As Predicted by PPT: Mike Fabarez and Compass Bible Church Chooses New Calvinism over Truth
Mike Fabarez has caved-in from the pressure to be like everyone else. He has sold out and prostituted himself in the worst way possible: his coronation into the New Calvinist cartel will be at a conference that is CJ Mahaney’s return to the New Calvinist limelight. Heretic Steve Lawson and Neo-Gnostic Rick Holland have decided to expend/risk political influence by standing with Mahaney at the same conference: Anchored 2014.
Undoubtedly, because of his former cause of “Aggressive Sanctification,” Fabarez has been drafted to go along with Jerry Wragg and Kevin DeYoung as the, We believe that believers have a roll in sanctification other than faith alone (wink wink) contingency of the New Calvinist cartel. Like Wragg, Tullian Tchividjian is the target for Fabarez as well because Tchividjian lacks nuance in teaching the exact same thing that they all believe: progressive justification. However, Fabarez was against Tchividjian before he was for him.
The Neo-Calvinists are so utterly vile that one is endeared to Tchividjian for his honesty about what he believes. This also points to his respect for others in regard to not teaching nuanced “truth” that the totally depraved herd is, “not ready for yet.” This also points to his bravery in, The truth is the truth whether folks are ready for it or not so I am going to teach what Luther believed plainly and let the chips fall where they may. Now see, that’s commendable. Furthermore, it would appear that Tullian refuses to hang-out with doctrinal vagrants that get caught in criminal acts and are unrepentant. You have to respect that.
Following is the article that predicted the apostasy that has unfolded:
Calvinism, UFO Cults, and the Vital Union
By the same reasoning, a cat isn’t really the same thing as a cat because it starts walking.
Cognitive Dissonance is a state of anxiety caused by the tension between what someone believes and reality:
In 1956 Leon Festinger coined the term ‘cognitive dissonance’ in When Prophecy Fails. He used the idea to explain the apparently bizarre behaviour of members of a UFO doomsday cult when the leader’s end-of-the-world prophesy failed to occur and it became clear that the world was not going to end. Festinger observed cult members enter a strange state of disturbance – not knowing what to believe or do. Eventually, rather than accept that they were misled or wrong, most cult members preferred to believe it was the power of their faith that saved the world. Perversely this motivated them to recruit new members thereby increasing the membership of the cult!
By observing the sequence of incompatible cognitions leading to strange states requiring resolution – the notion of cognitive dissonance was born. In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957) Festinger defines it as:
The psychological opposition of irreconcilable ideas (cognitions) held simultaneously by one individual, created a motivated force that would lead, under proper conditions, to the adjustment of one’s belief to fit one’s behavior – instead of changing one’s behavior to fit one’s belief (the sequence conventionally assumed).
Since then, the definition has widened somewhat. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance for a useful overview:
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.
Online source: http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/articles/articles/262/0/Cognitive-Dissonance-and-Creative-Tension/Page0.html
Hence, man will seek to reduce cognitive dissonance by one way or the other: by changing beliefs and logic, or by adding a consonant element (click on to enlarge):
Online source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CognitiveDissonanceDiagram.jpg
Church historian John Immel unpacked this concept wonderfully at the 2012 TANC conference TANC 2012 Master. When people refuse to change their logic, it will produce the same actions and results over and over again. Here at PPT, this is our main complaint in regard to discernment bloggers: they seek to change behavior by exposing the behavior; this will never happen, the logic must be addressed. Inevitably, sooner or later, the same logic will reproduce said behavior.
A good example in our day is socialism. Though it has failed miserably throughout history its proponents insist that it is the right logic that has never been properly applied. This idea (and all of its derivatives) is the consonant element buffer; ie., results are meaningless, application is the problem. Hence, an endless array of new consonant buffers are proposed in order to reduce cognitive dissonance—the bad feelings and anxiety associated with a contradiction between what we believe and reality. More often than not, a perpetual clamoring about for some “new teaching” is nothing more than consonant elements seeking to reinforce a primary logic.
Another good example is John Piper’s assertion that John Calvin putting Michael Servetus to death was a moral hiccup in his life, and pointing out that Calvin petitioned for a more humane execution: beheading versus burning. This belief is a consonant element that reduces Piper’s dissonant anxiety in regard to the Calvinist element. Changing his belief about Calvin’s character would necessarily require a change of belief in regard to Calvin’s gospel. Online source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wexGQxXw0I
In regard to the Reformation’s VERY troubling history, the Resolved Conference series from 2005 to 2012 was a massive consonant buffer that sought to rewrite Reformation history.
So then, the goal of this ministry is to keep cognitive dissonance high among Calvinists. At various points, high degrees of dissonant anxiety is likely to lead to a change of logic, and thus ridding the Evangelical community of the Reformed blight as much as possible. This leads to happier lives and a better gospel presentation to the world.
This requires the arduous task of deconstructing a mass of Reformed consonants. One such duty was presented to me yesterday. As more and more Reformed minions understand the doctrine, they verbalize it in an unveiled way that many are not ready for. As spiritual monarchs like Kevin DeYoung know, this raises cognitive dissonance among those who are in process of being boiled like a frog, so there must be intervention via a consonant element. In this case, he employed a guest writer on his blog to supply the buffering.
First, the Reformed hack employed the no dissonance here folks, this is just conversation; no need to worry, all is well:
We have much to be thankful for in the recent discussion regarding justification and sanctification in the Reformed community. And it appears that this will continue to be a discussion for years ahead. First, I am thankful for the renewed zealousness and commitment to the doctrine of justification.
And the ever-handy us against them motif:
It seems every few decades this doctrine needs to be reconsidered and appreciated due to some assault upon it.
And of course, there is always good ole’ fashioned lying via, it’s ok folks, don’t worry, Reformed tradition has always held to an aggressive sanctification:
Second, I am thankful for the seriousness with which some are looking at the doctrine of sanctification. The Reformed community throughout its history has always maintained a strong teaching on the Christian life and the “working out” of our salvation by the Spirit.
“By the Spirit” should be your first clue that something is amiss, but more specifically, Calvin stated the following in regard to the verse that this guy cites:
Then, when he bids us work out our salvation with fear and trembling, all he requires is, that we accustom ourselves to think very meanly of our own strength, and confide in the strength of the Lord (CI 3.2.23).
“All he requires” is our affirmation that we, as Christians are still “wretched” (sec. 22), and still deserving of condemnation (sec. 24), and unable to please God in any way (3.14.11). This statement by the guest writer is deliberate deception. Aggressive sanctification apart from justification is the clear implication, and he knows grade-A-well that’s not Calvinism.
Thus far, this guest writer on DeYoung’s blog has employed the following techniques to reduce cognitive dissonance:
1. The issue is not a truth linchpin, only a conversation about residuals.
2. Us against them.
3. Lying.
Next, the guest writer presents the cognitive element:
However, one position of the recent discussion is of concern. In some of the current conversation it has been advocated that sanctification purely flows out of our justification. With this tact the Christian is encouraged to merely look back to the reality of their justification in order to grow in sanctification or we are told that sanctification is just “getting used to our justification.”
Once again, this master cultist reminds his readers that this is merely a “discussion” of “concern” and not a linchpin of truth leading to legitimate cognitive dissonance. He also reemploys lying by stating that his rendition of the “discussion…of concern” is not the Reformed tradition. That’s a lie. Calvin advocates said description throughout the Calvin Institutes. I wouldn’t even know where to begin with the citations, but one may start with 3.14.11.
The writer then presents the consonant buffer:
But often missing in this pastoral advice or theology is the essential and necessary doctrine of union with Christ. This doctrine also has a long and robust history in the Reformed community. One only needs to think back to Calvin to realize how important this doctrine has been in our circles. Dr. Richard Gaffin in a short article entitled, “Justification and Union with Christ” (which can be found in Theological Guides to Calvin’s Institutes edited by David Hall and Peter Lillback) states:
“…for Calvin sanctification as an ongoing, lifelong process follows justification, and in that sense justification is ‘prior’ to sanctification, and the believer’s good works can be seen as the fruits and signs of having been justified. Only those already justified are being sanctified. But this is not the same thing as saying, what Calvin does not say, that justification is the source of sanctification or that justification causes sanctification. That source, that cause is Christ by his Spirit, Christ, in whom, Calvin is clear in this passage, at the moment they are united to him by faith, sinners simultaneously receive a twofold grace (justification and sanctification) and so begins an ongoing process of being sanctified just as they are now also definitively justified” (p.256). (Made bold for our purposes)
The writer is restating the cognitive element which is the source of possible cognitive dissonance in a different way and saying it is different. This is a Reformed brainwashing technique that makes synonyms antonyms in regard to words, phrases, and concepts. If the common meaning of a word causes conflict with the doctrine resulting in cognitive dissonance, they will employ synonyms of that word and use them as consonant buffers. It’s deliberate cultic brainwashing. These are well-studied techniques that replaced the stake and the gallows after the American Revolution. In other words, manipulation replaced force. This was the beginning of cults which are predicated by control. “Cult” is an institutional concept, not an individual one.
The writer makes the “discussion…of concern” the anti-type using Gaffin’s statement, then claims that Calvin stated a contrary type, and then produces a consonant buffer that is no whit different than the anti-type; viz, the vital union: “and so begins an ongoing process of being sanctified just as they are now also definitively justified.”
The vital union is a “process” that sanctifies us “just as” (in the same way) that we are “now” (presently) “justified.” How is that any different than sanctification by justification? It isn’t. The finished work begins a progressive work that is the same work as the finished work, only it’s progressive. By the same reasoning, a cat isn’t really the same thing as a cat because it starts walking. The following chart may be helpful (click on to enlarge):
The writer then somewhat reinforces the original antitype causing the cognitive dissonance because he knows it is really a true depiction of the doctrine that is being stated in a way that many are not ready for:
Those encouraging us to purely “get used to our justification” or to “look back to our justification” are rightfully concerned about a “works righteousness” mindset among God’s people. They are fittingly holding up grace before the Christian’s eyes. I am thankful for that concern and share it. In no way should we diminish the centrality of grace and praise God that these voices are reminding the church. They are also rightly concerned that we acknowledge and know the freedom (Romans 6) that attends to the individual who has been justified. How essential it is that we know and dwell in this freedom of the Gospel. There is a true benefit to looking back to our justification. And yet we also want to be careful not to swallow up sanctification in the doctrine of justification (This appears to be the practical outcome for some as any exhortation or application to the Christian life which wanders outside of “look back to your justification” is met with the cry, “Legalism”)
The writer then sets this against the supposed proper type, the vital union, which he renames, “Christ”:
But of even greater importance is that in trying to safeguard grace and the Gospel it is possible that some are unknowingly diminishing the center of the Gospel: Christ. It is from our vital union with Him that not only our justification flows, but also our sanctification. It is the doctrine behind both.
So, the vital union encompasses, “both” while being the same thing as the anti-type. Justification “flows”—sanctification is therefore flowing justification; the type and anti-type are saying the same thing. The rest of the article reiterates the same premise with wordiness on steroids.
But while utilizing these kinds of communication techniques they are bound to trip on their own words. A reader at PPT made an astute observation in that regard:
At the end of DeYoungs article, he leaves the reader with this quote from Calvin.
“Not only does he cleave to us by an indivisible bond of fellowship, but with a wonderful communion, day by day, he grows more and more into one body with us, until he becomes completely one with us (Institutes, 3.2.24).”
Christ grows more and more into one body until he becomes one with us??
The scripture I read says we have been made one with him at rebirth and as we are sanctified we become more like him. I am the one who does the changing. I am already one with Him.
Right, obviously, the idea of Christ growing in some way as opposed to us growing is a serious anomaly.
paul
Mohler, DeYoung, Carson, Dever Defend CJ Mahaney’s Known Criminal Behavior in Recent Statement
“Mahaney has never repented of this documented criminal act. But while Mark Dever excommunicated 256 people for non-attendance, which isn’t a biblical reason to bring anyone up on church discipline to begin with, he is giving Mahaney a pass on blackmail and coercion.”
When are Christians at large going to stop letting New Calvinists frame the discussions to their desirable outcomes? DA Carson et al have issued statements explaining their silence about the SGM pedophile class action lawsuit. See here: SGM Civil Case pdf And no, I don’t have a “trigger alert” for its reading, suck it up and face the facts; it’s the American church in living color. The “unadjusted gospel,” the “scandalous gospel” [true that], the “shocking gospel,” the “underestimated” gospel has inundated the American church for 43 years now—WHERE’S THE BEEF?
Instead of revival and “real lasting change” we have two Reformed organizations needed to keep Calvinists out of court, innumerable broken families and friendships, innumerable church splits, an unprecedented doctrinally dumbed down congregant, a massive exodus of people from the organized church known as “The Nones,” a Neo-Calvinist resurgence exclusive to upper income churches, and innumerable spiritual abuse blogs spawned by the New Calvinist movement which again has had 43 years to make its mark. When are Christians going to start asking the hard questions?
The statements clearly reveal the true character of these evil, wicked men. They falsely accused one blogger of issuing unsubstantiated information about the suit. How can you call the posting of the actual lawsuit unsubstantiated? The statements are blotted with hypocrisy and indications of how stupid they think people are. And frankly, I don’t have time to unravel it all, so let me cut to the quick. But first, let me mention that Mark Dever, who excommunicated 256 parishioners for non-attendance and was applauded for it, along with the others, vindicated Mahaney based on a ruling by a civil judge. In the statement, they also declare Mahaney innocent and fit for ministry based on what they know of him while rejecting the massive outcry against him. Who made them judge?
But let’s just zero in on one fact that they ignore and that Mahaney has never repented of. Oddly, this incident is widely reported as an attempt by Mahaney to force the cofounder of SGM out of the ministry—the opposite is true; Mahaney tried to blackmail the cofounder in order to force him into remaining a member of SGM. In most states, this is clearly a criminal act:
Transcript of Phone Conversation between C.J., Doris and Larry Tomczak on October 3, 1997 pp. 10-11:
C.J.: Doctrine is an unacceptable reason for leaving P.D.I.
Larry: C.J., I’m not in sync with any of the T.U.L.I.P., so whether you agree or not, doctrine is one of the major reasons I believe it is God’s will to leave P.D.I. and it does need to be included in any statement put forth.
C.J.: If you do that, then it will be necessary for us to give a more detailed explanation of your sins [ie, beyond the sin of leaving for doctrinal reasons].
Larry: Justin’s name has been floated out there when there’s statements like revealing more details about my sin. What are you getting at?
C.J.: Justin’s name isn’t just floated out there – I’m stating it!
Larry: C.J. how can you do that after you encouraged
Justin to confess everything; get it all out. Then when he did, you reassured him “You have my word, it will never leave this room. Even our wives won’t be told.”
I repeatedly reassured him, “C.J. is a man of his word. You needn’t worry.” Now you’re talking of publically sharing the sins of his youth?!
C.J.: My statement was made in the context of that evening. If I knew then what you were going to do, I would have re-evaluated what I communicated.
Doris: C.J., are you aware that you are blackmailing Larry? You’ll make no mention of Justin’s sins, which he confessed and was forgiven of months ago, if Larry agrees with your statement, but you feel you have to warn the folks and go national with Justin’s sins if Larry pushes the doctrinal button? C.J., you are blackmailing Larry to say what you want!―Shame on you, C.J.! As a man of God and a father, shame on you!
This will send shock waves throughout the teens in P.D.I. and make many pastors’ teens vow, “I‘ll never confess my secret sins to C.J. or any of the team, seeing that they‘ll go public with my sins if my dad doesn‘t toe the line.”―C.J., you will reap whatever judgment you make on Justin. You have a young son coming up. Another reason for my personally wanting to leave P.D.I. and never come back is this ungodly tactic of resorting to blackmail and intimidation of people!
C.J.: I can‘t speak for the team, but I want them to witness this. We’ll arrange a conference call next week with the team.
Doris: I want Justin to be part of that call. It’s his life that’s at stake.
C.J.: Fine.
(SGM Wikileaks, part 3, p.139. Online source: http://www.scribd.com/sgmwikileaks)
Ohio: 2905.12 Coercion.
(A) No person, with purpose to coerce another into taking or refraining from action concerning which the other person has a legal freedom of choice, shall do any of the following:
(1) Threaten to commit any offense;
(2) Utter or threaten any calumny against any person;
(3) Expose or threaten to expose any matter tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, to damage any person’s personal or business repute, or to impair any person’s credit;
Mahaney has never repented of this documented criminal act. But while Mark Dever excommunicated 256 people for non-attendance, which isn’t a biblical reason to bring anyone up on church discipline to begin with, he is giving Mahaney a pass on blackmail and coercion.
paul
SGM Case Dismissed: Cross Made Bigger
As the blogosphere’s newly appointed “rabid anti-Calvinist,” I figured I would weigh in on the dismissal of the SGM lawsuit and live up to my new name by blaming this vile injustice on Calvinism.
It’s not a huge stretch; after all, the former primary defendants are Calvinists, and even in light of the horrific accusations, CJ Mahaney continues to be supported by the Calvinist community at large via speaking engagements, and silence. I understand that Kevin DeYoung, who has been silent on the issue, was quick to announce the dismissal on Twitter. The case also exemplifies the hilarious notion that these are men of the Word. The Bible states that accusations against an elder should only be heard by two or three witnesses; in this case, there were eleven, and on the record. Yet, NO Calvinist anywhere will take note of the accusations. Besides, the Bible states clearly that elders are to be beyond reproach, and CJ is hardly that.
The contemporary Calvinist resurgence movement known as New Calvinism has been getting massive press on its spiritual abuse for about ten years now. How bad is it? There are now two organizations formed for the express purpose of keeping Reformed churches out of court, and paid for by the sheep through donations! I will make this as simple as possible by once again commenting on a popular Neo-Calvinist illustration, published by them—not me:
Click on to Enlarge
This illustration is Calvinist epistemology. This is a visual description of Calvin’s first sentence in 1.1.1 of the Calvin Institutes: wisdom is deducted by knowledge of God and man; i.e., the top and bottom trajectories. That makes the cross bigger. That’s a good thing, right? In Luther’s epistemology, this illustration is known as the Theology of the Cross or the Cross Story as opposed to the glory story. Any possible contribution of good by us makes the cross smaller. That’s a bad thing, right?
Now think about this epistemology as set against these horrific abuses. Do I really have to do the math on this? How are people with this worldview going to look at the subject of justice? If we deserve justice, our trajectory goes up and the cross gets smaller. What about the victims? If they were totally innocent in the situation the trajectory again goes up and the cross gets smaller. What about any pure outrage concerning the actions? Why outrage? That’s a deeper knowledge of how evil we are which makes the cross bigger.
And to a Calvinist, that’s a good thing.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment