Still Waiting for an Answer
“They can’t answer these questions honestly without exposing who they really are.”
I decided to stroll back over to the article that was referred to me the other day on Justin Taylor’s blog. Another reader made a comment about comments over there, so I found myself led by morbid curiosity. Taylor is promoting an upcoming article by heretic David Powlison that supposedly explains how we kinda live by the same gospel that saved us, but then again we kinda don’t. The crux is that the all-knowing Powlison assures us that all is well. Even though his pontifications create three questions for everyone he vaguely answers, we can’t resist trusting his Mr. Rogers demeanor. As an aside, let me mention that I was surprised to see a positive comment from Jason Hood who once denounced, “sanctification by justification.”
I decided to chime in, and shockingly, the comments posted. The screen shot follows:
Clearly, and not surprisingly, a sanctification endowed with a hankering to be justified by works as the essence of sin is what’s being propagated here. Of course, this turns sound gospel doctrine completely on its head. And they might answer my questions, but because I know what these guys really believe, I don’t see a place for them to go with this.
Since the apostle Paul said that seeking to be justified by works cuts us off from Christ, at what point in sanctification are we cut off or not cut off? Taylor states that this temptation will always be present in sanctification, so what constitutes its conception? And if we repent of whatever that is, does that mean we are resaved, or never saved prior, or is there a grace period for figuring out our error, or what? Moreover, the question that eventually got me excommunicated from Clearcreek Chapel: “How do we distinguish between our ‘own efforts’ in sanctification and other efforts?” “And how do we know when it is our “own” or the, we can only surmise, GOOD EFFORTS in sanctification?” “And what are the consequences of trying to please God in ‘our own efforts’ in sanctification?” They can’t answer these questions honestly without exposing who they really are.
Bottom line: they believe what we do in sanctification can affect the finished work of God’s calling to eternal life. That’s a huuuuuuge problem. According to Taylor, and frankly, he got it from Calvin, we are constantly tempted to aid God in a finished work that was finished before the earth was created with the results guaranteed (ROM 8:29,30).
And that’s the rub: Calvin didn’t believe that justification is finished. Why? Because Calvin believed that law is the standard of justification. Calvin believed that a perfect keeping of the law had to be maintained in sanctification for us to remain justified. Therefore, he believed the death of Christ to be “perpetual.” He couldn’t reconcile the imperfection of the saints in sanctification with any other interpretation of justification. He defined the righteousness of God imputed to us, by the law. As a philosophical matter, one must ask if the Bible fully defines the righteousness of God that was imputed to us to begin with.
At any rate, Calvin rejected the imputation of God’s righteousness APART from the law (ROM 3:21). The law is still around to maintain justification and define it. A just standing is fed and maintained by a constant, perfect obedience to the law. The law is NOT SEPARATE, it is perfectively obeyed by Christ “for us” IN SANCTIFCATION. This is what these filthy lying heretics will not plainly state. If they were honest about it, the gig would be up. I contend that the law need not be upheld by anybody FOR JUSTIFICATION.
We are not “under” it for justification. If it has to be maintained, we are still under it. Who keeps it is beside the point. We are under grace and informed by the law for sanctification, and now desire the law of truth while despising the mortality that keeps us from obeying the law perfectly as a matter of pleasing our Father—not the maintenance of justification. Besides, efforts at self-justification NEVER involve biblical truth but the traditions of men. Calvin propagated the idea that a sincere endeavor to obey the truth of Scripture could be an effort to justify ourselves. In contrast, self-justification NEVER walks hand in hand with a love for the truth. However, New Calvinists are very much about that idea in order to keep the faithful in fear that without them they will unwittingly end up trying to justify themselves by seeking to love the Lord through truthful obedience. It’s a control fetish that they inherited from their Platonist father Augustine.
And particularly, Taylor can’t answer the last question. Are we enslaved to this sin of self-justification in sanctification? If he says “yes,” that contradicts the clear sense of Scripture. If he says “no,” that contradicts his master, CJ Mahaney.
paul
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
Justin Taylor: We Cannot Know With Certainty Who is Saved Until the Final Judgment
Justin Taylor answered some questions about Calvinism on a blog recently. Here is how he was introduced:
Justin Taylor is a popular blogger and leader in the modern Reformed movement. The vice president of book publishing and an associate publisher at Crossway, he has edited and contributed to several books and served as the managing editor for The ESV Study Bible. He blogs at Between Two Worlds.
As I have said before, Calvinism is a gospel where you are elected to run a race of faith alone. If you aren’t elected, you don’t even get on the racetrack. If you are elected to run the race, the race must be run by faith alone and we must persevere against a supposed constant temptation to implement our own efforts in the running by faith alone race. The race must be run the same way we were saved, by faith and repentance alone via “obedience of faith,” “deep repentance,” and “new obedience” being the result. Sure, we are elected and our salvation is past (already), but the “not yet” will determine if we finished the race by faith alone. This is often referred to as the already/not yet in Reformed circles.
It also necessitates a single, final judgment of all people that includes those not in the race (non-elect), those who were in the race but were disqualified for adding works to their faith (apostates), and those who finished the race by faith alone and receive the crown of life.
Hence, when the following question was asked,
What would you tell someone who has not been chosen by God to be saved?
Taylor answered this way:
Who is ultimately among the elect will only be known with certainty at the Day of Judgment. Now—in the already/not-yet, “between the times”—we must obey God’s revealed will, which is to preach the gospel indiscriminately. (For the distinction between God’s secret and revealed wills, see Deut. 29:29.)
So I would tell anyone to “believe in the risen Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9). I would encourage them to “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). I would tell them that Jesus is calling them: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28)—even though in the previous verse Jesus had said that no one knows the Father expect those to whom the Son reveals him (v. 27).
This Reformed gospel construct runs afoul of much literal interpretation, but primary in regard to the clear statements in Scripture that posit more than one resurrection and judgment, and the clear teaching by the apostle John that we can know for certain that we are saved (1John 5:13).
paul
New Calvinists like to say, “What’s that look like?” Well, it kinda looks like Plato.
Read this post: deliteralizing-the-bible-from-plato-to-peterson
The following is what it “looks like”:
The New Calvinist License To Kill: And Did God Really Condemn Christ To Hell?
This isn’t real complicated. Gospel Contemplationism, by virtue of its reductionism must necessarily be embellished or you will simply run out of material. Even for intelligent people like John Piper, the necessity to go “ever deeper and deeper” into the gospel that saved us can be a real challenge. I have predicted in the past that two things must eventually happen in this movement: “truth” will be embellished beyond the confines of being defensible, and because contemplative theologies are by nature antinomian—revelations of decadence will eventually begin to emerge.
Embellished “Truth”
The challenge is to see the gospel in every verse of the Bible. The cradle of New Calvinism, the Australian Forum, a Reformed think tank created by Robert Brinsmead, taught that the Holy Spirit only illumines Scripture in context of the gospel. The Forum also taught that the letter of Scripture itself had to be judged by the “spirit of the gospel.” The gospel is spirit, but using Scripture for instruction was to use the Bible like the Jews used the Torah. “The Spirit gives life, but the letter kills” (Robert Brinsmead, The Danger of Biblicism).
Of course, a lot of awesome things can be written and preached about justification. A now good friend of mine who sang at my wedding introduced herself to me by complaining about my continual calling out of Piper. She mentioned that she had recently read a Piper book and thought it was awesome. I’m sure it was. Justification is an awesome subject. I then challenged her to reread the book and find examples of truth that could be applied to life in the spirit of Matthew 7:24-27. She called two days later, astonished at her findings, and a friendship was born.
However, the human mind has limitations, and soon, the need to implement the imagination will arise. Hence, at the 2009 Resolved conference, John Piper and CJ Mahaney taught that Christ’s cry to the father while on the cross was “the scream of damnation.” Apparently, they got the concept from RC Sproul, who used to be rock solid, but now it would appear that senility has opened his mind to the nonsensical theological acrobatics of our day. Likewise, the same consideration might apply to John MacArthur who spoke at the conference and also sponsored it; he is getting up in years as well. I offer this as a possible excuse for both of them though the vision of my heart longs to see them as the gray-haired stalwarts of the faith that I thought they were. Here is what Sproul said:
“Once the sin of man was imputed to Him, He became the virtual incarnation of evil. The load He carried was repugnant to the Father. God is too holy to even look at iniquity. God the Father turned His back upon the Son, cursing Him to the pit of hell while on the cross. Here was the Son’s ‘descent into hell.’ Here the fury of God raged against Him. His scream was the scream of the damned. For us” (Tabletalk magazine, My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me? April 1990, p. 6).
Steve Camp, on his blog, wrote a tame but thoroughly convincing argument against such a notion. But the fact that Camp thought such a significant expenditure of effort was needed is indicative of our day; surely, only ten years ago, such a thesis would have invoked a horrendous outcry among God’s people.
Contrastively, in a sickening display of affirmation by the poster child of mindless Koolaid drinking, Justin Taylor posted an email sent to Piper and Mahaney by a well known New Calvinist, praising them for this supposed new and wonderful take on the gospel. Stay tuned, more will come, including the weekly re-baptizing of Christians if it is not already going on.
Decadence
Jennifer Knapp, the Christian music artist who is a professing lesbian, recently praised Al Mohler (one of the “core four” of the New C. T4G org.) for his comments concerning “homophobia,” a term coined by non-professing liberals. My new friend Peter Lumpkins reports on it extensively on his blog: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/ Go there and type in “homophobia” in the search engine box and several articles written by Peter on this event will appear. Jennifer Knapp is a good example of how New Covenant Theology, a tenet of New Calvinism, will work itself out in the lives of, well, “God’s people?” Note here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-x5 and here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-kP .
As I state in my upcoming book, “Another Gospel,” this doctrine is indicative of the antinomianism that will be prevalent in the last days. In fact, the antichrist is referred to several times as the “anomia one” or the “man of anomia.” Also prevalent with antinomianism is lovelessness. In speaking of the last days, Christ said that the hearts of many would be cold “because of anomia.” The heartless character of this movement is well documented; for instance, the hostile takeover of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. Another example would be the excommunication of 256 members for non-attendance from a SBC church. The pastor of that church is a hero among New Calvinists for that reason, and many other NC churches followed the example. By the way, it is my understanding that the same church has closed mid-week Bible studies which smells cultish to me.
This ministry (GS Infonet) has its share of information in regard to the heartlessness of New Calvinism, especially in the way church discipline is used to control parishioners, including parishioners being brought up on discipline for not tithing. Others are disciplined for questioning doctrine while some in the same churches live together out of wedlock which apparently is a law issue and not a gospel issue. The practice of integrating church discipline with formal and informal “biblical counseling” is also a major concern. When Gospel Contemplationism doesn’t correct the sin, much to the surprise of the counselee, they find themselves under discipline for “unrepentance.” Others are counseled that they are in a mixed marriage (saved/unsaved) because one spouse holds to a synergistic view of sanctification. Truly, no amount of words could adequately describe the carnage being left behind by this movement. Lastly, it is my understanding that Soverien Grace Ministries, overseen by one of the “core four,” CJ Mahaney, has amassed an unbelievable record of pastoral abuse and decadence while being lent creditably by the who’s who of evangelical New Calvinists like Al Mohler and John MacArthur . I have been referred to Survivor’s of SGM.com, but frankly I am already drowning in this kind of information regarding New Calvinism. Apparently, such revelations forced CJ Mahaney into a “sabbatical” to deal with his mistakes while his promoters decline comment.
Bottom line: if you carry the Calvinist/Reformed label, you have a license to kill, and to rape, pillage, and steal—just don’t question doctrine or come up short on your tithe.
I saw a video trailer for the 2009 Resolved event where the damnation of Christ was proclaimed for the supposed purpose of showing mindless followers the gospel in a “deeper” way. I was aghast in regard to the mega rock star motif that dominated. That’s a whole other post—the cult of personality that is New Calvinism. For now, I will not go there, but will rather close with a poem written by the aforementioned friend who used to follow John Piper:
Enamored
Enamored is a youthful state,
Where fledgling citizens confiscate
Old ideas and make them new,
A secular taste for Holy truth.
But I reject this play of light,
And move past men with deeds that blight
And tarnish souls with sinful depth
While we proceed gravely inept
To grasp the ark when dirt is better.
Douse the illusion!
Illumine the Letter!
~Lara Moon
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments