X-Ray the Idol Hunter Rumored to Make a Showing at 2013 Gospel Coalition in Orlando
“As Powlison brings the latest findings from Westminster’s research and development team on idol hunting, it only makes sense that X-Ray would want to be briefed.”
Those of you who have been a part of PPT since its beginning in 2009 are aware of who X-Ray the Idol Hunter is. She is kind of the Big Foot of New Calvinism. Her possible existence surfaced in 2010 during John Piper’s sabbatical. Piper said he was taking the sabbatical because he had observed several “species of pride” in his soul. According to other statements he made, he had consulted Tim Keller and Paul David Tripp on how to peel away several different levels of idolatry in order to find these “species.” Piper never identified the different species with biblical nomenclature.
Piper shared these things prior to beginning his sabbatical which had a predetermined length of eight months. The question soon became the following: how did Piper know that the eradication of these “species,” and all of the peeling away of many levels of idolatry in the soul, would take exactly eight months? If the species where wreaking enough havoc on his soul to cause him to step down for eight months, one must assume that eliminating these creatures would be efficacious.
Well, sure enough, Piper returned to the ministry eight months later. That’s when the rumors started. Obviously, Piper had an ace in the hole. It is doubtful that Sonship theology, the primary doctrine that promotes idol hunting in the heart would have been enough to guarantee such a victory. The doctrine was concocted by Dr. John “Jack” Miller in the 80’s and articulated by David Powlison and Paul David Tripp. David Powlison oversees a research and development team at Westminster Seminary that endeavors to come up with better and better ways to hunt down idols in the heart. Miller was able to identify twenty-five species of idols to get the ball rolling.
Powlison and Tripp devised what they call “X-Ray questions” that help people detect these idols which manifest themselves in our desires. All and all, Powlison has devised around 135 such questions. The questions reveal desires, and the desire leads to the species.
But after the return of Piper, people started asking questions, and strange manifestations began to be noticed at New Calvinist conferences where Piper, Powlison, Keller, and Tripp appeared. Powlison and Keller are self-proclaimed mentorees of John Miller. One such manifestation was seen on a conference website and appears below:
Furthermore, the following spears were found at yet another conference:
Putting it in a way that David Powlison would, X-Ray is kinda, perhaps, like a parody, but then again, kinda not to demonstrate the mindless New Calvinist following of mysticism on the issue of change. As Jay E. Adams well noted in his treatise against Sonship theology, idol hunting seems to be a kissing cousin to species of demons that supposedly cause Christians to sin. Hence, a different demon for each sin, and as Piper noted just prior to his last sabbatical, Tim Keller informs us that some levels of idol hunting are only obtained by fasting and prayer. Yet, someone had to know that the extraction of the “species” that were hounding Piper would only take exactly eight months to extract. PPT was sent a top secret picture of X-Ray, and we neither vouch for this picture nor deny it. Like Big Foot, the jury is kinda still out:
With Powlison, Keller, Tripp, and Piper all coming to this year’s Gospel Coalition conference in Orlando, a manifestation of X-Ray is very possible. As Powlison brings the latest findings from Westminster’s research and development team on idol hunting, it only makes sense that X-Ray would want to be briefed.
Stay tuned.
paul
New Calvinists Think it is Cool and Funny to Reject the New Birth
“You must be born again.”
~ The Lord Jesus Christ
Why David Powlison is a Liar
Cultists are all the same. First, they believe they understand a higher knowledge that most Christians are not “ready for.” Example: in an interview with John Piper conducted by someone who asked him what he would say to the Pope if he had two minutes with him, Piper stated in no uncertain terms that most Christians are not ready for the true Reformation gospel of justification by faith alone [in sanctification]. Secondly, this mentality allows them to condone the hijacking of familiar Christian terms/phrases and use them to deceive. Example: when they use the term progressive sanctification they really mean progressive justification and they know it grade-A well. It’s deliberate deception.
“Cult” is a loosely used term and it should be. Cults are defined as any group that seeks to control others through deception. They are also defined by being sectarian; in other words, their false doctrine divides relationships of various kinds. New Calvinism has its roots in ancient spiritual caste systems that are defined by those characteristics. Much of today’s religion finds its origins in those ancient philosophies. So “cult” is going to be a term often used, and rightfully so.
This post was instigated by an email I received from a reader regarding a recent article by David Powlison in the revamped The Journal of Biblical Counseling. I believe Powlison to be, for many documented reasons, an unrepentant, habitual liar. The article that was referred to me, as you can tell, has ruffled my feathers. I’m just fed up with all of the deception. The link was a review written by John Piper puppet Justin Taylor. What is the gist of the article? Powlison is going to explain why being sanctified by justification is only one small part of the full counsel of God that he pretends to proffer. In one promotion for the article we read,
David Powlison challenges the popular views on sanctification that take one strand in Scripture and present it as the be all and end all of Christian growth. He specifically engages the strengths and weaknesses of the view that asserts, “You are sanctified by remembering that you are justified.”
Um, excuse me, but first of all, the idea that Christian growth comes from preaching the gospel to ourselves every day or revisiting the gospel isn’t even “one strand” of Scripture to begin with. That strand isn’t there period. It’s a lie directly from the pit of hell itself. According to Taylor, Powlison will address the following in part 2 of the article:
In an article planned for the next issue of the journal, Powlison plans to look at several related questions:
Is sanctification essentially the activity of remembering and rebelieving that Jesus died for your sins? Is self-justification by your own performance the chief problem that sanctification must deal with? When the Bible says to “make every effort,” is the hard work chiefly the struggle to remember and believe again that we are saved by the achievement of our Savior? “In each case,” he writes, “I will say No, and will seek to widen both our personal approach to sanctification and the scope of ministry to others.”
Powlison chooses his words carefully. He is going to “teach” us how to “widen” our “approach to sanctification.” But the “approach” is still singular, and as this blog has exhaustively documented, his approach is exclusively Christocentric. Powlison’s language is also continually saturated with nuance such as, “I will say no.” Why not just say NO and be done with it? Because the answer is not really “no,” that’s why. That’s the usual Powlison speak for, “It’s kinda ‘no’ but then again it’s kinda ‘yes’”
Let me make my point with this excerpt from Taylor’s blog:
Is self-justification by your own performance the chief problem that sanctification must deal with?
Um, excuse me, but if you are a Christian, self-justification in sanctification is a complete impossibility. But notice that it is conceded that such is a possibility by referring to it as a question of being the “chief problem.” Also note that the concern isn’t those who attempt to be saved by their works which then cannot be called sanctification to begin with, but that self-justification in and of itself is possible in sanctification. The very question verifies what Powlison really believes. Works justification CANNOT take place in sanctification. Where works justification is present, sanctification cannot exist. The very framing of the question shows that Powlison doesn’t believe that the two are mutually exclusive. Moreover, we need them to guide us through the very tricky business of figuring out what is our “own performance” in sanctification resulting in “self-justification” verses what isn’t our own efforts in sanctification. Again, their very premise is a biblical impossibility, but reveals what they really believe.
Powlison is a cultist extraordinaire. That’s what he is. Like all New Calvinists.
paul
What John Piper Really Believes
“How are we changed by God if nothing happens inside of us?”
“Reformation epistemology must exclude any improvement or grace inside of us; otherwise, by their own definition, reality cannot be known.”
“This brings us to the fact that Reformers, both old and new, seek to create a completely different reality of thought and metaphysics in order to control their followers. They also rewrite church history to match this created reality of their own making.
What John Piper really believes represents the basic principles of the Reformation gospel. The Reformation has always been endowed with those who can sell snow to the Eskimos. The official name of their doctrine sounds so theologically cutting edge: the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. One thinks: “Right, the gospel should be central, no? And, we were not saved by any kind of knowledge that was within us; of course we were informed by the all-knowing God! Salvation wasn’t something that originated within us!” This is something that the Reformers, past and present, are absolute masters of: drawing people in by using terminology that plays on their assumptions. Hence, “total depravity” is assumed to only apply to the unregenerate. Hence, “justification by faith alone” is assumed to apply to, well, justification alone, when it really applies to both justification and sanctification. Luther and Calvin didn’t see this as disingenuous because they believed the two are the same anyway. Hence, “Scripture alone” assumes applicable knowledge rather than Christocentric contemplationism. But that’s the first one: assumptive terminology; terminology that plays on the assumptions of others.
John Piper has been very careful to stay aloof from the progressive Adventist movement that rediscovered Luther’s “justification by faith alone” gospel and spawned the present-day New Calvinist tsunami. The leader of that movement started a Reformed think tank to systemize the doctrine for contemporary consumption. He was joined by Graeme Goldsworthy who wrote several articles for the think tank’s theological journal in the seventies. But when Goldsworthy was invited to Southern Seminary to lecture, Piper couldn’t help himself; someone who really understood the heart of Reformation theology lecturing at Southern approached orgasmic reality.
TANC Publishing, our own anti-Reformation think tank has known since 2010 what this gospel is, in its least common denominator, but were perplexed concerning the big picture. We understood elements and cause/effect, but in essence, our thoughts were: “How in the world does this work in real life?” We came to believe that said think tank, The Australian Forum, had created an image that captured the big picture of the Reformation gospel, but what in the world could the picture really mean? (Click to enlarge if necessary):
As you can see, anything going on within the believer yields bad results. We called this illustration the “fetus” because we knew it captured the essence of the Reformation gospel, but again, what does it mean in real life? How are we changed by God if nothing happens inside of us? This brings us to the day in 2009 when John Piper couldn’t help himself. He wrote an article on his Desiring God blog that concurred with Goldsworthy on why the Reformation was needed. Supposedly, the Reformation was needed because Rome infused the works of Christ inside of the believer. Because Rome and the Reformers both saw justification as a continuous “chain” from eternity past to “final justification,” any “work” by the believer , whether done by Christ within us, or otherwise, makes us participants in justification. Rome is/was ok with this, the Reformers were not. This author uses almost the whole fourth chapter of The Truth About New Calvinism to document Piper’s commentary on this.
So, regardless of the entire “inside of us” lingo used by Piper et al, they don’t believe there is any grace inside us. Christ doesn’t do work inside of us; if He did, that would “make sanctification the ground of our justification.” Again, because sanctification is the middle links in the chain from eternal justification to so-called final justification. If we are involved in the links at all, we are a part of our own justification and are making “sanctification the ground of our justification.” It all must be a work of God by faith alone. I delve into this matter in detail in Sessions two and three of the 2012 TANC Conference, and in False Reformation published this year.
However, we contend that if salvation is a “chain,” EVERYTHING we do in sanctification is a work. Whether thinking, praying, or meditation, we are still involved in the links. Calvinism makes distinctions between what is a work in sanctification and what isn’t a work in sanctification and thereby classifies passive activities as faith and not works. WORKS ARE WORKS, AND ARE NOT DEFINED BY DEGREE OF PASSIVITY. This is why justification and sanctification must be separate.
Once Calvinism categorizes what is of faith in the Christian life and what is of works, these same conduits are used to live by faith alone which equals all of grace staying COMPLETLEY outside of us. Look back at the illustration—it is what it is. However, their thesis is crippled by the idea that thinking is not a work. Nevertheless, we will begin with Luther and Calvin’s dualist approach to understanding wisdom and use it to reveal how contemporary Calvinists use deliberate deception in propagating this false gospel.
Luther and Calvin believed that all reality was understood by a deeper and deeper understanding of God’s holiness as set against a deeper and deeper understanding of our sinfulness. And this is how people are saved as well: by faith (in whom God is) and repentance (from how evil we are). Neither of these change, the key is a deeper understanding on our part in regard to both. When this continues to happen, the works of Christ are continually imputed to us throughout our Christian life in the same way we were saved; i.e., justification by faith because “sanctification” is really the progression of justification. The works of Christ are imputed to us as we “see” them in the Bible. This is indisputable as illustrated by THEIR OWN chart published by a New Calvinist organization (Click to enlarge if necessary).
Therefore, New Calvinists communicate within the context of this dualism: the cross story, or your story. It’s either all you, or all God in sanctification. It is either the Cross Chart illustration or a chart that notes some goodness/grace within you. We call this the Either/Or hermeneutic. New Calvinist preaching /teaching well rarely present a metaphysical balance/middle ground/alternative perspective accordingly. The messages will always, in some way, merely contrast total depravity and God’s holiness.
In regard to believing that justification and sanctification are one and the same, we call this the Missing Transition communication technique. In teaching and preaching, New Calvinists continually transition between elements of justification and sanctification without a transition in subject as if they believe the two are one and the same. And that’s exactly what they believe. This has the effect of Christians functioning as if there is no sanctification due to the proverbial out of sight—out of mind consequence. While rejecting the idea of no sanctification when verbalized, that’s how they function because their mental data lacks sanctification wisdom. And be sure of it: this is by design.
New Calvinists also employ terminology that leads followers into assuming that their doctrine is normal. An example is, “heart change.” The heart speaks of that which is inside of us, right? The following New Calvinist illustration, again, THEIR OWN, illustrates that this is deception (Click to enlarge if necessary):
If we can do no work other than seeing our own depravity more and more, how does the heart on the other side of the chart pertain to us? If we change, would that not prevent us from understanding reality because there is less and less of our own depravity to see? Reformation epistemology must exclude any improvement or grace inside of us; otherwise, by their own definition, reality cannot be known. Obviously, “heart” does not pertain to our “heart” per se. It’s assumptive terminology. It plays on the known assumptions of others.
This brings us to the fact that Reformers, both old and new, seek to create a completely different reality of thought and metaphysics in order to control their followers. They also rewrite church history to match this created reality of their own making. Since reality is Christocentric, and all life must be found in the knowledge of the “Sun,” to the degree that we emphasize anything else other than the life-giving rays of the “Sun” (Son), we diminish true life.
This enables New Calvinists to posit all things true, such as the new birth, “in us” terminology, and the other members of the Trinity while pointing to the whole issue of “emphasis.” Sure, all of those other things apart from Christ are certainly TRUE, but they are forms or shadows of reality (Christ) and to the degree that we focus on them apart from Christ we diminish the life-giving rays. Those things are “good things, but not the best thing.” They are “the fruit, not the root.” “Oh yes, the Holy Spirit’s sanctification is a wonderful truth! But it is a good thing, not the best thing. It is the fruit, not the root.” So, the more you deemphasize the “good thing” for the “best thing,” the better. And obviously, those things are eventually eliminated.
Obviously, the only place left to go from here for New Calvinists is Eastern mysticism. John Piper and other New Calvinists like Tim Keller are not even subtle about their beliefs in such. Neither was the primary forefather of the Reformation, St. Augustine. TANC is presently hard at work unpacking the specific connections between the two and how they function with Reformed theology, especially in regard to realms, manifestations, and spatial birthing. Susan will be bringing an astounding report to the Conference this June. In one of her sessions, she discusses how Augustine thought the Bible was the completion of Platonism.
Let’s conclude with a list of the six communication techniques used by New Calvinists:
1. Assumptive terminology: plays on the known assumptions of others.
2. Either/Or hermeneutic: interprets all wisdom through good and evil.
3. Missing Transition: excludes subject transitions as a way to subtly deny difference.
4. Metaphysical Redefinition of works and non-works.
5. Emphasis: reduces horizontal reality to one life source.
6. Dualism.
paul
Advocate for the Spiritually Abused? Then Wade Burleson Should Denounce Election in Sanctification
“This is because Western culture has never adequately exposed Reformed theology for what it really is. As long as Protestantism clings to the Reformation myth, it will never completely break free from its bondage to anemic sanctification.”
“If Burleson wants to be an advocate for the spiritually abused he should denounce his Reformed gospel of spiritual tyranny. While he may help some people heal from abuse, he will go back to his pulpit and produce twice as many abusers.”
Last night at our evening Bible study we discussed election. Not election for justification (salvation), but election in sanctification (our Christian life). This is the Reformed idea that God sovereignly elects all of our good works in our Christian life in the same way that he elects some to be saved and passes over others. This leaves them to the choice that is inevitable if God doesn’t intervene; man will never choose God on his own. In the same way concerning sanctification, man is still totally depraved, and unless God intervenes will only do works that are filthy rags before God. In salvation, God only changes man’s position, not his nature. Therefore, in sanctification, God imputes His own good works to our life via intervention and leaves us to our own total depravity in the rest. Choice in justification; works in sanctification; God completely sovereign in both.
Though the application of this is somewhat complex, it boils down to the Reformation’s definition of double imputation: Christ’s righteousness was imputed to us positionally by His death, and the perfect obedience He demonstrated in His life is imputed to our sanctification as a way to keep our justification intact until glorification. Hence, to not believe in sanctified sovereignly elected works in our Christian life is paramount to works salvation. “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us.” Sanctification must be a continual revisiting of salvation by faith alone in order to maintain our justification. This is the very heart of Calvinism. Yes, we do something in sanctification: we continually revisit our need for the gospel, and as we do that, the works of Christ are imputed to us by faith alone in sanctification. This is the theses of the Reformation’s magnum opus, Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation to the Augustinian Order, and articulated by John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. This opposes Biblicism which sees double imputation as our sins imputed to Christ and God’s righteousness imputed to us and sanctification being an entirely different consideration.
We discussed how this authentic doctrine of the Reformation has wreaked havoc on the church. When God is seen as completely sovereign in sanctification, ideological conclusions are then drawn from what actually happens in real life. Rape is God’s will, and the perpetrator is seen as one who is acting out expected behavior where God has not intervened. “But for the grace of God, there go I.” We have all said it. No? All of grace in salvation—all of grace in sanctification. The only difference between you and a rapist is grace; therefore, who are you to judge? Even if you are the victim. Luther and Calvin thought righteous indignation a joke, and Calvin called justice, “mere iniquity.” Luther’s theology of the cross deemed suffering as the most valuable asset of the Reformation’s inner-nihilist theology:
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 (Heidelberg Disputation: Theses 24).
Note that this constant seeking after suffering and self-deprivation leads to being “raised up” in the Christian life. This constant seeking after death leads to joyful rebirths when Christ’s obedience is imputed to us. This is the basis of John Piper’s Christian Hedonism which also implements Theses 28 of the Disputation. As you can see, it’s what they call the new birth. The new birth is something that continually reoccurs in salvation when Christ’s obedience is imputed to us.
The indifference towards suffering that this theology breeds cannot be overstated. It is such that Calvin’s beseechment of the Geneva counsel to have a detractor beheaded rather than burned with green wood is a supposed act of compassion that is Reformed folklore. And be absolutely positive of this: the roots of authentic Calvinism are %99.99 responsible for the spiritual tyranny in the contemporary church—especially among New Calvinists.
This is why I have a problem with Pastor Wade Burleson being postured as a spiritual abuse advocate. I realize that he is a well-known pastor and therefore a valuable advocate for a cause, but promoting him as a defender of the spiritually abused separates logic from consequences. It encourages a hypothetical idea that because all Nazis didn’t execute Jews, Nazism doesn’t necessarily lead to the persecution of Jews. Right, not in all cases, but for every person Burleson helps his doctrine will produce twice the indifference and abuse in other people. Many members of the present-day Nazi party are seemingly quality people who could be utilized in good causes, but the possibility is remote because Western culture has been properly educated in regard to Nazi ideology. Such is not the case with Reformed theology. While a Nazi might make a good carpenter you would likely not hire one as an advocate for the Anti-Defamation League. There are Nazis who would do a fine job in that role but the ideology would do more harm than good in the long run.
We also discussed how authentic Calvinism dies a social death from time to time because of the tyranny that it produces and then experiences resurgence paved by the weak sanctification left in its wake. This is because Western culture has never adequately exposed Reformed theology for what it really is. As long as Protestantism clings to the Reformation myth, it will never completely break free from its bondage to anemic sanctification.
Burleson strongly endorses one of the core four individuals who helped found the present-day New Calvinist movement, Jon Zens:
One of my favorite theologians is Jon Zens. Jon edits the quarterly periodical called Searching Together, formerly known as the Baptist Reformation Review. Jon is thoroughly biblical, imminently concerned with the Scriptures …. The best $10.00 you will ever spend is the yearly subscription to Searching Together (http://www.wadeburleson.org/2010/09/searching-together-edited-by-jon-zens.html).
Zens, who has also been known as an advocate for the spiritually abused, was a key contributor to the Reformed think tank that launched present-day New Calvinism (The Australian Forum) of which some Burleson promoters refer to as the “Calvinistas.” It’s not meant as a compliment. But yet, Burleson’s theology is one and the same with them:
Those who have read Grace and Truth to You for any amount of time know that this author is persuaded the Bible teaches that the eternal rewards of Christians are those rewards–and only those rewards–which are earned by Christ. It is Christ’s obedience to the will and law of the Father that obtains for God’s adopted children our inheritance. It is Christ’s perfect obedience which brings to sinners the Father’s enduring favor and guarantees for us our position as co-heirs with Christ (http://www.wadeburleson.org/2011/11/therefore-knowing-terror-of-lord-we.html).
Those who have faith in Christ will never appear at any future judgment of God, or be rewarded for their good behavior. Our sins were judged at the cross, and the behavior for which we are rewarded is Christ’s behavior (Ibid).
Obviously, other than the previous points made, Burleson’s statement proclaiming Zens as “thoroughly biblical” and his outright rejection of 1COR 3:10-15 and 2COR 5:9-10 are troubling to say the least. Burleson also holds strongly to the exact same method of interpretation that makes elected works in sanctification possible among the “Calvinistas.” That would be the Bible as gospel meta narrative approach. It uses the Bible as a tool for gospel contemplationism which results in the works of Christ being imputed to our sanctification when we “make our story His story.” Luther got the concept from Pope Gregory the Great who believed that meditating on Christ’s works in the Scriptures endears us to Him romantically and thus inspires joyful obedience. It’s all the same rotten mysticism propagated today by John Piper and Francis Chan. It’s a mystical (actually Gnostic) approach to the Bible that makes elected works in sanctification possible.
As a cute way of propagating this nonsense, Burleson has named his para-church ministry “Istoria Ministries Blog.” His blog subheading noted that istoria is a Greek word that combines the idea of history and story:
Istoria is a Greek word that can be translated as both story and history. Istoria Ministries, led by Wade and Rachelle Burleson, helps people experience the life transforming power of Jesus Christ so that their story may become part of His story.
This ministry called him out on the fact that the word istoria does not appear anywhere in the Scriptures which led him to change the subheading a couple of days later. He then changed the subheading to a citation (GAL 1:18) that is the only place in the Bible where the word appears. Only thing is, even then, it’s not “istoria,” it’s “historeo”:
g2477. ιστορεω historeo; from a derivative of 1492; to be knowing (learned), i. e. (by implication) to visit for information (interview):— see.
This citation has nothing to do with his original point of naming his ministry as such. It’s simply the only reference he could find that proves that the word is in the Bible. Kinda, as I said, even then the word is not “istoria.” Istoria is a more contemporary Greek word that in fact can be used as “history” or “story.” But the earliest use of the word seems to be circa 1300, and is most prevalent in referring to the “story paintings” of medieval times. It’s just a lame, almost adolescent attempt to argue for this approach to the Bible.
If Burleson wants to be an advocate for the spiritually abused he should denounce his Reformed gospel of spiritual tyranny. While he may help some people heal from abuse, he will go back to his pulpit and produce twice as many abusers.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
10 comments