The Problem with Wartburg
“Deb and Dee” author one of the more popular discernment blogs in our day. They have always seemed fairly cognizant to me and I have always found their newsreel informative. They report and comment on Christian trends, primarily in regard to the Neo-Calvinist movement.
I began having problems with Wartburg when they selected Wade Burleson as the pastor of their online Echurch. Burleson, as I have often documented on PPT, is a rabid follower of Jon Zens who is a forefather of the Neo-Calvinist movement. While referring to the leaders of said movement as the Calvinistas, they embrace and give credence to the most rabid advocates of the movement. This has also resulted in the ignoring of the very victim-blaming by Burleson that they claim to disdain.
Hence, they have been called “hypocrites” by some. But don’t forget merciful either as they continue to give Burleson a stage when he is arguably the Barney Fife of pastors. PPT has documented his embarrassing teaching snafus such as drawing biblical principles from word analysis using words with 17th and 19th century etymology.
This post is about the definitive problem with Wartburg. I didn’t really know what it was until someone brought it to my attention a week ago. And that problem is their gospel. And that gospel is the same EXACT gospel that drives New Calvinism. It is antinomian, Platonist, and a doctrine of control. The first step of controlling a culture anyway you want to is gun confiscation. The first step of controlling people in the church is self-esteem confiscation. What I mean by self-esteem is biblical self-esteem which is simply a truthful assessment of oneself.
And total depravity is not a biblical assessment of man. Even a child can see this from Romans 2:14 ff.
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.
Even unbelievers at times clearly do what the law requires, a fact that Calvin denied. Calvin insisted that no man, lost or saved, has ever done any deed that was acceptable to God (CI 3.14.10,11). Augustine, Luther and Calvin were avowed Platonists, and total depravity finds its philosophical foundation there. It later became Gnosticism which was the primary ideology that wreaked havoc on the first century church.
Before I address the source of my conclusion in regard to Deb and Dee, let me first state what they are in league with while priding themselves as victim advocates: Burleson often brags about his admiration for the Puritans; some of their activities included executing people who reduced the pain of those bearing children. The Puritans were also the framers of the genocidal attempt to eradicate the American Indians from the face of the earth. International Religious Freedom Day was founded on the remembrance of three Quakers executed in Boston by the Puritans for believing in the new birth. Indeed, the ignorant hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Now the source of my conclusion. In the midst of the present-day tyranny tsunami in the church, Dee chose to criticize a virtually extinct rendition of biblical obedience. The post can be read here and is one of the best posts I have ever read since the conception of my blogstration. The piece practically shell-shocked me. This slice of steroidal sanity also came from a teacher of women which is also extremely rare in our day. I think the author is a member of The Village Church. Isn’t that Matt Chandler’s gig? Well, if it is, she needs to get out of there with what she has in her cranium case.
I find Dee’s commentary on this piece most telling. First of all, it would take a book to unravel Dee’s fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel as revealed by her commentary, so I am only going to hit the points that make her nothing less than a pure authentic New Calvinist. I will begin by using a slight criticism of the aforementioned post. In it, the author states:
The gospel sets us free from sin, but it does more than that. It sets us free to obey (Rom 6:16).
She uses Romans 6:16 to make her point and her point is a good one among MANY in the post, but that verse doesn’t say that we have been freed to obey, it in fact states that we are enslaved to obedience.
As TANC has been discussing lately, there must be three exchanges in true salvation:
1. An exchange of the old us for the new us.
2. An exchange of law.
3. An exchange of slavery.
Shockingly, the author actually touched on one and two, but gets three slightly wrong. ALL people on the earth are slaves. They are either slaves to unrighteousness or slaves to righteousness. AND, all people upon the earth are also free, and the freedom corresponds to the slavery. The unregenerate are enslaved to disobedience and free to obey (Romans 6:20)—the regenerate are enslaved to obedience and free to sin. No unbeliever sins perfectly, and no believer obeys perfectly. The author got it right: it’s not the perfection—it’s the direction.
That brings us to the necessary exchange of law which the author also gets right via other words. It is the exchange of the law of condemnation for the law of love, or the motives issue that the author spoke of. Before salvation when we are “under law,” yes, perfection is the standard that we would be judged by and it determines eternal destiny. But those “under grace” love the law, and therefore perfection is not the standard, but it is the goal. Yes, when Christ stated, “be ye perfect,” He was stating the goal of the Christian life, not a standard for salvation.
Also, this could be a play on words in regard to “be ye saved” as demonstrated by a change of life direction. Why? Because the saved are NOT “under law” and “where there is no law there is no sin” and “we know that the law has nothing to say to us” etc. The Deeian New Calvinist gospel will not even get a contractor hired if he states, “Well, no job is ever perfect,” and it will not impress the world either unless they want to be saved with their sin. Like all New Calvinists, Dee uses the following well-traveled argument:
She is correct when she says that we should not live a life of ecstatic disobedience. But, she also failed to discuss Paul who viewed his sins in this way in Romans 7:19 (NIV-Gateway)
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing.
Paul got it. We will continue to sin and we will continue to seek forgiveness. I do not believe that most Christians are ecstatic over their sin and disobedience. They are ecstatic over the great grace which has resulted in the forgiveness of sins. We do not need to live like many people in certain ministries loved by Calvinistas. Such people live in constant condemnation. Their sins are dissected and pointed out by both pastors and sin hounds who relish “making observations.”
In context, the passage that Dee uses makes the original point of the aforementioned author. In Romans 7:13-25, Paul addresses all three exchanges and states that he is persevering against his old nature that was under the law. The way that law formally provoked him to sin is still free to do so (Rom 7:5, 9). But the word for “wretched” in verse 24 is a Greek word that carries the idea of persevering or overcoming affliction. Paul is crying out to God to be saved from his mortal body so that he will no longer have to fight against sin that is presently part of his being. Unfortunately, until Christ comes for us, we have to carry the old us that is dead. We carry around with us the “death of Christ”; ie., those things imputed to Christ that He put to death. The old us died with Christ, but we were also resurrected with Him to new life. So, there is still a salvation left for the believer—salvation from our mortality and its sin. This is not to be confused with the salvation that is a finished work. New Calvinists make the finished salvation and progressive sanctification, and glorification the same thing.
And so does Dee; albeit, perhaps unwittingly.
In her misguided and out-of-school argument against the truthful post, she states:
We will continue to sin and we will continue to seek forgiveness. I do not believe that most Christians are ecstatic over their sin and disobedience. They are ecstatic over the great grace which has resulted in the forgiveness of sins.
That is the very doctrine that is a hallmark of New Calvinism known as mortification and vivification. Dee’s argument is classic Neo-Calvinism: we don’t rejoice over the sin, only the forgiveness that we experience when we are forgiven. Conspicuously missing is any kind of joy that we receive through obedience because there isn’t any—the New Calvinist’s life is a “lifestyle of repentance” and exemplified by being “repenters.” My point is made by adding Dee’s statements to the following well-traveled New Calvinist illustration.
To further the point, consider this statement by New Calvinist Paul Washer:
At conversion, a person begins to see God and himself as never before. This greater revelation of God’s holiness and righteousness leads to a greater revelation of self, which, in return, results in a repentance or brokenness over sin. Nevertheless, the believer is not left in despair, for he is also afforded a greater revelation of the grace of God in the face of Christ, which leads to joy unspeakable. This cycle simply repeats itself throughout the Christian life. As the years pass, the Christian sees more of God and more of self, resulting in a greater and deeper brokenness. Yet, all the while, the Christian’s joy grows in equal measure because he is privy to greater and greater revelations of the love, grace, and mercy of God in the person and work of Christ. Not only this, but a greater interchange occurs in that the Christian learns to rest less and less in his own performance and more and more in the perfect work of Christ. Thus, his joy is not only increased, but it also becomes more consistent and stable. He has left off putting confidence in the flesh, which is idolatry, and is resting in the virtue and merits of Christ, which is true Christian piety” (Paul Washer: The Gospel Call and True Conversion; Part 1, Chapter 1, heading – The Essential Characteristics Of Genuine Repentance, subheading – Continuing and Deepening Work of Repentance).
Moreover, Dee’s confusion regarding the fact she is a New Calvinist and doesn’t know it is reflected in this statement:
We do not need to live like many people in certain ministries loved by Calvinistas. Such people live in constant condemnation. Their sins are dissected and pointed out by both pastors and sin hounds who relish “making observations.”
Her argument regards the idea that “grace” makes all of that unnecessary, but where is her argument for untruthful assessment; viz, biblical self-esteem which circumvents tyranny and control? In Calvinism, the root of all sin is the refusal to recognize our sin ONLY. The express purpose of sin sniffing is to bring more joy to people through “deep repentance.” Dee is criticizing a method that enhances the very construct she endorses.
“Calvinistas” my…uh, foot Dee—look in the mirror.
paul
Putinanity, Cuba, Bill 1062, and Why Christians Need to Shut Up
I won’t go completely postal on my fellow Christians because I too once believed that it would be just wonderful if Jerry Falwell was President of the United States. And as a Christian, I have never been interested in Mike Huckabee being President because the world is a dangerous place and the last thing we need is some cornball from Mayberry RFD as leader of the free world.
Let us remember that Jesus could have run for President of the world, and would have won hands down, and could have summoned Michael the archangel to pay the world a little visit if people didn’t like it, but He didn’t. This should cause us to take part in a lost art, especially among Christians, known as “pondering.”
Christians, in our culture, speak out on a lot of things because they are free to do so. America is an open society to everyone. This is not to be confused with democracies that are democratically run by the elitists only. That’s a democratic caste system. In a truly open society, people are free to speak openly whether informed or uninformed. Unfortunately, Christians have cornered the market on uninformed free speech. Worse yet, it’s speech predicated on misinformation concerning what we are supposed to be experts at: the Bible.
As director of the TANC research institute, three years has taught me this: Christians don’t even understand the gospel, much less complicated world affairs. Yet, within Christianity, there is endless debate about various and sundry issues complimented by Scripture stacking along with an absurd claim of societal moral authority. Look, when people in our society have problems, they go to a psychologist or tune into Dr. Phil, and if they go to a pastor for anything more than instruction on what color of car to buy (we wouldn’t want a color symbolic of something we were unaware of), he is going to send you to a psychologist anyway.
This is why being a Christian in America right now is very exciting to me because it’s an adventure, and adventures are always fun when you partake with other people and you experience that adventure together. What is the adventure? We Christians don’t know anything; it’s an adventure of learning. I know, I know, listening to what others want us to know and pulling the rest from where the sun doesn’t shine is much easier, but the results are most unfortunate.
For instance, our research indicates that the VAST majority of Christians do not know the difference between grammatical interpretation versus redemptive interpretation of the Scriptures. These are the only two approaches to interpreting the Bible in Evangelical circles, and yield antithetical results in regard to truth and reality itself. But yet, Christians who do not even know how their own pastors interpret reality are shamelessly weighing in on what they perceive as the exclusive property of Christians: morality.
Why? Because our world is divided between Christians and non-Christians, the former being the only authority on morality. It’s ok to argue about morality in-camp—that’s our way of better defining our “expertise” to the world, and the absurdity of it all is evident. The challenge for Christians is to do life better than the world, but we think we hold that position by default; not so, that is a position earned through wisdom.
Hence, most American Christians think the separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state. State bad; Christianity good. Therefore, if the state is influenced by Christianity, that’s good! This has led to the recent phenomenon of Putinanity, a new form of Christianity:
“Gee-wiz, look, even Vladimir Putin of Russia is reaching out to the Eastern Orthodox Church in his country. I wish our politicians had that much sense!”
And Christians breathe a little easier in regard to Russia accordingly; they think this is like Putin agreeing to do lunch with Joni Eareckson Tada every Monday at noon. What Christians don’t understand is that the separation of church and state was designed to keep the state and the church separate from each other for the protection and freedom of mankind in general.
Church historian John Immel has a superb article on Putinanity that every Christian should read before they weigh in on Facebook. No, Russia is not seizing the international moral high ground from the US because Putin is getting in bed with the church, in fact, as Immel points out in the article, this should send cold chills up and down our spines. Immel lays out the historical background leading up to this contemporary happening that is not an anomaly by any stretch of the informed imagination.
And this is a by-point worth mentioning: Christians do not ask why any event takes place as if events take place in a vacuum. It’s ALWAYS the what, not the why. Example: endless articles concerning confusion over what pastor John Piper does. Some have even suggested that he does these things to get attention. No, if you really understand Piper by following the philosophical paper trail, you know that there is a why for everything he does, and the why may be closer to Putinanity than you think.
Neither is it far from the reality that mass death is always preceded by a promise of paradise. In the same way that a US delegation returned state side and proclaimed Cuba a socialist paradise, Jim Jones promised the same thing until the day 900 of his followers drank from the community Kool-Aid vat. Those who flew from the US to join Jones’ community in Guyana and lived to tell about it, state that they knew they were in big trouble the second they drove through the front gates. Jones was strongly endorsed by Governor Jerry Brown as Jones was part of the San Francisco socialist political machine. In regard to the recent Cuban adoring US delegation, they were called on the carpet by Marco Rubio.
If Christians knew their Bibles better, they would know that God ordained governments to serve mankind for the good of mankind. Government is a servant, not the enforcer of every Christian moralist idea that comes down the pike. The framers of the American Constitution never cited Romans 13 once, but were in agreement with it. Know also that God writes the works of His law on the heart of EVERY person born into the world, and their consciences either accuse or excuse based on that law ( Rom 2:12-15). If Christians aren’t careful, the world can often understand that law better than we do, and that is all too often the case.
This brings me to Arizona bill 1062, and another unfortunate example. Christians weigh in like this: Christian photographers good; homosexuals bad. Government enforcing the right for Christian photographers to refuse to do a homosexual marriage—good, and Putin says, “amen my brothers.” In many countries around the world, homosexuality is a capital offence as well as adultery, and for that matter, my granddaughter would have been put to death in Calvin’s Geneva for throwing a snowball at a pastor’s wife, especially since the offence took place in the sanctuary to boot.
Let me just narrow this issue down to my own family. I am close to family members who are homosexual. We get along great regardless of the fact that they know where I stand. How do they know? They tried to convince me that the Bible condoned it, and that was a conversation initiated by them. I stated my case in no uncertain terms. We get along great because the sensibilities of both parties are respected as a matter of conscience. This is very similar to how Christians who disagree should relate in regard to Romans 14. Sure, the Bible is specific revelation, and conscience is more general, but the latter is why we can live at peace with all men as much as it depends on us.
In fact, NFL players coming out of the closet, which is totally unnecessary, are in one sense demanding the approval of others for their own selfish reasons. Government shouldn’t enforce their supposed right to violate the sensibilities of others by forcing an employer to hire them anymore than Christians should want the Government in people’s bedrooms. So where do you draw the line? Conscience. Most people agree that pedophilia should be against the law, and so it is.
Admittedly, these are VERY difficult questions, but they should be considered by Christians via pondering and not pandering to the dictates of pastors frothing at the mouth while beating their pulpits on Sunday morning. That’s just plain ignorance.
All in all, this post is designed to provoke thought, but there is one place that I can drive a stake: contemporary Christianity is the product of the mindless following of tradition. I believe Bible wisdom is a wide-open frontier in this country. Granted, it is an old frontier, but mostly unchartered by Western bobbleheaded Christians.
Until that changes, we should keep our arrogant despotic mouths shut. Ignorance will not save people from the judgment to come. God does not entrust eternal matters to stupidity.
paul
“< Tweet, Tweet
@UnearthedPics My Jesus created government for social justice Rom 13:1-7. Who is your Jesus?
“< Tweet, Tweet
@UnearthedPics T. Anderson said: “It’s not about social injustice, It’s about Jesus.” Donn Ketcham and CJ Mahaney send their regards.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments