooses not to be sovereign. There are numerous examples of this throughout the Bible.
The Bible also documents cause and effect throughout. The Bible documents God’s intervention to prevent outcomes caused by the actions of men. The Bible also documents God’s active will, passive will, and permissive will. Cause and effect is also described in context of promises and incentive; if a person does this, God promises He will do that.
Hence, the gospel of God’s sovereign grace logically turns the Bible completely upside down if you interpret it grammatically, and that’s the point. Authentic Protestant tradition does not interpret the Bible literally, but according to a metaphysical redemptive story. Reality is a prewritten metaphysical narrative. This is nothing new—it’s the same old song and dance that’s been going on since the tower of Babel.
Really, what it does, if you really think about it—it makes the literal full counsel of God secondary, and the good news of Protestant authority primary. That’s one reason why incessant theological debate in evangelical circles is acceptable—it’s all theater—if you obey your elders and put your money in the plate you’re going to heaven anyway!
Why, for years, have you stood befuddled in regard to what evangelical elders can get away with saying and doing in the church? Because it’s really about the good news of Protestant authority and nothing more or less.
We are going to close tonight in the book of Genesis. I think we see what effect sin had on man; it made man ashamed and caused him to hide from God. Then we see God seeking man out and confronting Him. Shame does not equal total inability.
And this also affects evangelism. It is our role to seek others out on behalf of God. Why has evangelism always been so anemic among Protestants? This is why: Protestants have been taught that man is not only ashamed, but totally depraved with no ability to choose God once he/she is persuaded by the preaching of the word. The incentive to evangelize is not to see people saved, but to glorify God in both death and life. It is a mere proclamation that glorifies God either way, not an attempt to persuade. God is glorified when people are saved because he chose them, and God is also glorified when people reject the gospel because their greater damnation also glorifies God.
In the same aforementioned conference, John MacArthur referred to this idea of glorifying God in evangelism as a “savor of life to life and death to death.” Either way, it is a “savor” unto the Lord. This idea is not only a disincentive; it’s not biblically true and will therefore not find the Holy Spirt cooperative. MacArthur also stated in the same message that “total depravity or unwilling and unable [is]…a gospel theme.” Again, we see God’s sovereignty and man’s inability as foundational to the gospel, not God’s love.
In fact, many Calvinists argue that any gospel presentation that contains a reference to choice is a false gospel. The gospel is to be presented and the results left to God for His glory. If a person asks, “what shall we do?” they are to be told that they can only ask and hope for the best, but God will be glorified either way.
Also, in the same message, MacArthur stated:
The Spirit and the Son are in agreement that this work is a work of divine, sovereign power. And then, of course, we commented earlier, reading John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” John 8:36, “If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” It’s the work of the Son. It’s the work of the Spirit. It’s the work of the Father who draws. In none of these texts, by the way, did Jesus defend the sinner’s ability. In none of these texts did Jesus defend free will. Yes, the sinner has will, and his will is activated by the Spirit in the work of salvation, but his will is not free.
Problems with this view follow: Jesus also said that He would be lifted up in order to draw ALL men to Himself (Jn 12:32). The Spirit also convicts men of sin and the judgment to come (Jn 16:8)—the Spirit works with us in evangelism.
God sovereignly elects the means of salvation and the final outcome of world history, but he does not elect individuals. When saints are called elect, it refers to their identification with a group or purposes elected by God, not the individual per se.
God elected salvation for all men, and the plan of salvation clearly includes an invitation to all of mankind. God sends His Spirit to convict and warn all men while God’s people proclaim His gospel from the word. The goal of evangelism is to “persuade” men to believe the word of God. Faith comes to men through this joint effort between the Spirit and God’s people. The new birth, or regeneration, then comes by faith (Rom 10:17, Gal 3:5).
In contrast, proponents of the gospel of sovereign grace must implement tenets like limited atonement and total depravity to make their case. Many of these tenets are blatant contradictions to the plain sense of Scripture.
And, in regard to Hindus claiming that all religions really agree with them unawares, they just may have a point.
Endnotes
Examples abound. A placard published on Facebook read, “All of your days have been written in God’s book. When you go through disappointment, don’t stop on that page. Stay the course. Keep believing. You may be tired, discouraged and frustrated, but don’t give up on your future.”
Even the late conservative evangelical Adrian Rogers once stated in a sermon:
“When you are surrendered to the will of God, focused on the Word of God, then the Holy Spirit begins to pray in you and through you. He energizes, motivates, and guides your prayer. One of the greatest lessons I’ve learned about prayer is this: the prayer that gets to Heaven is the prayer that starts in Heaven. Prayer is the Holy Spirit finding a desire in the heart of the Father, putting that desire in our heart, then sending it back to Heaven in the power of the cross. The prayer that gets to Heaven is the prayer that starts in Heaven. Our part is just to close the circuit” (online source: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/love-worth-finding/read/articles/prayer-and-the-will-of-god-11630.html).
You can add to that a sermon by Dr. Devon Berry entitled, How to Listen to a Sermon in which he posits the idea that there is no such thing as edifying personal Bible study. The only thing that counts for receiving progressive grace is sitting under the preaching of elders because they get the word from God in the same kind of cycle described by Rogers. Berry is the chairman of the elders at Clear Creek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio which is a training center for the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation which controls at least 90% of the biblical counseling going on in the evangelical church.
New Calvinism’s Silent and Dramatic Reshaping of American Politics
Pundits of American politics are likely missing a major philosophical shift among the voting public. Traditionally, it has been safe to assume that the evangelical vote tends towards American values. After all, the Pilgrims first settled in America seeking religious freedom and much of American heritage is rooted in that narrative. The ultra-conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has even written a children’s book about the Pilgrims (Puritans) presumably to preserve this rich heritage that underpins American values.
Hence, evangelicalism is assumed to be one in heart with freedom and liberty for all. Furthermore, they are responsible folks with deep convictions, viz, a large percentage of them vote, and vote conservative. The who’s who of American conservatism openly proclaim their love for God and country. When election time is near, this paradigm is a given for the political prognosticators.
But it shouldn’t be. The silent equation that everyone seems to be missing is the New Calvinist movement. This movement has all but completely taken over American evangelicalism, and will result in two things regarding the evangelical vote: low turnout and a shift towards socialist leaning candidates.
Consider: who are the New Calvinists? One is Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Theological Seminary which is the flagship seminary of the largest evangelical denomination in the world, the Southern Baptists. Consider, in 2009, Time Magazine named New Calvinism as one of the top ten ideas changing the world in our time. That was almost six years ago, and the movement’s tsunami-like growth has not relented in the least.
And consider, there is an ever increasing theme emerging in their massive publication machine of blogs, radio, pulpit, conferences, and books: anti-American sentiment with the primary whipping post being “the American Dream.” Why?
New Calvinism is a return to the Reformation basics—they are Reformation purists, and few really understand Martin Luther’s worldview that founded Protestantism in its authentic form. Luther, like his Reformation compatriot John Calvin, were rabid followers of Saint Augustine who was an avowed Neo-Platonist. Luther was a friar in the Augustinian Order, and Calvin quoted Augustine over 400 times in The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Let’s skip the specific worldview shared by Plato, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, and instead point out the inevitable social prescription that it demanded as articulated in Plato’s Republic.
Plato denied that the common people could perceive reality, or what Reformation purists refer to as “total depravity.” Therefore, this idea called for elitist philosopher kings to rule over the masses with a standing army just in case citizens get the idea that they can actually know something. The sole purpose and sum value of a citizen is determined by ability to contribute to the “common good” and society at large. A comment regarding a blog post on New Calvinism stated it well:
In fact Calvinism strikes me as being antithetical to American cultural norms; such as, the notion of the American Dream and all men being created equal…I can see how Calvinism would have been bred in a European society with its history of class [caste system], but it would be a hard fit for America.
The reader rightly assessed with that comment. When the Puritans (who were Calvinists) came across the pond, they brought a European caste mentality with them. The primary goal was to start their own theocracy, what they called “New Zion.” This is why the first Bible to land on the eastern shore of America was the Geneva Bible. Geneva is the place where John Calvin earned the nickname “Pope of Geneva.” Nearly every detail of life was regulated there, including mandatory church attendance where Calvin’s elders tortured people with linguistic drones that lasted for hours. In addition, people were jailed for talking or sleeping during sermons, and Geneva law enforcement patrolled the streets searching for those not in attendance. Penalties for bad behavior were harsh as demonstrated by the fact that a public execution occurred at least once per week.
Please take note that the “elder statesman” of New Calvinism, Dr. John Piper, recently went to Geneva to produce a video announcing the newest phase of his ministry; i.e., to spread Calvin’s Post Tenebras Lux (after darkness light) throughout the whole world. Like the socialism of the ages, there is always an excuse why the light has never worked—this time it will be different and mankind will finally be saved!
Much could be written on this wise and there is not sufficient room here to do so, but for purposes of this post, we should focus on the question of individualism. The American Dream is a construct that limits government to the task of freeing the individual to pursue all that they can be or want to be. Materialism is a mere result, the American Dream is not materialism—it’s an idea. Another natural result is the collective wellbeing of society. Happy and free individuals make a happy and free society.
This all boils down to the question of individual competence. We know how socialism answers that question while aggressively foisting a nanny state upon the American people more and more. They want to control how we travel, what we eat, and even how we wipe ourselves after using the bathroom. This is more than an annoyance; the horrifying and real question becomes, “Who owns man?” Does man own man, or does the state own man? If man cannot self-govern, and needs government to rule over his being via elitist philosophers or religionists, man becomes property of the state by default.
Is this not the crux of the conflict that we see in American politics? Regardless of the obvious, “you didn’t build that” because “you” are not competent. It only looks like you built it because the government made it possible. And even more horrifying is the idea that all wars would end if the masses would just finally agree to be owned. Yes, then all of Plato’s children could come together and agree on the best way to manage people. Terrorists are really not bad people; actually, they know something very important that Ronald Reagan never figured out: people cannot self-govern.
But yet, there is something even more horrifying: the masses who have bought into the idea of their own incompetence and the incompetence of mankind in general. This is fear of chaos. This is looking to the elitists to protect us from ourselves. Though the recent riots incited by socialists in America over whatever excuse was stumbled upon at the time seem to be pointless, really they are not pointless. The riots serve the following purpose:
See! See! See what happens when people own themselves? Chaos! Oh my! The streets are aflame! What will become of us?
Riots are designed to incite fear and send people scrambling for hasty answers—terrorism likewise. This is all an epic battle for the ownership of mankind. And where evangelicalism stands in that fight is now abundantly clear; they stand with the religious version of socialism: Post Tenebras Lux.
This is a huge reality lurking behind the curtain of America’s political stage. The New Calvinist movement (circa 1970) has created a massive religious subculture with significant sway over millions of evangelicals and has crossed all denominational lines to some degree. Presently, the movement is producing a mass of anti-American propaganda depicting the American Dream as steroidal selfism that is destroying the fabric of our society. Many notable New Calvinists, not excluding the aforementioned Al Mohler, are even writing articles defending terrorism and stating, one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot. In one article, Mohler equates Nelson Mandella with George Washington. Other articles posted by notable New Calvinists object to the “exaggeration” of atrocities committed by ISIS. If you think this eerily similar to Hillary Clinton’s latest call to better understand terrorists, you rightly assess.
And this article cannot be concluded without mentioning New Calvinism’s latest wave of socialist propaganda: the virtues of slavery. That’s right. In fact, mega evangelical and New Calvinist Dr. John MacArthur Jr. wrote a book in 2010 titled Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ. The theme, also posited by numerous articles flowing from the gargantuan New Calvinist propaganda machine, is that man is metaphysically enslaved and the concept of freedom is a misnomer. In the reality of being, there is no real freedom. Hence, according to the general theses, Christ didn’t see slavery as a bad thing per se because men are enslaved anyway, but probably took exception to naughty slave owners. Trust me, Hillary Clinton would go to church to hear that sermon and would be in the amen row to boot while promising to be one of those good slave owners that Christ thought well of.
So, what is the new mentality of the evangelical in the voting booth? First things first: vote for who gets it—vote for the candidate that understands man is enslaved by his own incompetence whether he knows it or not. The New Calvinist philosopher kings can go to the negotiating table later with their sphere of influence as a bargaining chip. Remember, the people always outnumber the philosopher kings and the warriors by significant margins. The New Calvinists bring a significant sphere of influence to the table. With any nation, it’s ALL about what people believe, and people can believe particular things that render government force powerless. Ultimately, ideas win wars.
The New Calvinists deem Capitalism little different from that of Islamic terrorists. Job one for them is to get rid of the American Dream by any candidate possible who understands the total depravity of man and the incompetence of the masses.
And political pundits of the patriot stripe would do well to adjust their evangelical equation accordingly.
paul
“Against Church” Free Writing Notes: The Smoking Gun; Church Discipline and the Impartation of Grace
The idea of salvation via church membership, though vehemently denied in most evangelical circles, is for all practical purposes confirmed by the concept known as “church discipline.” The Catholic version known as “excommunication” needs no discussion here because as previously stated Rome is neither shy nor ambiguous about salvation being found in the Mother Church alone. Membership in the Catholic Church and the practice of its rituals virtually assures one of eternal life.
In the Protestant version called “church discipline,” the subject can be “declared an unbeliever” by church leaders. Unfortunately, many evangelicals assume this to mean that the person is to be treated LIKE an unbeliever (as the text states grammatically) and use of the word declaration is just in a manner of speaking, but such is not the case. In authentic Protestantism from which all of its various stripes come (Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Pentecostals, etc.), the church has the authority to “declare” a person unsaved because they are supposedly God’s authority on earth. The “church” is the God ordained institution that gets people from point A to point B. Salvation is a process, and when people within the church are not behaving according to the salvific process of a particular denomination, or even threatening the salvation vessel with their behavior, they must be ejected from the institution which also removes them from the salvation process. This is why church discipline is referred to as “redemptive church discipline” in some circles.
The Impartation of Grace?
“Grace” is a word in the Bible that is very generic. Primarily, it means “favor.” It also has the idea of “blessings.” Some Bible scholars even suggest that the word merely means “help.”[11] The Reformers incessantly used the word in the strict confines of justification. This gives credence to the idea that Christians must operate within a given orthodoxy in order to receive a perpetual doling out of grace in order to remain saved. It’s justification on the installment plan, and the installments can only be received in the institutional church. As we have observed in former chapters, this boiled down to perpetual forgiveness of new sins committed as Christians in order to remain forgiven, and that forgiveness can only be found in the institutional church. Again, though Protestants have gravitated away from an outward admission of such, the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree and they function that way accordingly. So-called “church discipline” is one of the practices that exposes this reality. Protestants are very much like professed vegetarians who take meat protein supplements, for practical reasons of course.
Hence, everything in the “Christian” life becomes a question of the continued impartation of justification rather than change. We don’t change to be saved, and the Christian life is still about salvation if you are a good Protestant. This “impartation of grace” covers all of life, viz, the “gospel-driven life,” but the example here will be the impartation of grace via speech. Let’s see how the original Protestant idea of justification on the installment plan manifests itself in contemporary teachings.
John Piper, the “elder statesman” of the Neo-Calvinist movement (which is not new at all), spoke of the impartation of grace through our speech while preaching a sermon on Ephesians 4. The Reformed Charismatic Adrian Warnock wrote about the sermon in an article titled, John Piper Friday – Using Our Mouths to Impart Grace.[12] Piper is quoted in that article as stating,
Instead of proposing clean language, he proposes a whole new way of thinking about language. Instead of saying, “You don’t need dirty language to communicate your intention,” he says, “The root issue is whether your intention is love.” In other words the issue for Paul is not really language at all; the issue is love. The issue is not whether our mouth can avoid gross language; the issue is whether our mouth is a means of grace. You see he shifts from the external fruit to the internal root. He shifts from what we say to why we say it. That’s the issue… This is a revolutionary way to think about your mouth…It is not Christian just to stop swearing. It is not Christian just to put good language in the mouth instead. It is Christian to ask the deeper, internal question: am I speaking now to edify? The issue is not whether our mouth can avoid gross language; the issue is whether our mouth is a means of grace.”
In Sonship Theology circles, this is known as “speaking life into people.” Church is a place where we go to receive life installments, or grace installments on the roadway to heaven. Faithfulness to the institutional church pays our grace toll on the way to heaven and eventually gets us in. Contemporary Protestants state in no uncertain terms the primary means of grace: our original baptism that makes us official church members, and has an ongoing efficacious effect as long as we are faithful to the institution, the Lord’s Table, prayer, the Bible (as long as we see every verse in regard to justification), and sitting under the preaching of Reformed ordained elders:
Then, second, let me state what we do intend by “the ordinary means of grace.” To begin, here is the Shorter Catechism answer 88: “The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption, are his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.” I will unfold this answer in later articles, but for now, note the following: 1) by “grace” we intend the benefits of redemption; 2) only the elect are beneficiaries; 3) the benefits are communicated to the elect, by which we mean that they are appreciably received, for true communication cannot occur in ignorance; 4) the means are instituted by Christ, they are his ordinances; 5) there are three principal means: the Word, Sacraments, and Prayer; 6) by “salvation” we mean not merely the cross of Christ or our individual justification, but the whole work that begins in election and concludes in glorification. The means are of use subjectively, and not all at once, and most extensively in sanctification.[13]
This is set against the supposed Catholic aberration that grace (salvation) is imparted to anyone whose body is dragged within the confines of the Mother Church, and that accusation does have some merit historically, but the Protestant version called “the ordinary means of grace” posits the exact same idea of justification on the installment plan through sacraments within the institutional church. That is the responsibility of church leadership, but according to Piper, and according to Protestant soteriology, parishioners have a responsibility to also impart the means of grace among each other. Therefore, proper sonship or kingdom speech that edifies is not the issue, but imparting salvation to each other is the issue. Let’s remove Piper’s nuance to show clearly what he is really saying:
“The issue is not whether our mouth can avoid gross language; the issue is whether our mouth is a means of [justification].” Or…
“The issue is not whether our mouth can avoid gross language; the issue is whether our mouth is a means of [salvation].”
The replacement word “grace” nuances the point, but Piper’s root and fruit paradigm and his justification instrument construct affirm what he means by the “impartation of grace.” And unequivocally, these are NOT Piperesque ideas, these are accurate portrayals of authentic Protestant soteriology.
The idea that works in sanctification are the “fruits of justification” seems harmless enough, after all, justification makes sanctification possible. But possibility is not what is in view here; what is in view is the idea that sanctification is the fruit of justification. In other words, justification is like a tree that grows. Justification is the root, and sanctification is the fruit of justification. Therefore, justification is a growing tree, and all of its fruit must flow from the roots of the same tree. This is what Piper is talking about in the aforementioned sermon written about by Warnock; if we make a conscience effort to change the way we speak according to Scripture, we are making the fruit the root. We are fruit stapling. We are to merely speak justification to people, viz, “speak life into them,” and experience any fruit produced by the root of justification “subjectively” (see the last sentence of endnote 13).
Another way Piper describes our active obedience as making the fruit the root; i.e., making our own efforts the justification root, is making our own efforts the working of fruits back into the instrument of justification:
One of the concerns that I have about justification, and in particular the biblical understanding of imputation (being counted righteous as distinct from actually becoming behavioral in our righteousness—which are both crucial), is that those who are jealous like I want to be for our holiness, our love, our justice and our mercy in the world can begin to build those fruits into the instrument of justification to make sure that it is not separated. But in the process they undermine the very goal that we are both after.
Here’s what I mean. I’m arguing, as I think historic protestant Christianity and the Bible argues, that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to me is through union with Christ, where he is for me all that he is, and I am attached to him in that union through faith alone. The only instrument by which I am made a participant in Christ’s righteousness is God’s acting through my faith. I am born into that relationship through faith alone, not through any of its fruits, like mercy and justice and love and patience and kindness and meekness and so on, which turn me into a useful person in the world.[14]
As seen in this citation, Piper is making our fruits in sanctification the same thing as being born into the family of God by faith alone. If we actually do works in sanctification, we are producing justification works, or “build[ing] those fruits into the instrument of justification.” The “instrument” is faith and faith only; it is the instrument of justification that produces its own fruit and not ours. Therefore, all of Christian life is keeping us united to Christ (known as the vital union, or the mystical union) through faith alone which produces the subjective fruit of justification. These works are “subjective” because we really don’t know when they are produced by the root of justification or not. Luther is married to Calvin on this point because Luther defined this subjective experience of justification’s fruit by mortal sin versus venial sin (The Heidelberg Disputation: Theses 3). People are actually damned if they believe they can do works that have merit with God for sanctification or justification, but if one believes that even their good works are evil, they are only guilty of venial sin which is covered by the blood of Christ. And, in the final analysis, Christians have no idea when the works they are experiencing are from the root of justification. That’s the subjective nature of it. This narrows the Christian life down to interpreting everything through salvation, or justification, and leaving the subjective results to God.
This is all a long version of simply saying that any efforts on the part of a Christian are works salvation because we are in the midst of a progressing, or growing salvation. Any effort on our part is an effort to participate in justification. Instead, we must merely partake in the ordinary means of grace administered and qualified by Protestant orthodoxy.
This is where the Protestant version of excommunication comes into play. When people misbehave as members of the church, they are not only jeopardizing the church as the cosmic salvation vessel, they are derelict in their duty to aid the church in imparting grace upon grace unto final grace. In this instance, we are using speech as the example. When people question church authority, or “gossip,” they are actually jeopardizing people’s salvation. Hence, they must be removed for the protection of the salvation vessel and the salvific wellbeing of the other members.
This is also where Protestantism clashes with American individualism. Remember, Protestantism is a European import, and not uniquely American as many errantly believe. The American Revolution invoked the first non-Collectivist government known to mankind. It has been stated in this book that the fruit does not fall far from the tree, but that doesn’t mean there is no distance whatsoever when it does fall. In the 20th century, individualism was in vogue among American Christians and so-called church discipline fell by the wayside. But in 1970, which marked the beginning of a Protestant resurgence in American culture, all of that began to change. Now, many popular evangelicals declare democracy to be “satanic.”[15] By 2009, controversy over heavy handed church discipline became a hot topic even in the secular media, and anti-spiritual abuse blogs began to saturate the internet. By 1986, sixteen years after the beginning of the Protestant resurgence, the problem was large enough that mediatory organizations funded by the institutional church began to emerge in an attempt to keep local churches from being sued in public court.
The primary Bible text offered as a proof for church discipline is Matthew 18:15-20. Nowhere in this text does the idea of “church discipline” appear. Specifically in the Bible, there is a discipline by God within the church (Heb. 12:5-11), and self-discipline that prevents the need for God’s discipline (1Cor. 11:30-32), but a discipline by the “church” is nowhere to be found. There are two primary reasons for this: there is no such thing as formal membership in God’s body, and the assembling of the body together is based on fellowship, not formal membership.
Matthew18:15-20 is based on fellowship issues, not an authority to proclaim someone an unbeliever. It primarily concerns disputes among believers, and a breaking of fellowship with those who are obstinate in regard to wrongdoing. The last resort is to treat the individual like a Gentile or tax collector of whom the Jews would not associate with. Not all Gentiles were unbelievers, and not all tax collectors were unbelievers; so, to make them synonymous with “unsaved” or the authority to declare one unsaved is completely without merit.
“Church discipline” is perhaps the most significant smoking gun in regard to the institutional church being completely without merit. One may notice that elders are not mentioned in this text as well, only “witnesses” and the “assembly.” Even though the steps of resolution in this text are crystal clear, Protestant orthodoxy takes liberties with it for expedient purposes. In the institutional model, it is often barely less than impossible to involve a whole congregation in the situation if the subject will not listen to the offended party or witnesses. In other words, this is obviously not feasible in a church with thousands of members, or campuses in other cities as opposed to a small group meeting in a house.
Also, this discussion between Jesus and His disciples was well before Pentecost, and probably pertained to the existing synagogues which were mostly small gatherings in private homes. Even in our day, synagogues in private homes are a Jewish tradition.[16] Not only that, “witnesses” and “assembly” have been replaced with what appears nowhere in the text, “elders.” According to Protestant orthodoxy, only the elders have the authority to declare someone an unbeliever, but the text clearly assigns that authority, if there is such an authority, to the assembly with no mention of elders at all! Replacing “tell it to the church,” with an announcement to the congregation about what elders have decided to do is nothing more or less than presumptuous. Clearly, added to this text is the idea of formal membership over fellowship, and a supposed authority of those nowhere named to declare people unbelieving.
One can add the following: institutional churches spend thousands of dollars for legal counsel in regard to church discipline issues. If a private home is in view, such issues do not exist. One of the biblical qualifications of an elder is that he is “given to hospitality.” This is because Christian fellowships were in homes. If a group decides not to fellowship with an individual, he/she is simply no longer welcomed in that home which is an indisputable right in any culture; that is, to exclude anyone you want from entering your personal home. If the assembly wrongly sides with the offender, the offended and the two witness can merely start their own fellowship until the assembly repents. That’s the point Christ is making in verses 18-20. In addition, if the offended is being thin-skinned or petty, that can be resolved by the two witnesses before the group is involved. Matthew 18:15-20 fits perfectly into any home fellowship scenario, but in context of an institution, it becomes a convoluted litany of social, personal, practical, and legal controversies.
For instance, in most U.S. states, to humiliate someone publically for something that is not against civil or criminal law is illegal. So-called church discipline in commercial settings is a public announcement and at the very least defamation according to most state laws. A church is especially liable if the subject is employed by someone who is also a member in the same church. If a subject is told that they may not vacate membership because of the church discipline upon pain of public humiliation, that is technically kidnapping in many states. We must remember that the Protestant orthodoxy regarding church discipline was written under the auspices of European church states and will not fit well in a democracy without numerous controversies. Unfortunately, the hard working laity funds the attempt to fit a round peg in a square hole.
Moreover, in regard to membership and church discipline, two questions emerge: What if an unseemly person insists on attending a church, but is not a member, and therefore not under the “authority” of the elders? Also, what if a person vacates membership by letter after first being confronted about an issue to avoid public humiliation? These two questions alone have created a quagmire of controversial debate in the institutional church. Furthermore, the church has applied the text to SIN in general and not what the text specifically addresses: disputes between Christians. The Bible addresses sin issues separately, and the prescription is often different from the Matthew 18:15-20 procedure. The prescription always pertains to an adjustment of fellowship, not an authority to have someone removed from the book of life.
In short, an attempt to fit Matthew 18:15-20 into an institutional setting reveals the folly of Christ’s assembly as an institution of any sort. It replaces simple fellowship with membership, leadership with authority, and aggressive kingdom citizenship with salvation via institution.
Endnotes
11. Dr. Jay E. Adams: Nouthetic .org; Grow By Grace, November 6, 2013.
12. Online source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2006/05/john-piper-friday-using-our-mouths-to-impart-grace/
13. Rev. Bruce Buchanan: Puritan Board .com; The ordinary Means of Grace | Online source: http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/ordinary-means-grace-19104/
14. Online source: http://www.reformationstudycenter.com/Justification-AConcern-Piper.html
15. One example among many is an article written by Pastor James MacDonald. Online source: http://jamesmacdonald.com/jamestoday/blog/congregational-government-is-from-satan/ which has been scrubbed, but agreed with and restated by another popular evangelical ministry here: http://9marks.org/article/congregationalism-is-used-by-satan-like-he-uses-everything-else/
16. Online sources: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/24636702/dallas-man-suing-rabbi-neighbor-over
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/02/far_north_dallas_rabbi_cries_d.php
New Calvinism and the Great Society
Didn’t plan on doing any writing today as I am trying to tie up family chores in order to start back on writing projects tomorrow. However, I always make the mistake of checking in on FaceBook before I get started with my day. Couldn’t resist but to comment on a post, and thought it would make a decent post here as well.
I read the article over at Desiring God.org, and of course, John Piper is the “elder statesman” of the Neo-Calvinist “resurgence” which has been going on since 1970. The movement has all but totally owned the American church for 10 years, but yet we are in an increasingly, according to the article, “secular” and “post Christianity” gospel misinformed society. Hmmmm, whose fault is that?
Truly, the New Calvinist movement has to be the spiritual version of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society.” Trillions of dollars have been poured into the program since the 60’s and at the end of the day, it is an abject failure (see “Detroit”). The New Calvinist movement, since its conception in 1970, has escalated into a multi-billion dollar religious empire with a massive sub-culture of church “campuses” and innumerable information networks. Yet, we see the emergence of a never-before-known phenomenon called “the Nones”: people who have given up on church but not God. Like the liberal media, the New Calvinist evangelical industrial complex bears no responsibility for this and continually claims to be the new kids on the block with all the answers to the woes they have created.
Not only do we have the phenomenon of the Nones, but in 2009 spiritual abuse blogs, primarily focused on the New Calvinists, exploded onto the blogosphere. This movement also created the advent of intercessory organizations like Peacemaker Ministries to keep congregants from suing churches. Ironically, these organizations are supported by local churches, and therefore funded by the laity, just in case they would want to sue the institutional church.
Unfortunately, the institutional Protestant church has NEVER advocated individual evangelism because of its Platonist foundation and subsequent spiritual caste system. It has always been the producers bringing people to the expert, or specially anointed evangelist. I shouldn’t have to say anything more than “Billy Graham” to make the point here.
And, neither is said article advocating Christ’s individual mandate, but rather a “community effort.” And be sure of this, Collectivism is always about “community.”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments