Calvinism and Islam: The Tie That Binds; the Doctrine of Death
Islam’s penchant for death is well documented and publicized often. In the Quran, the crown of martyrdom guarantees forgiveness of sins and entry into paradise. This is a consistent theme throughout the Quran. If words mean anything, and I think they do, a popular slogan among such groups like Hamas should be telling: “We love death more than the Jews love life.”
And that was Martin Luther’s same problem with humanity in general; the whole loving life more than death sort of thing. His 95 Theses was a morale indictment against the Popes, not the Catholic Church in particular; six months later, Luther hammered out the framework for the Reformation in his Heidelberg Disputation which is clearly a doctrine of death.
In fact, death and suffering is the prism for understanding reality itself according to Luther in his foundational document for the Reformation. This results in Calvinists like John MacArthur Jr. suggesting that Christians doubt their salvation when they don’t suffer enough. Therefore, clearly, Christians should desire suffering. Think about this in context of the fact that 90% of all biblical counseling in our day is under the control of Neo-Calvinism.
In said document that laid the foundation for the Reformation, Luther states the following:
This is clear: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general, good to evil. These are the people whom the apostle calls “enemies of the cross of Christ” [Phil. 3:18], for they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil and the evil of a deed good. God can be found only in suffering and the cross, as has already been said. Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and works are evil, for through the cross works are destroyed and the old Adam, who is especially edified by works, is crucified. It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his good works unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God’s (Theses 21).
As will be discussed in volume 3 of TTANC, the doctrine of death is the basis for most religions of the world, and is grounded in the idea that the visible/tangible is evil and the invisible is good. This was Luther’s assertion as well:
He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. The “back” and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1[:25] calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn wisdom concerning invisible things by means of wisdom concerning visible things, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (Theses 20).
Volume 3 will delve deeply into Dualism which almost always leads to a doctrine of death. Suffering alone, or knowledge about suffering, leads to spiritual awareness with death itself being the final escape from this material world. Why do Calvinists so disdain the doctrine of the Rapture? Because it bypasses death.
The commonality of death-love between Islam and Calvinism will be examined, as well as Calvinism’s other astonishing commonalties with Islam, particularly the “Gospel of Sovereignty.”
What is Common Core?
“The key is free and true knowledge, not orthodoxy whether secular or religious.”
My wife Susan has been a professional educator for forty years, but knows little about the Common Core education curriculum that is the hot topic in our day among Christians and non-Christians alike. So, for an excuse to get away from our adult children, and finally learn something about this Common Core thing, we went to the Glenn Beck live theater event, “We Will Not Conform” showing here in Dayton, Ohio.
For those of you who know Susan and me, imagine us becoming two extremely grumpy old people on the spot. For me, it was discernment blogging hell. After suffering through this vision of grandeur mission impossible situation room motif for two hours, Susan loudly proclaimed, “I don’t know one more thing about this than when I walked in here.” During the presentation, and with a volume higher than I preferred, she stated, “I want our money back.”
As my grandmother used to say, “That will learn ya,” and it well should—in this information age that we have been blessed with, when will we learn to stop wasting our time with getting our information from personality cults? Or if you will, “experts.”
After we arrived home to the usual interrogation, “Where have you guys been?” I went to Wikipedia and typed “Common Core” into the embedded search engine. Wow. Wiki has an awesome foundational starting point for researching Common Core. The original major players are named with links that lead to more information about them. Basically, Wiki has supplied all of the important dots to get you started. From there, connecting all of the dots may take time, but is not too difficult.
Common Core starts with a really bad idea, the consummate bad idea of the ages: orthodoxy…orthodoxy is dignified mythology. It is flavored with more science-like seasoning than mythology. Myth is then the foundation of social justice and wellbeing; i.e., everyone obeys the myth which equals, “unity.” Peace is the best thing, even among the dead.
The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and seeks to establish consistent educational standards across the states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core).
That’s orthodoxy, and it is always a really bad idea. It is a standard dictated to the masses by a minority, and brings free thinking and innovation to a screeching halt. The results of Common Core are well documented; it sets up the student and teacher for failure. Why? Not sure, but it probably has something to do with the same old song and dance: control.
Now, you can dig deeper on your own to ascertain agendas etc., but the primary problem with Common Core is that it foists a set standard of knowledge on the populous at-large by a minority of “experts.” This is a bad idea in secular as well as religious circles. Common Core is a secular version of the Westminster Confession and the Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Be careful. What you have in a lot of these debates is a vying for control of societal mutton. And such is the case with the religious right of our day and their use of the Common Core issue among many other issues. And last night was a good example.
In the midst of the seemingly hysterical fenzy of Beck’s “We Will Not Conform” event, the situation room was manned by the who’s who of Neo-Calvinist Transformative Dominion Theology educators. Their key and creepy phraseology included a call to “return to classical education” and a “taking back of the public schools.” If you tuned into Susan’s TANC 2014 presentations, you know what all of that means.
The public schools were founded by the colonial Puritans, and the same encompass what would be considered, “classical education.” This is not arguable; the Puritans also founded the Ivy League schools. And trust me, if you were a teacher during that time, you taught according to set standards. If you didn’t, you got the water test: if you can’t swim, you will drown. If you can swim, you’re a witch. This resulted in being tied up in a potato sack and retested. Like Common Core assessments, most fail that test.
The key is free and true knowledge, not orthodoxy whether secular or religious. I found out something about history the other day that has defined our ministry here at TANC. In colonial times, you could do anything to a slave but one thing—teach them how to read or write:
Excerpt from South Carolina Act of 1740
Whereas, the having slaves taught to write, or suffering them to be employed in writing, may be attended with great inconveniences; Be it enacted, that all and every person and persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach or cause any slave or slaves to be taught to write, or shall use or employ any slave as a scribe, in any manner of writing whatsoever, hereafter taught to write, every such person or persons shall, for every such offense, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money.
Excerpt from Virginia Revised Code of 1819
That all meetings or assemblages of slaves, or free negroes or mulattoes mixing and associating with such slaves at any meeting-house or houses, &c., in the night; or at any SCHOOL OR SCHOOLS for teaching them READING OR WRITING, either in the day or night, under whatsoever pretext, shall be deemed and considered an UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY; and any justice of a county, &c., wherein such assemblage shall be, either from his own knowledge or the information of others, of such unlawful assemblage, &c., may issue his warrant, directed to any sworn officer or officers, authorizing him or them to enter the house or houses where such unlawful assemblages, &c., may be, for the purpose of apprehending or dispersing such slaves, and to inflict corporal punishment on the offender or offenders, at the discretion of any justice of the peace, not exceeding twenty lashes.
In order to control people, you must control knowledge and truth. Truth education is the key; one way or the other—that’s what sets people free and empowers them. Common Core seeks to control the mutton by dumbing us down; the Christian Reconstructionists want to program our minds with bad information.
Pick your master carefully.
paul
“< Tweet, Tweet
Paul M. Dohse @PaulMDohse 23s Capitalism tells people to create their own stuff and leave other people’s stuff alone.http://wp.me/pmd7S-3gg
When the Truth UnCalvinizes a Calvinist
A TTANC 2 Freewriting post and book review of Dr. Robert Congdon’s latest booklet in his New Calvinist series.
Dr. Robert Congdon, according to his own bio, is an “international Bible teacher, conference speaker, author, and radio commentator on subjects relating to current trends in Christianity. He holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Illinois, a M.Div. in theology from Grace Theological Seminary, and TH.D in theology from Trinity Theological Seminary.”
Dr. Congdon, according to him, was compelled to write a series of booklets on the New Calvinist movement because he has observed its ill effects on the church*; specifically, the dividing of churches and families, fear in regard to assurance of salvation, and a fatalistic mentality leading to a mindset of irresponsibility.[1]
Correctly, Dr. Congdon also charges that New Calvinism is “traditional Reformed/Covenant theology that has been repackaged in post-modern ‘wrappings.’” This is true in that both New Calvinism and Postmodernism interpret reality from a narrative standpoint. This is meta-narrative in regard to metaphysical narrative. New Calvinists believe that all of reality is a prewritten gospel narrative. Postmoderns believe the same thing, but there is a distinction in how we “enter into the plot,” or “make the Bible story our story—the story of every believer.” New Calvinists believe you participate by living the Christian life the same way you were saved, by faith alone. You then merely watch what unfolds in God’s pre-written narrative with a focus on how He is glorified by what happens. Life events merely make us better see’ers in regard to what “Jesus has done, not anything we do.”
Faith is an eye that can only see outward. Inner light depends on how we see the world, and the payoff is joy regardless of circumstances because circumstances are part of the narrative that increases our faith as we see what God is doing in the world. Also, inner light is a partial experience of the light we will actually experience in heaven. This philosophical** side of Calvinism will be addressed in volume III of The Truth About New Calvinism series.
The Postmoderns believe that you “enter into the plot” by doing what Jesus would do. Both camps see “entering into the plot” as an act of faith, but this brings a charge of works salvation by the New Calvinists against the Postmoderns because salvation is seen as a PROCESS and not a finished work, so what people do or believe in the middle between beginning justification and final justification determines justification by faith alone or works justification. The Postmoderns would cry foul by insisting that they are merely participating in works prepared ahead of time in the metaphysical narrative of reality. By participating, they are merely experiencing the works pre-wrought by Christ—the works are being done to us not by us.
____1______________________________________________________
* Throughout this book, “church” is used in regard to the institutional church, not the called out assembly.
** The metaphysic is a plenary progression of all things from the material to the spiritual in time.
New Calvinists believe the same thing. Seemingly, the difference is that Postmoderns believe participation is a choice which robs God of His sovereignty.*
As a short aside, Congdon’s mention of the divisive nature of New Calvinism needs to be addressed. The so-called “factious” man of Titus 3:10 (ASV) is interpreted in all English Bibles as pertaining to individuals [who question elder authority]. Actually, the Bible has little to say about individuals who cause strife. The overarching concern is groups who divide with a particular false doctrine. The actual word for this so-called divisive individual in Titus 3:10 is…
g0141. αἱρετικός hairetikos; from the same as 140; a schismatic:— heretic (the Greek word itself). AV (1)- that is a heretic 1; fitted or able to take or choose a thing schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine, heretic.
Therefore, New Calvinism takes its place among one of the mountain peak concerns of the Scriptures: sectarian groups that divide with false doctrine (See Addendum A).
Congdon qualifies as the quintessential hybrid Calvinist. Often, he refers to himself as grammatical, premillennial, and dispensational. In the latest booklet of his New Calvinist series[2], he reiterates this and describes himself as a former four-point Calvinist. A grammarian interpretation of reality is mutually exclusive from Calvinism which he apparently now realizes because the theses of his newest addition to the series follows:
- New Calvinism is Old Calvinism.
- Both are false gospels.
- He misunderstood what the five points of Calvinism really represented.
- He is now a Biblicist, not a Calvinist.
His journey into researching New Calvinism has led him to this conclusion:
For many years I thought that I understood what Calvin meant by each of these five points. However, the recent emphasis on this teaching through the New Calvinist movement has caused me to look more deeply into what he actually believed, and I have been amazed to discover that I, along with many of my pastor/teacher friends and acquaintances, have misunderstood his original intent that is now being so strongly promoted.[3]
___2___________________________________________________
* See https://paulspassingthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/emergent-church-ebook1.pdf online ebook: The Emergent Postmodern Church and New Calvinism by Paul M. Dohse 2012.
This speaks volumes to the problem with church and its orthodox* seminaries versus the free thinking Bereans of the called out assembly. Congdon was misled for “many years” because formal theological certification is based upon Reformed presuppositions and the redefinition of words. It is testimony to the fact that a seminary degree is all but worthless in our day.
However, we mustn’t miss the important significance of Congdon’s journey: “…along with many of my pastor/teacher friends and acquaintances.” Dr. Congdon represents the first notable Calvinist that has been willing to openly admit that he has been led astray by Reformed soteriology, and many others have seen the light as well.
How does this happen? Congdon and others like him misunderstand the foundation of Reformed thought especially in regard to the metaphysical side of it. Most think that the issue is Bible interpretation, when in reality the primary concern of the Reformers was how one interprets reality itself. The Reformation was founded upon a primary concern for metaphysics—not theology. However, meta-narrative is not the normative way to interpret reality. People naturally gravitate to the literal meaning of words; grammatical interpretation is what comes natural to us.
Therefore, what you end up with is a confusion between original intent and the literal meaning of words. Reformed soteriology was a direct result of narrative metaphysics which imbibes passive Christian living by default. You read life, you don’t do life. Even though adjustments are made and some measure of literal interpretation replaces redemptive allegory, the fundamental foundation still produces weak Christian living (sanctification). When weak sanctification pains the church and a solution is sought, it is assumed that the problem is the following: the church has drifted away from the original. In reality, the original peaks (culminating into the behavior that Dr. Congdon describes in his booklets) and therefore dies a periodic social death.
But, what is left is still errant soteriology leading to weak sanctification and lesser ills flowing. This has been the vicious cycle of death and resurgence since Calvin’s Geneva theocracy. New Calvinism is probably the sixth resurgence of what Congdon calls “Classic” Calvinism since Geneva. This book refers to it as authentic Calvinism.
Moreover, there is a logical conclusion that must be drawn here as well: Protestantism itself is a false gospel and has produced its own dark age of ignorance and bad fruit. Congdon’s journey is in fact a journey that most Christians must now embark on—the whole church motif must be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up with the truth of God’s word. Congdon’s aforementioned latest booklet is a good start in that direction, but much work remains.
___3_________________________________________________________
* See Addendum B
If his Biblicist alternative is valid, it must replace a massive theological system that has been under construction for more than 500 years. The inductive study found in said booklet is a start in the right direction, so let us examine it.
Congdon uses the five points of Calvinism to frame and construct his argument. One of his early points is that his prior four point acclamation wasn’t valid on its face because he has come to believe that all five points depend on each other; if one falls, they all fall. This is true because without total inability (the T in TULIP), no case can be made for the other four. Prior to accepting four point Calvinism, he rejected Arminianism because of its apparent tenet of man’s free will to reject God after accepting Him. This circumvents once saved always saved and eternal security in general.
Congdon admits on page 2f. that he had accepted the assertion of many “scholars” that there are only two systematic theologies to choose from: Calvinism or Arminianism. He had already rejected the latter because…
The theology of Arminianism holds that salvation is conditioned upon one’s continuing in the faith; that is, just as an individual may freely choose to believe and accept the gospel of salvation, he may also choose to turn away in unbelief and “fall from grace,” or lose his salvation.[4]
Congdon initially rejected limited atonement, the L in TULIP, and like many others labeled themselves four point Calvinists. I won’t belabor his reasoning behind rejecting that point as it is a no-brainer for any grammarian. One example of low hanging fruit for the argument against it follows:
2-Peter 2:1- But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves (NIV).
____4___________________________________________________________
Throughout Congdon’s latest booket in the New Calvinist series, he emphasizes that many, many Christians embrace Calvinism based on assumptions and assumed definition of terms; he then begins to make his case starting with the T in TULIP, total depravity, or total inability/willingness. He also emphasizes, and correctly so, that the Reformed unabashedly make the five points of Calvinism synonymous with the gospel itself. Indeed, Calvinism, and therefore Protestantism as well, stands or falls on the five points.
Congdon argues this from the ever taxing order of salvation argument. Is man able to believe the word before the Holy Spirit regenerates him/her? He makes a lengthy argument that man believes first and is then immediately sealed by the Holy Spirit, or born again.
Ephesians 1:13 – In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
He also diagnoses the biblical definition of death to mean “separation” as opposed to the idea that unregenerate man is dead like a stone and completely unable to respond. The argument is lengthy, detailed, and will not be fully expounded on here, but it is indeed an impressive argument. Suffice to say that if man is able to make wise choices in everyday life, it doesn’t make sense that God’s means of salvation would be the one item where he was unable to make a choice. Even if man chooses God in order to escape hell, he is conceding that he deserves to go there.
Mankind is not totally depraved. The book of Romans states the following:
Romans 1:16 – For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened (ASV).
___5________________________________________________________
Romans 2:14 – (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; 15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); (ASV).
Mankind in general has the law of God written on their heart and a conscience that either accuses them or excuses them. Also, they knowingly and deliberately suppress the truth in unrighteousness. This strongly implies ability to make a choice. Moreover, the Bible often blames Satan for deceiving people and blinding them. What’s the point of stating that if man has no ability to discern to begin with?
Clearly, man is not totally depraved, and besides, another assumption by many is that total depravity only applies to unbelievers. Elsewhere in this volume we have addressed the Calvinist absurd notion of the total depravity of the saints. Calvinists themselves make these five points the gospel, and all hinge on the first, total depravity. This alone is enough reason to utterly reject Calvinism.
Congdon addresses unmerited election or the U of TULIP in chapter three. He makes the point that election has very little to do with individual salvation. He reminds us that Christ was elected, but obviously has never needed salvation. The angels are elect, but redemption has never been offered to the angels. The nation of Israel is elect, but not every Israelite will be saved. Hence, election has no direct relationship to individual salvation. Says Congdon:
I have concluded that “election” is a term used of specific groups, without respect to salvation.*[5]
And…
Furthermore, one must conclude that those who are not elect are simply consigned to an existence of eternal punishment with no real purpose, service, or goal, apart from them being “props” on the stage of redemptive history.[6]
Exactly. That’s the Reformed metaphysical narrative in a nutshell. We read life, we don’t do it. This is alluded to in said booklet:
In the New Testament, “believe” is always an active verb—something one does, not something done to him.[7]
1 Peter 1:22 indicates the mutual participation of our belief and the Spirit’s regeneration:
Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit…
Congdon also comments on what the results of this will be. I consider this to be a major consideration in judging why people follow after such doctrines:
According to this view, one can only conclude that God is a Deity who requires no discernment, decision making, or responsibility on the part of His creation, for humans are merely preprogrammed robots carrying out His decrees.
___6________________________________________________________
* Congdon’s specific definition of election on p. 45: “Election refers to God’s choosing/electing to use a specific group of beings in a unique way to serve Him in order to accomplish His plan and purposes to his glory. The group’s election assures that it will accomplish its God-given tasks under His provision, assurance, and supervision, because He is Sovereign. Election indicates selection of a group for service, not selection of individuals for salvation.”
This is one of the reasons why many find New Calvinism to be so appealing today, for if God has predetermined the course of life, they need only “go with the flow,” having no responsibility or accountability. New Calvinism offers a fatalistic view of life. Time magazine, declares that today’s New Calvinist pictures God as “an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity.” One can only wonder then, what is the purpose of the Judgement Seat of Christ or the Great White Throne Judgment? If everyone has been preprogrammed to receive reward or punishment, judgement becomes a mere mockery (Ibid pp. 41, 42).
Not a “mockery,” just a metaphysical narrative that upholds God’s sovereignty. Supposedly, God is glorified in the destruction of man which shows forth His justice, and those saved show forth His great mercy. Though Calvinists speak often of the uniqueness of this “man humbling doctrine” that gives all glory to God, it is far, far from being unique. In fact, mythological predeterminism based on metaphysical narratives have dominated the religious landscape of history from the cradle of civilization.[8] And from another logical viewpoint, this redemptive historical approach demands the reinterpretation and tortured use of many common words. Following are a few examples:
- Reason: Any inclination that man can be reasoned with must be excluded. Reasoning with someone to obtain a more favorable outcome is pointless; reason has no purpose.
- God’s Promises: No one can really know if the promise is to them. The legitimacy of the promise for you is ambiguous.
- Cause and effect: As Congdon points out, man is not really responsible or accountable for any of his decisions because everything is predetermined. Nothing a man does, or chooses to do, can cause an effect—everything is predetermined.
- Judgement: This is where you are being judged for your predetermined actions. This is where you are judged for being a created being fitted for destruction.
- Duty: Can’t be fulfilled for any logical purpose.
- Hope: One can only hope that they have hope.
___7_________________________________________________________
- Love: A little known Calvinist doctrine is that of love being defined by God’s self-love. Think about it, if man is not worthy of love, God must do all for the sake of His self-love.[9]
- Choice: Man can choose everything but God, but even those choices are predetermined.
- Commandments: Obedience is predetermined and not executed by the one commanded. This is an actual Reformed doctrine; the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event. All obedience flows out of the “Christ event” and is not really performed by the one commanded. The subject only experiences the imputed righteousness of Christ subjectively.[10]
- Whosoever will: Whosoever is predetermined.
- Evangelism: Offer not legitimate for all.
- Good News: …that some have been predetermined for hell and that we will not know for certain who is going to heaven until the final judgement?
- Reality: A prewritten divine narrative.
- Rewards: Only condemnation can be earned.
- Obedience: Fulfilled by the actions of God.
- Ethics: All definitions glorify God regardless of appearance. For example, tragedy should be a time of rejoicing because it glorifies God.
- Ability: Man has only been granted the ability to know that he has no ability.
- We “persuade men”: Apparently we don’t. This is the art of “persuasion” to see if they have been preselected or not.
Later, we will consider Congdon’s alternative to total inability…to choose God, but we must remember that his definitive observations are biblically sound and make Calvinism impossible. His inductive observations have perhaps not yet led to the best conclusions, but in the interim we must consider that the above eighteen concepts make perfect sense as normally understood when under the auspices of his foreknowledge theory presented in the booket at hand. We must remember that we are just beginning to crawl out of the Protestant dark age, and there is much study left to do.
This brings us to the I in TULIP, Irresistible grace. Here is what Congdon states regarding the I:
Underlying the doctrine of irresistible grace is the Calvinistic concept that it is impossible for God to be truly sovereign if He allows His will to be resisted.[11]
He created man in His own image, for He desired to have fellowship with willing individuals, not pre-programmed robots. Since salvation is a gift of God, that gift may be either received or rejected by individuals exercising their free wills. Granting human beings freedom to choose is fully compatible with God’s nature in terms of His grace, mercy, justice, love, etc. Instead of diminishing His sovereignty, God’s decision to grant
___8____________________________________________________________
human beings the freedom of choice actually demonstrates His sovereignty and glorifies Him more.[12]
Instead of forcing individuals to be saved through the irresistible prompting of the Holy Spirit, God uses His Word and the convicting work of the Spirit to confirm its truth in order to bring individuals to the point of decision. It is certainly God’s grace that offers it, but at this point they are free to accept or reject salvation.[13]
Calvinists teach that the Spirit’s offer of irresistible grace is based upon God’s election; it is the “wind” that arbitrarily comes upon preselected individuals and regenerates them, independent of personal choice…. According to Biblicists, however, the Spirit’s part is to confirm the truth of the Gospel and convict individuals of their sin/need so that they may choose to believe or reject it (John 16:7-14).[14]
So, what do we have so far?
- Man is rebellious, but able to choose. He is not totally depraved. The fact that man did not seek-out God for a reconciliation (in that regard being totally unable) does not negate choice when God grants the gift and calls on man to accept it.
- God seeks after man to reconcile man to Himself; first, by the death of His Son on the cross for a propitiation for sin, then He pursues men with the truth of His word and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit.
- The preached word and the Spirit corners mankind into a decision that they are able to make. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, and conviction of sin and coming judgement through the Spirit.*
- God only elects the means of salvation and not individuals. According to His foreknowledge of who will believe in Him, He elects certain individuals to be part of the body of Christ.[15]**
Maybe.
We know that Calvinism, and also the whole Protestant Reformation myth must be utterly rejected as false for more reasons than you can shake a stick at, but the American called out assembly has a lot of learning/studying/praying to do in order to build Biblicism in its place. Congdon’s book is a good start and offers valid building blocks, but again, there is much work to do. The first step is to get rid of the bad leaven.
Finally, we come to the P in TULIP, Perseverance of the saints. This is where Congdon makes his strongest points though not entirely correct. This isn’t surprising because Reformed doctrine in general is very problematic on this point. Up to this point in the book (chapter 5), Congdon posits the expected traditional error of the church is the Bride of Christ (it is not, but is rather the guest of the Bridegroom—New Jerusalem is the Bride), and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (no, Christ died for us, it is the Father’s righteousness that is imputed to us, and yes, it’s an important distinction if you don’t hold to the Reformed doctrine of double imputation). As Congdon journeys farther away from Reformation heresy he will realize that the whole the church is the Bride of Christ thing relates to Amillennialism, and the idea that Christ’s righteousness is
___9__________________________________________________________
* The Bible states clearly that Christ was lifted up to draw ALL men to Him (John 12:32). They are drawn, but ultimately it is their choice to accept the gift.
** Other considerations can be added. In Romans 8:30, God justifies who He calls, but Christ said many are called but few chosen. Obviously, not everyone called believes. Add this to the idea mentioned by Congdon in regard to Arminianism: in the same way you can freely choose God, you can also freely choose to stop believing in Him. This might be where election comes in; it guarantees the outcome of your decision. It doesn’t determine what you will believe by your own choice, but it determines that the end result will be glorification.
imputed to us relates to the very progressive justification that he complains about in chapter 5.
Nevertheless, Congdon calls out Calvinism in chapter 5 for having a “two-part process.” This is huge—this is the Achilles heel of Calvinism. Says Congdon:
In essence, the individual is merely coming to a realization of what God has already done for him or her.* At this first act of faith, God credits the individual with an imputed righteousness that has not been fully achieved as yet. It is a credit that must be borne out or earned throughout life. Time allows the person to demonstrate their election by obedience or works, such as keeping the moral law of Moses. After death all these works will be used as “evidence” to determine this. If there is sufficient evidence, the person is elect; if not, he or she isn’t elect. According to Calvinism, it is only at this point that individuals will know for certain if they are saved. According to Calvinists, this demonstration will occur at the final judgement, the Great White Throne judgement.[16]
Congdon’s summation here is absolutely correct. Sort of. Calvinism posits a working out of your salvation with trembling and fear to gain assurance that you will “stand in the judgement.” He also makes the apt observation that justification is confused with sanctification (Ibid p.64). Though he doesn’t expound on it further, it should be mentioned that this leads to confusion regarding redemption versus justification (the saving of the soul versus salvation from the body of death), and fear of consequences for ill Christian living as opposed to fear of eternal judgement. Christians live in love, and there is NO fear in love, fear has to do with judgement. Wise fear of being disciplined as a believer is a different matter—Calvinism makes the two the same thing.
On this point, Congdon also flirts with the idea that this makes Calvinist eschatology errant as well (Ibid pp. 61, 64, 65, 70); Christians will not stand in the final judgement to verify their election—that’s a settled issue. But the flirtation is too ambiguous—since 25% of the Bible is eschatology, it shouldn’t surprise us that our eschatology also reveals our gospel. Eschatology is NOT a “secondary” issue—it is the gospel as well. Your eschatology should match your gospel.
As should be expected, Congdon still suffers from residual side effects of the Calvinist disease that has plagued him most of his life. He mentions yielding, gratitude-driven, and obedience via mere natural flow as valid sanctification concepts when these are in-fact ill remnants of Reformed sanctification by faith ALONE and progressive justification.
____10__________________________________________________________
*Many “New” Calvinists call this, “getting used to our sanctification.”
Though his rightful proclamation that Calvinism is progressive justification, is a huge step forward, he is errant in the assertion that Calvinist final justification is earned by perseverance in law-keeping. First of all, in Classic Calvinism/Old Calvinism/New Calvinism, obedience is not performed by the “Christian.” Obedience, viz, Christ’s “active obedience” is imputed to the Christian by FAITH ALONE throughout his/her’s “Christian” life. As the “Christian” preaches the gospel to himself, lives a cross-driven life, and continually lives out his/her’s baptism,* Christ’s perfect obedience is applied to the “Christian’s” life and said person remains justified until the final judgement.
The Bible aids in this because it enables the “Christian” to see the “saving acts”(PLURAL) of Christ “throughout the whole Bible” and not anything “we have done.” Hence, the Bible aids in the Reformed doctrines of double imputation and mortification and vivification. This is the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic.
Secondly, the person does not actually perform the obedience, he/she only EXPERIENCES the imputed obedience of Christ. These imputations and the resulting joy (see John Piper’s Christian Hedonism) proffer assurance that the person will be able to “stand in the judgement by faith alone.” But, they won’t know for certain until they get the thumbs-up at the final judgement. Congdon is correct about it being works justification in regard to the “Christian” yet being under law, and the Reformed legal loophole being the following…that’s ok because Jesus keeps the law for us as we meditate on His “saving works (PLURAL) in all of the Bible.” No, we are not under law at all, and there is NO law in justification—we are justified apart from the law. This is the egregious problem with fusing justification and sanctification together.
Thirdly, this is not a two-part justification, it is actually three-part according to Calvinists themselves: definitive justification, subjective justification, and final justification. Or, definitive justification, subjective justification, and objective justification, known as the “objective gospel.”
Fourthly, it’s no whit different from Arminianism except final justification is predetermined according to Calvinists. Both fuse justification and sanctification together while demanding a sanctification by faith alone to keep yourself justified (that is, Arminianism in its purest form). The difference is that the Arminians think you can actually participate in faith alone by not working, viz,
___11______________________________________________________
*This is perpetual death and rebirth through “deep repentance” to keep yourself justified by faith alone in the cross-work of Christ. The formal Calvinistic doctrine is mortification and vivification.
Christ fulfills the law for you if you live by faith alone, while Calvinists believe that you can only work for assurance and vivification joy experiences, but the final outcome is determined by God. Calvinists therefore can lay the charge down against Arminians that they do not believe in the “Gospel of Sovereignty.” Arminians can keep themselves saved by faith alone in the same progression of justification. Because Arminians believe that you do more than merely experience justification, the charge of works is leveled by the Calvinists. Is the gospel a “gospel of sovereignty”? Is the fact that God predetermined some to eternal destruction while saving others, and no one will know for certain who is in and who is out until the final judgement really “good news”?
Apparently not. As Congdon notes near the conclusion of his most recent booklet in his New Calvinist series, many of the Puritans held in Calvinistic historical high regard, laid in terror on their deathbeds.[17] This is not the rich entry into heaven promised by God for those who add loving works to the foundation of their faith (2Peter 1:5-11).
I will close here with Congdon’s call to replace Calvinism with Biblicism:
Another crucial issue is Calvinism’s incorrect teaching on God’s judgments and end-time events that are facilitating Satan’s plan in bringing apostasy into the church and render it ineffective in these critical latter days of the Church age. This topic would fill another booklet. The fact that this aggressive movement is successfully redefining the Gospel of Salvation should be enough to alert earnest believers to the seriousness of the times we are in and our need to contend for the faith…It is vitally important to understand the true gospel as revealed in the Bible by God, not in the thoughts and creeds of men, such as Calvinism. Are your beliefs based upon the Scriptures alone or the philosophies of men? Are you a Biblicist or a 4-point Calvinist? It does make a difference![18]
_____12_______________________________________________________
Endnotes
1. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: New Calvinism’s Upside-Down Gospel; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2012 Greer, South Carolina | Preface.
2. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina.
3. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 4.
4. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 3.
5. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 39.
6. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 40.
7. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 44.
8. Paul M. Dohse: Paul’s passing Thoughts .com;Romans Series Interlude: Predestination, a Potter’s House Journey, Part 3; Election and Total Depravity were NOT New with the Reformers and Far from being Unique. Online source April 27, 2014: https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2014/04/27/romans-series-interlude-predestination-a-potters-house-journey-part-3-election-and-total-depravity-were-not-new-with-the-reformers-and-far-from-being-unique/
9. God Loves Himself .wordpress.com: Meditations on the God-Centered God; http://godloveshimself.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/musings-35/
10. Paul M. Dohse: Another Gospel; TANC Publishing 2010 | pp. 152-159.
11. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 47.
12. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 48.
13. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 48.
14. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 49.
15. Congdon states this specifically on p.66 of Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist.
16. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | pp. 60, 61.
17. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 68.
18. Dr. Robert R. Congdon: Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Pt Calvinist; Congdon Ministries International Inc. 2014 Greer, South Carolina | p. 70.
Addendum A
What is a Biblical “Sect,” and why should New Calvinism be classified as such?
The Biblical Meaning of Heresy
Discernment ministries serve as a teaching tool by antithesis (finding error often leads to discovering more truth in the antithesis). And here, we have an excellent example, for I would have never known the true meaning of the word “heresy” if not for this ministry. Like most folks, I assumed the word just referred to erroneous teachings by “heretics.” Such is not the case. The word refers to a group of people, or a movement that causes division and controversies by teaching error.
First, the foundation of what sects do is based on the biblical concept that truth unifies and error divides. A call for unity by the apostles is also a call to be of the “same” mind and judgment:
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
1 Corinthians 9:8
Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?
Philippians 2:2
…complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
Secondly, the cause of division:
Romans 16:17
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
Jude 1:17
But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.
Ephesians 4:13
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Truth unites, and error divides; therefore, a heretic is described in Titus 3:10:
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,…
The actual word for “division” as translated in the ESV is the English word “heretic[k]” (KJV). It is translated that way because of the following note that is found in some English/Greek dictionaries: “From the same as G140; a schismatic. (“heretic” is the Greek word itself).”
Therefore, in the Bible, those who teach error and are divisive are synonymous.
Division With a Purpose
In the same way that heresy, heretics, and division cannot be separated, the idea that these are always sectarian is also the biblical maxim. In fact, Young’s Literal Translation uses the word “sectarian” in place of “divisive” or “heretic” in Titus 3:10. 1Corinthians 11:19 states the following:
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
The word in Titus 3:10 is “heretic”, and likewise, the English form of the word in 1Corinthians 11:19 is “heresies.” But most English translations use the word “faction.” The ESV is one example among many. It means “party,” “group,” or “sect.” In other words, these English words translated from the Greek are all used interchangeably in the biblical text, especially with “heresy” or “heretic.” This idea that sects, division, and doctrinal error go hand in hand is plainly stated in the Bible:
Acts 20:30
…and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Acts 24:5
For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
In fact, Christianity was seen as a sect because of the divisions caused by sanctification:
Acts 24:14
But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, (refer back to 1Corinthians 11:19 as well).
Note that the word used in the ESV for “sect” is “heresy,” which is the same word used in Titus 3:10 to describe a heretic. Hence the following reference by others that I found helpful in regards to Titus 3:10:
Some say that in Titus 3:10 ‘a factious [sectarian] man’ should be translated ‘a man who teaches heresy’ and that this expression does not refer to a divisive person. But in Greek this expression denotes a person who holds an opinion or a different doctrine that tends toward division. Thus, the English versions translate this as (1) a factious man—American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament; (2) a man who is factious—Revised Standard Version, Amplified Bible; (3) a heretical sectarian and cause of divisions—Amplified Bible; (4) a heretical person causing divisions—Wuest; (5) a sectarian—W. J. Conybeare; (6) a man who causes divisions—R. F. Weymouth; (7) a factious person—James Moffatt; (8) a sectarian man—Concordant Literal New Testament, Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament; (9) a factious person—Berkeley Version; (10) a heretical man, i.e., one given to ‘lift up’ opinions, sound or unsound, and an unstable, unsettled individual who wishes to form sects—Young’s Translation; (11) causing division by a party spirit, factious—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words; (12) a divisive person—New International Version.
To say that division over doctrine exemplifies New Calvinism would be the understatement of the century! Throughout the Bible, sectarians are also described as COVERT—another adjective describing New Calvinism that is an understatement on steroids. In fact, they themselves boast that they are divisive because they preach a “scandalous” gospel. Well, that’s exactly what the apostle Paul said sectarians do:
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
The word for “obstacles” in this verse is, “scandalon” or “scandal.” So for all practical purposes, New Calvinists admit that they preach a divisive gospel. New Calvinism came forth from its Australian Forum womb drawing away disciples and causing divisions on personal levels and corporate levels to a degree that may be unprecedented in church history.
The Cure
New Calvinism is a super-sect that must be exposed and stopped, and only one cure will work: biblical separation. The apostles described sectarianism as a disease that would quickly spread and wreak havoc on God’s people (“gangrene”). They said that a little leaven will leaven the whole lump. Men who gather to “discuss” the symptoms of sectarianism with its proponents show that they do not understand what the Bible teaches about sectarianism. While they feast with these men and discuss “issues,” the gangrene does not wait.
Addendum B
When We Use Words, Should We Know What They Mean? Truth, Mythology, Orthodoxy, and Creed
In order to control people, you have to control their minds. And in order to control their minds, you have to control the definitions of words. The meanings of words form what we believe about truth and reality. And, when it gets right down to it, a proper assessment of reality is the foundation of truth (and by the way, you can only control people by force for so long. The key is to control their minds).
Truth is not “fact.” Truth has a moral value to it. Facts are building blocks that can build any theory of truth.
I have written about all of this before, but this short essay was inspired by one of my Facebook friends. She announced that she was using The Westminster Shorter Catechism for Kids to instruct her young child. Why would she do that? Because the WSC is “orthodoxy,” and that word has come to mean…TRUTH. Hence, the opposite of “orthodoxy” is “heterodoxy,” a practice that I am often accused of; meaning: untruth.
Now, the WSC is often spoken of as being “subordinate truth.” And in fact, that is a fact, but let’s think about this: why is a subordinate truth needed? Isn’t truth powerful enough by itself?
“Well Paul, a creed, or confession, or catechism, is just a form of truth that is taught on the common person’s level, it makes truth easier to understand for the average person.”
Exactly.
The assumption is that there is a truth caste system. There are those who understand Truth, big T, and then those who are only capable of understanding a revisal form of truth on a more elementary level.
Orthodoxy is NOT truth, orthodoxy is an elitist interpretation of truth by those preordained by God (or mother nature) to have a special gift for interpreting truth. People merely pick the orthodoxy of preference which ranges from A-Z of world religions. Protestantism, like Catholicism, or for that matter Hinduism, was founded on orthodoxy which has become a word fictitiously associated with the meaning of the word…truth. The title of those who penned the Westminster Confession should be telling: the “Westminster Divines.” What would be our first clue?
Orthodoxy is not truth, orthodoxy is some man’s interpretation of truth. This is what separates Protestantism from the true called out assembly of Christ: the priesthood of believers. Clearly, this states that every human being is capable of understanding truth on their own, and is culpable before God ALONE for the adjudication of that truth. This also assumes that man is created with freedom of conscience. And by the way, the horizontal political expression of this is an idea that we call the United States of America. And by the way, there is a reason why the Pope and New Calvinists alike are brazen Socialists, confused Protestants notwithstanding. Will we be judged individually for following God, or men appointed by God? This should be evident. We only follow men who follow Christ according to our own assessment of truth.
“But Paul! That will lead to Chaos!”
Exactly.
Herein is the rub: reality, and presuppositions regarding man; ability to understand reality, or epistemological caste? That’s it in a nutshell folks. It’s the exact lie first perpetrated in the garden: Hey Eve, you really can’t understand God without a mediator. You need somebody who has special insight into the spiritual, “nay, has God really said…?”And the priesthood of believers versus spiritual caste was a major battlefront in the first century church and a major theme of the apostle John’s writings.
Right out of the gates of the garden came the declaration of the kingdom of darkness: spiritual caste enforced by government, and the ownership of truth by Plato’s philosopher kings. Philosopher, and king, and the divine right of kings. All of human history was saturated with wars over orthodoxy until 1776. The vast number of wars fought throughout human history have been religious civil wars, or more accurately, wars over orthodoxy.
The divine right of kings is responsible for chaos, not kings who protect a reasonable freedom of conscience. This was the crying out of small voices in the wilderness of a European culture drenched in blood.
In ancient times, spiritual caste was expressed in mythology. To see mythology as ancient superstition shrouded in ignorance would be an incorrect assessment. Mythology is merely stories (parables) created by philosopher kings so that the unenlightened masses can understand principles of society for purposes of social justice. For Plato, that was UNITY period. Whatever “truth” unified was the proof in the pudding; unity equals truth.
Mythology is no different than orthodoxy, and the various teachings thereof: creeds, confessions, and catechisms. Of course it is “subordinate truth.” Of course there is a “higher truth,” but the rub is that the common folks can’t really understand THE Truth…capital T. Hence, you follow the orthodoxy of your choice…presumably to heaven. Pick well; the choices are vast, and the various enlightened choices are better than yours because of the reality that you have accepted: orthodoxy.
The prime example of this in our evangelical day is the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic that dominates the institutional church. It is, Bible as story. Bible as “gospel narrative.” This is absolutely NOTHING more or less than mythology itself dressed in uppity European intellectualism.
Christ promised YOU that you would find truth if you seek it. This isn’t a seeking to find the right man to follow, this is between you and God Himself. And this issue goes way, way back in time. It was a major issue with Moses, and the apostle John, and it is a major issue in our day. Therefore, I close with these words from Moses:
The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law… For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
The Gospel of Sovereignty? Romans Series Interlude: Predestination, a Potter’s House Journey; Part 7
sov·er·eign·ty [sov-rin-tee, suhv-] noun, plural sov·er·eign·ties.
1. the quality or state of being sovereign.
2. the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty.
3. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.
4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative.
5. a sovereign state, community, or political unit.
“The sovereignty of God” is a phrase that we hear often in Christian circles; in fact, it is a subject that dominates Christian discussion in our day. Moreover, it is an attribute of God that Christians make intrinsic to the gospel itself. In my contention against progressive justification in our day, the argument I hear most is, “You don’t understand the sovereignty of God.”
And no wonder, one of the premier evangelicals of our day, John MacArthur Jr., had this to say in a message titled, “An Explanation of the Sovereign Gospel.”
So we know it has been laid upon us to be faithful in our evangelistic responsibility. At the same time, sometimes we struggle with this reality of divine sovereignty and what it is that we can do when everything is predetermined by God and worked by the Holy Spirit.
Well, the simple answer to the question is God has not only ordained whom He will save, but He has ordained that we in our faithful evangelism would be the means by which He would save His own. To be useful to Him is the purpose in the fulfillment of His sovereign plan, to be an instrument that He can use, to be a vessel unto honor, fit for the Master’s use. To be obedient because that brings, of course, blessing, reward in this life and eternal reward as well (Grace Community Church | Romans 9-11 | September 03, 2011).
Of course, if God has predetermined who will be saved, and uses our evangelism to carry that out, our obedience to evangelism must be preordained as well. As discussed in a previous lesson in this series, this necessarily requires the redefining of the words “obedience” and “reward” as well as many other words and the normative understanding of them. But the main point I want to make here is MacArthur making salvation synonymous with sovereignty which is defined as CONTROL.
Herein is the problem: the word “sovereign” does NOT mean “control,” it means that one has the right to have authority in a given jurisdiction. Even some among the Reformed admit this:
What does it mean to say that God is sovereign? The refrain has become so common, almost clichéd, in Reformed writing and preaching that it sometimes slips away from the reader or listener without lodging meaning in the mind. Worse, we typically hear the phrase to mean something it doesn’t. When Christians affirm that “God is sovereign,” they often mean “God is in control.” Paul Tripp, for example, wrote in his excellent book Lost in the Middle that “God truly is sovereign . . . there is no situation, relationship, or circumstance that is not controlled by our heavenly Father.”
The problem is that the English word sovereignty does not mean control. The U. S. government is sovereign within American territory, but that doesn’t mean the government controls everything within American borders or causes all that happens. If you look up sovereignty in the dictionary you’ll not find control in the definition—nor even as a synonym in a thesaurus.
Sovereignty means “rightful authority.” A dictionary gives “supreme rank” as one definition, and a thesaurus lists jurisdiction and dominion as synonyms. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty tells us God is the rightful ruler of the universe. He has legitimate claim to lordship. His government is just. In fact, justice is defined as his rule. God’s sovereignty doesn’t tell us whether God does in fact rule—just that he ought to, and that we should acknowledge his rule and obey it. (Is “Sovereign” the Best Descriptor for God? Paul D. Miller).
Miller goes on to say…
Once again, it is true God is sovereign. It’s also true he’s in control of everything that happens and he causes all that happens. But that is the doctrine of God’s providence, not his sovereignty.
Does God CAUSE everything to happen? Perhaps, but that’s not what providence means either.
prov·i·dence [prov-i-duhns] noun
1. the foreseeing care and guidance of God or nature over the creatures of the earth.
2. God, especially when conceived as omnisciently directing the universe and the affairs of humankind with wise benevolence.
3. a manifestation of divine care or direction.
4. provident or prudent management of resources; prudence.
5. foresight; provident care.
First, the word “sovereign” appears nowhere in the Bible which should give people pause in regard to the frivolousness of its use in Christian circles. Secondly, it does NOT mean, control, preordination, or predetermination. Certainly, if God wanted to control everything, He could, but does He? Did God know sin was going to come into the world? Yes, so why didn’t he prevent it beforehand? The best answer points to the importance of freewill. God did not cause sin by not preventing it. God tempts no one with sin and is not the creator of evil (James 1:13-18).
When the attributes of God are considered (most theologians name 21 different attributes), absolute deterministic control is not one of them. Even with said attributes, God at times chooses to forfeit the attribute for a period of time. Therefore, if God is predeterminist, He wouldn’t always necessarily choose to predetermine. Some attributes of God are temporarily mutable, and others are NOT ever mutable. An immutable attribute of God is His love towards mankind for all the living. Clearly, an example of an attribute that God has temporarily suspended at times is omniscience:
Genesis 18:20 – Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.”
Mark 13:32 – But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Also, yes, in regard to some things God is immutable, but in contrast, he can be persuaded by prayer:
Isaiah 38:1 – In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die, you shall not recover.” 2 Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, 3 and said, “Please, O Lord, remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: 5 “Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will add fifteen years to your life. 6 I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and will defend this city.
2Chronicles 16;12 – In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was afflicted with a disease in his feet. Though his disease was severe, even in his illness he did not seek help from the LORD, but only from the physicians (NIV).
We have established that sovereign would be the wrong word to describe God as causing all that happens, and those things being according to His desired will. It has also been mentioned that the word “sovereign” is not in the Bible. Even if sovereign did mean that all things are predetermined according to God’s pleasure, would it be correct to make that part and parcel with the gospel as most do in our day? Below is yet another version of the infamous Cross Chart that can be applied to this question:
The Problem is defining the gospel according to God’s sovereignty as opposed to God’s love and the good news thereof. Why would the idea that God preordained people to hell be good news? This also speaks to man’s worth. Did Christ die for humanity because it has some kind of worth to God? We can again utilize the cross chart for this question:
To the extent that man has worth, the gospel gets smaller and God’s grace, and the degree of His sacrifice are diminished. A gospel based on the sovereignty of God must completely eliminate man altogether, and John Immel’s point made in this year’s TANC conference is well taken: it eventually boils down to Man having no right to exist.
All of this greatly hinders the proper answering of questions people have about the Bible. Take note of John Piper’s answer to the question, “Why was it right for God to slaughter women and children in the Old Testament? How can that ever be right?”
It’s right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die.
God is taking life every day. He will take 50,000 lives today. Life is in God’s hand. God decides when your last heartbeat will be, and whether it ends through cancer or a bullet wound. God governs.
So God is God! He rules and governs everything. And everything he does is just and right and good. God owes us nothing.
If I were to drop dead right now, or a suicide bomber downstairs were to blow this building up and I were blown into smithereens, God would have done me no wrong. He does no wrong to anybody when he takes their life, whether at 2 weeks or at age 92.
God is not beholden to us at all. He doesn’t owe us anything.
Now add to that the fact we’re all sinners and deserve to die and go to hell yesterday, and the reality that we’re even breathing today is sheer common grace from God.
I could make the question harder. As it was stated, it doesn’t feel hard to me, because God was stated as the actor.
My basic answer is that the Old and New Testaments present God as the one who has total rights over my life and over my death.
“The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21). How he takes away is his call. He never wrongs anybody.
~ Ask Pastor John | Desiring God .org | February 27, 2010
In essence, you see the mentality in this answer that man does not have the right to exist, and has no worth. Yet…
Malachi 3:17 – They shall be mine, says the LORD of hosts, in the day when I make up my treasured possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his son who serves him.
John Piper has been called out many times publicly for making these kinds of statements in regard to tragedies, but no one seems to understand the ideology behind such statements. Some also notice tacit acceptance of terrorism as well, and the lack of justice in the institutional church for those who have been abused speaks for itself. If the president of the flagship seminary in service to the largest denomination in the world thinks that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot,” what are we to expect?
When one thinks of life past the fatalistic prism of the “sovereign” gospel that saturates today’s church and reads the Bible in the same thinking way, much better answers evolve. Unfortunately, life teaches us that terrorists cannot be reasoned with. I heard a retired high-ranking military official state this week that the only way to deal with terrorists is to eliminate them. Keep in mind, this is because they do not value mankind or life because of the same presuppositions that we are discussing.
When Israel was getting ready to enter the Promised Land, it could very well be that God knew certain cultures in the area would continually harass Israel and were completely unreasonable while having no regard for life. Israel’s lack of obedience in following God’s command to completely wipe out certain cultures came back to bite them for hundreds of years—even until this very day. These were cultures very much like ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria who are presently wreaking havoc in the Middle East and mercilessly slaughtering thousands. These people, unfortunately, cannot be negotiated with.
Lastly, another problem with a gospel that is based on deterministic fatalism follows. There is only one person spoken of less in our day than the Holy Spirit: Satan. The Bible warns us throughout to be aware of the devil’s schemes, and that he “deceives” the world. Why would this be relevant and how do you “deceive” someone who is already preordained for eternal punishment? The Bible continually places blame on Satan for leading people into condemnation.
In the final analysis, a “sovereign” gospel devalues prayer, God’s promises, evangelism, sin, justice, hope, life value, future reward, and the belief that what we do in this life is relevant. I have come to believe that people will perish because we have been neutralized by ignorance:
Ezekiel 3:16 – And at the end of seven days, the word of the Lord came to me: 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. 20 Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul.”
John MacArthur claims that Christians should take part in God’s “sovereign” plan, and therefore find blessings in being obedient to evangelism. I have heard this same take from people who equate freewill with an unsovereign gospel/false gospel. Again, God’s “sovereignty” is the attribute that primary drives the gospel and not love. But the following is irrefutable, such obedience must also be preordained and not really of our own volition. Furthermore, the reward is invalid as well.
I have also come to believe that there are no paradoxes in God’s election. I believe the confusion can be eliminated, and people motivated to labor in God’s ministry field with zeal. But I believe the study will be very hard work.
Nevertheless, let us begin it posthaste.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments