Calvinism and a Humbleness that Leads to Hell
The Sovereign Lord is my salvation from beginning to end and everything in between. I could not keep myself one day without Him. He is my Saviour, Lord and Keeper! He has promised to perfect all that which concerns me and it is HE that works in me to will and to DO of His good pleasure according to the scriptures.
He says in the gospel of John that…”All that the Father gives me I shall lose NONE but shall raise him up at the last day! Praise His name.
Sandi
Sandi,
Like all Calvinists, you dress up evil in a “humbleness” that totally depends on God and gives Him ALL the credit for your Christian walk as well as salvation. Like the “wicked lazy” servant in Matthew 25:14-30, you propose to merely give back what Christ has given you. You hide the gospel of “God does it all” in the ground for fear that anything you do in your Christian life is an attempt to fulfill the law of sin and death rather than walking in obedience to the law of the Spirit of life. You do not see yourself as free from the law of sin and death; therefore, your true role of loving Christ is relegated to the Holy Spirit. Like the wicked lazy servant, there is fear in your love because you are still under the law of sin and death.
Therefore, you are not a true friend of Christ, or a brother, but a parasite; viz, in the words of Calvinist Paul David Tripp we are only to “rest and feed on the living Christ.” That’s what a Calvinist is: a parasite that only “rests and feeds on Christ” instead of offering one’s body as a living sacrifice. Christ died for you, and you offer nothing in return but your blemished totally depraved self that is still under the law of sin and death. You are not free to…”if you love me, keep my commandments.” You must make those commands to the Holy Spirit because you are still under the law of sin and death.
Worse yet, like all Calvinists, and antithetical to love, you rejoice in this evil. As you plunge the depths of your own depravity (mortification), you experience the joy which is a gift from heaven (vivification). The doctrine of mortification and vivification is official and well documented Reformed orthodoxy. Clearly, it is a joy that results in the reality of our own depravity, and makes God a rewarder of such, but love “does not delight in evil.”
Granted, there is to be fear in sanctification as we look for the redemption of the body, but you make that the same as a fear of judgment in regard to justification because you are still under the law of sin and death, and not freed by the perfect law of liberty. You are not free to love Christ as a “doer of the word.” Your “love” is therefore full of fear.
I beseech all Calvinists to cry out to Jesus and affirm that His death has ended the law of sin and death, and freed us to love Him with the Holy Spirit as our counselor resulting in a life that is built upon a rock.
paul
Austin Fischer’s “New” Book: Another Calvinist Approved Pushback Against Calvinism
Don’t get me wrong, I am just as disgusted with Arminians as I am Calvinists. The American church is an institution like Hollywood, and with these kinds of institutions, drama is needed. The lifestyles and life issues of the Hollywood elite brings in the cash as much as the movies themselves. And here is the one that gets me: because they can act, they are looked to for wisdom. During a congressional hearing in which a Hollywood actor was testifying, a lightbulb went on and one congressman asked, “What are your credentials? What makes you an expert on this subject?” The chorus of I could have had a V-8 expressions following was priceless. Likewise, today’s pastors are experts because they pay for an education on how to think the thoughts of others. We call that “orthodoxy.”
For more than 500 years now, Calvinists have picked their own detractors. Protestants still do what they do best; they control the reality and premise of the argument for their own outcomes. I was once told by an insurance executive that a cure for cancer could be found, but there was too much money in not having a complete cure. Perhaps, but let me use the same analogy with the whole disgusting Arminian/Calvinist debate: Arminians don’t want to destroy the cancer of Calvinism—there’s too much money in it.
If Calvinists give your argument press, it’s a pathetic argument—you can take that to the bank. It is at that point just more Justin Bieber controversy. Such is the case with a “new” book titled, “Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed: Black Holes, Love and a Journey in and out of Calvinism.” This isn’t a new argument, it is just another spewing of predestination creates a truckload of metaphysical confusion. This debate sends the subtle message to the world that biblical truth is not definitive, and that is not helpful. Basically, like most books of this pedigree, the equation is, that interpretation doesn’t = my definition of love so it must not = God.
Why am I so frustrated with all of this drama and the herd mentality that refuses to miss an episode? Because there is a cure for Calvinism; the theological math is definitive and irrefutable. Calvinism keeps believers under the law, it’s just that simple. Calvin’s definition of a believer is the biblical equivalent of an unregenerate person: under law versus under grace. Calvinists are delighted that all of the pushback focuses on predestination; this is by design because it keeps Christians away from the simple theological math. Why is election being debated with people who don’t even understand justification? It’s the same old song and dance. A philosophical argument is presented from the viewpoint of God’s love and justice, and Calvinists answer with a long list of Scripture verses that seem to clearly proffer predestination.
Having this argument with Calvinists is stupid. At least argue with people who hold to a saving view of justification.
paul
New Calvinism’s Loveless Christianity
“…we believe that those who teach and preach the word of God are God-appointed agents to save God’s people from ignorance.” [1]
~Al Mohler
“’I only created the jinn and mankind that they might serve me’ (Koran, 51:56), i.e. that they might know me. But the greater part of men neglect this duty, except those whom God hath chosen and whose hearts He hath vivified with Himself.” [2]
~ Data Ganj Bahsh, al-Hujwiri
“† It’s all the same because it all comes from ancient caste. Hence, there is very little difference between the Reformed version of sanctification and Islamic Sufism. Both emphasize experiencing God over participating with God. Both emphasize ‘transcendence,’ ‘manifestations,’ and ‘rebirth.’ Sanctification, in both Reformed and Islamic constructs emphasize, ‘vivification.’”
In yesterday’s post, we looked at how most false religion derives from spiritual caste. This was the foundation of false religion found in the cradle of civilization. Hence, people that believe in mythology, superstition, etc. are not stupid—they have accepted the premise that real truth is found beyond reason and empirical conclusions. Therefore, faith and reason are often dichotomized. In yesterday’s post, Moses was cited regarding the fact that some truth is beyond our reasoning abilities, but what we need to function properly as human beings is not. We also cited Moses’ concern that enlightened mediators are supposedly needed to bring truth to us from heaven or other faraway places. Moses stated that the word of God is near us, in us, and not too difficult for us.
The Tower of Babel is a good example of the idea that we have to somehow get to heaven to bring truth down to the masses. A few of the enlightened tap into God’s truth via some sort of epistemology (usually mediation), repackage it for practical application among the masses, and make it known through orthodoxy (that’s caste in a nutshell). Orthodoxy is rarely about the “why?” because it is understood that the masses don’t understand the why, it is about the what. If you ask why?, the answer is, “Because the philosopher kings say so, and you wouldn’t understand anyway.” In contrast, the New Testament frames all of this in regard to Christ being the only mediator between God and man, and mankind being spoken to by Christ in the last days. The apostle Paul played on Moses’ concept and reiterated the fact that Christ is near to all, is in us (as Christians), and his commandments are not too difficult for us.
Spiritual caste originated in the East, and made its way into Western culture through the Sophists. Spiritual caste was solidified in the West by Plato, and was primarily integrated into Western religion by St. Augustine. Spiritual caste was the foundation of Augustine’s theory of original sin and total depravity. This can be seen in how the Catholic Church has always operated. The monks deprive themselves of the material as much as possible, get the dope from heaven through prayer and meditation, and deliver it to the popes who are Plato’s philosopher kings. It’s all basically the same gig.
The Reformation came out of Catholicism. Clearly, the Reformers didn’t reject caste ideology, they only sought to do caste in a better way.* They merely made Christ Plato’s pure form, and replaced Christ as the mediator of truth with Reformed elders. This is why there is so much emphasis in our day on the “personhood of Christ” rather than what Christ commands. The commands of Christ seen in the Bible speak to our inability to please Christ since all matter is evil to begin with. The Reformers pulled this off by making love and law the same thing in both justification and sanctification. True, there is only one love in justification, that of God. But in sanctification, we in fact love God because it is not too difficult for us. We are hindered by mortality, but “we love him because He first loved us.”
The Reformers made the definition of any valid love towards God a perfect keeping of the law. So, “If you love me, keep my commandments” must be seen in its “gospel context.” Supposedly, Christ couldn’t have been talking about us making an effort to obey as a way to please Him because He is only pleased with perfection; therefore, Christ must have been talking about something else.
This proposed construct was a form of Neo-Platonism also dubbed “Gnosticism.” In reality, the Reformation was nothing more or less than a new twist on those movements. Supposedly, it is impossible for man to live in a way that is pleasing to God, and the Bible is merely a tool for showing us how loveless we are, and in doing that, the only objective pure form of Christ can be “experienced” on earth subjectively. In other words, we can only experience goodness, but we can’t perform it. We can only “manifest” the love of Christ or “reflect” His love, but it is not us performing it. Our only way of loving Christ is through self-depravation resulting in us being lifeless vessels that show a reflection of Christ to the world. Even these “reflections” are preordained. †
But don’t lose the main point: we can’t love Christ by keeping the law. We can only love Him through a deeper and deeper understanding of how evil we are (being matter). The Reformers believed that the essence of all sin was seeing goodness in us, and this root of all sin also transcends into Christian lifelessness. This idea that Christians are not able to please God by law keeping has always been the classic definition of antinomianism (anomia: anti-law of God). The Reformers came up with their own definition of antinomianism:
The belief that the law has been abolished and has no use for the Christian.
The Reformers protested on the basis of their own redefinition. They believed the law was critical for showing us the impossibility of loving Christ. They deemed it critical for demonstrating what we can’t do. And supposedly, according to the Reformers, the realization of our own depravity as set against the holiness of God produces “vivification” (a joy experience) in the believer. Again, this is very Eastern in regard to the idea that opposites define each other; ie., light defines darkness and darkness defines light etc.
Since the garden, the primary doctrinal nemesis for heaven has always been antinomianism in the form of “gnosis,” or secret knowledge. Instead of the law being near every person, it is afar and must be retrieved by those who claim to be mediators between us and heaven. These pseudo mediators then repackage the truth in a way that can be understood by the masses (orthodoxy). Obedience to the mediators, or at least trusting them in regard to the law is the ticket to heaven. Christ has been replaced by philosopher kings. Christ simply called all of this, “the traditions of men.” From Genesis to Revelation, it begins with disobedience, and ends with “the man of lawlessness,” literally, “the man of anomia.” Incredibly, Christ predicted that the last days would be loveless “because” of “anomia.”
The Reformation was another anomia option; perhaps, the most popular since the garden. However, the masses that were drawn up in the movement, to a large extent, didn’t get it. In order to appear as those who wanted to place a Bible in the hands of every man, woman, and child, while propagating Gnosticism, allegorical interpretation was the mainstay epistemology. A grammatical, literal interpretation is more natural. This led to the idea that man could please God by obeying the laws in Scripture, but these same people remained under the banner of the Reformation.
This has led to periodic antinomian controversies throughout church history in Reformed circles: those who believe that we can only manifest the love of Christ versus those who believe that we can actually love Christ with our own obedience. Four of these controversies will be outlined in The Truth About New Calvinism: Volume 2, but the one we will focus on here occurred at the beginning of the present-day New Calvinist movement. The movement began in 1970 with the advent of the Australian Forum. The Forum was a Reformed think tank that rediscovered the authentic Reformation gospel. The movement spread in two directions: Reformed Baptist circles and conservative Presbyterian circles via Westminster Theological Seminary. In Reformed Baptist circles, it was an antinomian controversy, but in Presbyterian circles the controversy centered on the Sonship Theology version.
While the movement was extinguished in Reformed Baptist circles, it was launched into the present-day New Calvinist movement when the name of the movement was changed from Sonship Theology to “Gospel Transformation” in Presbyterian circles. There has never been honest discussion within the Reformed camp regarding the key issue of whether or not we merely reflect love for Christ or perform it.
As discussed in yesterday’s post, spiritual caste leads to orthodoxy, and orthodoxy leads to cultish behavior. Besides New Calvinist “love bombing,” a cult hallmark, another mark of a cult is the idea that the cult knows truth that members have to be “prepared to accept.” In other words, “truth that they aren’t ready for yet.”
Therefore, few people attending New Calvinist churches know what New Calvinism is, nor do they know that they are supposedly incapable of loving Christ and others. This belief is slowly assimilated into their thinking through redefinition of terms, and the exclusion of topics like enablement and obedience. When God’s holiness and our depravity are only taught, Christians will begin to function that way unawares. We don’t practice anything that is not talked about or emphasized.
And that includes loving Christ through righteous behavior. The New Testament was written against the backdrop of an aggressive Gnostic movement. Noting this will lead to abundant understanding accordingly.
paul
1. Albert Mohler: Sermon; First Baptist Church of Jacksonville Florida; January 30, 2011
2. From the Kashf al-mahjub (The Uncovering of the veiled) by ‘Ali ibn ‘Uthman al-Jullabi al-Hujwiri, known as Data Ganj Bakhsh in the Indo-Pakistan region. Translated by Reynold Nicholson. New Edition, London: Luzac, 1967, pp. 267-277.
*Spiritual caste is the foundation for all religions where tyranny is found. It simply posits the idea that a select few are preordained by God (or some concept of a god) to lead the unenlightened masses. Instead of ONE salvific mediator and many teachers (God’s mode of operation from the beginning), it is a system that posits multiple mediators among men that impart salvation perpetually.
† It’s all the same because it all comes from ancient caste. Hence, there is very little difference between the Reformed version of sanctification and Islamic Sufism. Both emphasize experiencing God over participating with God. Both emphasize “transcendence,” “manifestations,” and “rebirth.” Sanctification, in both Reformed and Islamic constructs emphasize, “vivification.”
Are Love and Forgiveness Always the Same Thing?
At least in this country, we live in a unique time. I like to preface these kinds of generalizations with “in this country” because our tendency is to see things through a Western perspective, especially the Reformation which was primarily a European thing. That’s why I have begun studying (in preparation for a third book I am writing) the church history of other regions like Africa and China.
But back to the present day in this country; with spiritual despotism being rampant, the subject of forgiveness is heavy in the air. Thinking Christians find themselves in a quandary: how do we hold people accountable with a pure heart void of revenge? Or should we hold people accountable at all? Should we “forgive and forget”? After all, we should forgive the way we were forgiven, right?
Indeed, this is tricky territory, but may I start from a practical standpoint? There seems to be this thing called unresolved conflict that makes “forgiving and moving on with our lives” a lot easier said than done. In fact, I wonder if people who have been wronged with no resolution who say they have “moved on with their lives” have really done so. You can move on, but what is going with you?
Then there is the following question: is it likely that what has been done to you will also be done to others by the same person/people? Now things get really tricky. I don’t think the Bible covers prevention specifically, but it may be a matter of God-given common sense. Not wanting to hold individuals accountable for what they did to you for prevention purposes because it is uncomfortable or not your personality may be deemed selfish. Moreover, it could be argued that you are partially responsible for unhindered future acts.
As one who has had to struggle with this question, let me give you the best answer I have to date: we need to hold people accountable in a biblical way, and there is also some liberty involved. The apostle Peter said that “love covers a multitude of sin,” and I do think we have the liberty to cover offences with love (barring complicity or putting others in danger). But if we find ourselves without the grace to not continually bring up the offence to ourselves, to the offender, and to others, that’s a huge problem. That’s unresolved conflict bouncing around in our minds and refusing to go away.
In such cases, the Bible prescribes a process for resolution; we all know what it is, Matthew 18:15-20. Though only six verses, it covers every conceivable situation. Considering the source, that shouldn’t surprise us. Let me just mention a few. In the first step, we may find out that the offence was just a simple misunderstanding. In the second step, and with the help of the two witnesses, we may find out that we are being petty and making a mountain out of a molehill. However, if that’s not the case and it goes further, there is no guarantee that the church as a whole will see it the same way. I think that is why Jesus refers back to the second step in verse 20. Think about it: the third step involves the whole church, but he refers back to the second step.
Nevertheless, the whole church confronting an individual is very powerful, and will probably yield results, and excludes anything in the process from being behind closed doors. If the results are not favorable, the wronged person receives the support of the whole church. The church states that they will not fellowship with said person or persons until they reconcile with you. Not only that, the person/persons are prevented from doing the same thing to others in the same church, and theoretically, any other church when they disallow membership because of former unresolved issues with another church. Prevention. No?
Now, it is true, the apostle Paul said that we are to forgive as we have been forgiven. That’s the gospel, right? Well, partly. I wouldn’t be dogmatic about this, but if you want to bring the gospel into this, the following is at least a fair question: Did God forgive us without our repentance? Furthermore, Christ said that “IF” the offender “listens to you,” you have gained a brother. In Luke 17 concerning the same subject, Christ said to forgive your brother seven times seventy “IF” he repents. If he repents, you “must forgive him.” In the parable of the unmerciful servant, we find that we are to also forgive if there is repentance, but restitution is not possible. That’s the gospel; we repented, but certainly, the only restitution we have to offer is in Christ. But also, on the horizontal level, we must remember the example of Zacharias when restitution is possible.
So, if we are sinned against, and the offending party refuses to repent, are we obligated to forgive them? I’m not sure about that (while leaning toward, “no”), but I am sure about the following: we are obligated before God to love our enemies. Note that it is interesting that the Lord states that we will have enemies. What is a biblical “enemy”? May I suggest that it is someone that we are not reconciled to? This would seem apparent. In regard to our enemies, we are not to take revenge on them. The apostle Paul is very specific about this in Romans 12. If our enemies have a need that we are aware of, we are to fulfill that need. The Old Testament law stated that if we happened across our enemy’s oxen that had gotten loose, we were obligated to return it to him/her. Paul wrote that if our enemy is hungry, we are to feed him/her. I would imagine that such opportunities are divine appointments that lend great opportunity for reconciliation (as an aside to the aforementioned point concerning the gospel, the gospel is also referred to in the Bible as being “reconciled to God”).
But is holding someone accountable also an act of love? Proverbs states: “The kisses of an enemy are deceitful, but the wounds of a friend are faithful.” And, “Be angry but sin not.” Let me suggest that we may be angry with someone, and not obligated to forgive them without repentance, but obligated to love them. Does not God love many enemies daily by giving them breathe and a litany of other innumerable resources? Being angry at those whom we are un-reconciled with is not revenge. It is interesting to note that in Romans, Paul immediately speaks of being subject to government authorities after instructing Christians to not avenge themselves. I think these thoughts are related. In regard to revenge that is not against civil law: “….bless, and do not curse them.” We are to bless our enemies and conduct ourselves “honorably” (Romans 12) before all in regard to them, but remember, that does not exclude holding them accountable.
There is another point that I am certain of, and unlike the daring assertion that Christians are not obligated to forgive without reconciliation. Christians are not called to a mental/emotional decision to forgive from the heart—it simply won’t work. A true forgiveness from the heart must be solidified by action. Forgiveness and love in the Bible are ALWAYS related to some kind of action. We don’t love our enemies from the mind only. Neither do we forgive them from the mind only. The apostle Paul NEVER stated that we are to, “Forgive and forget, or “forgive and move on with our lives.” We are to not do this (curse), and to do that (bless) instead. We don’t ignore their needs, but rather feed them instead.
But all in all, the vast majority of unresolved conflict in the church today is the non-application of the Matthew 18 process by leaders and for leaders. Hordes of today’s leaders will fellowship with each other, and give each other credibility despite the long list of unreconciled conflict that they have with other Christians. This puts the laity in tricky waters.
But that’s not on us. That’s on them. And I hope these thoughts lend some worthwhile ideas to the chosen direction. However, non-action is not an option, and forgiveness does not always walk with love.
paul
Vows, Car Doors, Coats and Chairs
You see it every now and then; a husband opening the car door for his wife, or the event at Perkins that prompted this post: an elderly man stood up first to hold up his wife’s open coat for her to fill. After all those years? Then I had a light bulb moment: “Why not? Isn’t one of the ’till death does us part’—also to—’cherish’?” It would seem that us men take the faithfulness and love part of the wedding vow much more serious than we take the “cherish” part.
What does “cherish” mean? Well, it’s actually a little more focused than love. You can love anybody, especially if your a Christian. We are commanded to love our enemies, right? Cherish means: ”To cling fondly or inveterately to: to cherish a memory” (Dictionary.com). Cherishing necessarily requires display; that’s why I like the cited definition. When we cherish a memory, we do what? Usually, we have taken pictures, framed them, and displayed them at home and work. We are never commanded in the Bible to cherish our enemies. To cherish is to set love on fire. Guess what the antonym for cherish is? Answer: “neglect.” That’s key.
As Christians, I believe we have been given all we need for life and godliness. In fact, Ephesians 4:24 indicates that we have been given the full righteousness and holiness of Christ. Therefore, the apostle Paul commands us to “put on the new.” Pity: so much of today’s discussion concerning the law of God is framed around “obligation.” Obligation?—biblical commands are an invitation to appropriate and put on the righteousness given to us by Christ. Biblical commands are an invitation to set love on fire! Pity: many are taught today that Christ not only bankrupted heaven to give us His righteousness, but he also puts on that righteousness for us, and while we wait for Christ to do our part, the love of God is hidden under a bushel basket. To cherish is to display the love already given, IF we believe Ephesians 4:24.
Besides men, we promise, we vow, and before witnesses. I guess the guy that was at Perkins gets that part. God is very serious about vows. He says it’s better not to make any than to make one and not keep it. In fact, Psalms 15:1,4 says that vow-keeping is the mark of a righteous person:
“LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain?…. who despises a vile person but honors those who fear the LORD; who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind;” (NIV@2011).
Want another version?
“….in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but who honors those who fear the LORD; who swears to his own hurt and does not change;”(ESV).
As these verses indicate, vow-keeping isn’t always easy, but don’t look at this as an indictment, look at it as an invitation to display love already given. Look at it as an invitation to display the importance of what is important to God. Look at it as an invitation to publicly display that you love your wife like Christ loves the church. Look at it as an invitation to set love on fire, and do so at every opportunity—even using car doors, coats, and chairs.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
7 comments