Is Calvinism the Same Kind of False Gospel that Plagued the Hebrews?
Calvinism is the “golden chain of salvation.” Justification by faith alone, one of the five solas, means that we are justified by faith alone, but Calvin taught that justification is a PROCESS that extends from when we were saved until final justification at the resurrection where the sons of God will be “made manifest.” This is opposed to seeing justification as a finished work, a onetime factual declaration. We are practically just because we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit via the new birth which is also a onetime final work. A birth is a onetime event.
However, if you see justification as a PROCESS from salvation to glorification, the Christian life must be lived by…what? Right, faith alone. This is just another dirty little secret behind the Reformed bumper sticker. Justification by faith alone also means sanctification by faith alone. And since justification is not a onetime finished work, we can never be worthy of not needing justification; hence, total depravity also pertains to the saints—another devil in the detail of a Reformed bumper sticker.
Furthermore, if justification is a process, we need to stay in that process till the end, right? How? Well, the same way we have always been justified, by faith and repentance alone for justification. If we are in the justification process, we need to live by the same repentance and faith that saved us—alone. This is how Calvin stated it:
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death—viz. ablution, satisfaction, expiation;
Hence, it stands to reason that new sins separate us from justification, and the perpetual need for Christ’s mediation is needed:
…by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God… Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God.
Calvinists call this “deep repentance.” So, the Christian life, according to Calvinism, focuses on a “lifestyle of repentance and faith” (Paul David Tripp).
Now consider Hebrews 6:1-6. The Hebrew writer seems to be introducing this same idea of revisiting the doctrine of our original salvation rather than moving on to something else:
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit.
The Hebrew writer says to not lay again the “foundation” of faith and repentance. This is in direct contradiction to Calvinism and its “lifestyle of faith and repentance” within the PROCESS of justification. But what the Hebrew writer says after that is even more interesting:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Note: the Hebrew writer is saying that it is impossible to return to the same repentance that saved us. Again, this is in direct contradiction to Calvinism. Also, Calvinism teaches that when one re-repents (mortification), they experience “vivification.” The specific Reformed theological term is mortification and vivification. Vivification can certainly be classified as a “heavenly gift… and the powers of the world to come.” New Calvinists refer to it as a “treasure trove of joy” (John Piper). It is “living out our baptism” (Michael Horton). But the Hebrew writer is clearly saying: that is impossible if one falls into a state where the same repentance that saved us is needed again. This is a contradiction to mortification and vivification.
And lastly, even if it were possible: “seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” Remember, Calvin said that the death of Christ continues to be a mediation and perpetual ablution (washing).
Is Calvinism a return to the same heresy that plagued the Hebrews? It sure looks like it.
paul
The Gospel According to Dr. David Allen and Al Mohler: Is the Official Southern Baptist Gospel Biblical?
“So, what is it exactly that both camps agree with? What is this Calvinism that is fundamentally orthodox according to Dr. David Allen?”
Well, yesterday was full of learning. I think the most important thing I learned is that Southern Baptist leaders are like wrestlers in the World Wrestling Federation. They fight in the ring, and go out together for beer afterwards. Another thing I learned is that both parties (Calvinists/Arminians) have a vested financial interest in keeping the SBC undivided. Truth is not the issue here, at issue is the salvation of the SBC financial machine monetized by the sheep they deem as still totally depraved. And sadly, like WWF fans, the sheep think these guys are really fighting.
Some of my wisest mentors have been totally depraved. Not in regard to ethics, but in regard to reality. As a young, and naive new restaurant assistant manager, the elderly general manager sat me down and stated, “Paul, this is how it works; if you prefer, rape the waitresses, steal the food, and put stuff in the customer’s meals, but don’t mess with the money.” I fear the SBC is little different.
Calvinism versus Arminianism in the SBC? “The Watershed issue in the SBC for the next 5-10 years”? How many SBC parishioners watch WWF? Bless their hearts, in the same way that WWF fans love their favorite wrestlers, many SBC congregants love the “T” word: truth. That’s a problem. At this year’s John 3:16 Conference, a couple of young restaurant managers asked the Southwestern Seminary elites what they were going to do about the Calvinist problem in the SBC. Dr. David Allen, the wise general manager, set them straight. Those Calvinists are our brothers, and Calvinism is not outside of “Christian orthodoxy.” And it goes without saying that Al Mohler over at Southern, “ground zero for the Neo-Calvinist movement,” would agree with Allen wholeheartedly. As one leader stated during the same conference, the big match is “a family matter.” Yes Sally May, bring us another round.
Both parties even have mutual foes that disrupt family harmony. Dr. James White points to those pesky hyper Arminians while Dr. Allen points to those pesky hyper Calvinists. As a pastor you learn one thing in a hurry: if you want a two party beat down, get in the middle of a family dispute and take sides.
So, both sides agree: there are merely residual disagreements in regard to Calvinism, but fundamentally, it is “orthodox.” So why the conference? That answer becomes as easy as A,B,C: the fans shouldn’t expect the wrestlers to really kill each other, that wouldn’t be Christian-like. The conference wasn’t a stand for the truth, it was wise counsel from the general managers to the fans. They said as much:
This strand of Baptist life, Caner said, ran concurrent with the stronger Calvinistic one from the Philadelphia Baptist Association and both have existed within Southern Baptist life since the founding of the convention.
Caner asserted that much of the theological disunity could be resolved if there was more evangelistic methodological unity, particularly using an altar call.
Southern Baptist history, Caner said, demonstrates that revival and the methods of evangelism associated with historic “revival meetings” will be what halts “discussion over doctrinal differences” and stops “theological infighting.”
So, what is it exactly that both camps agree with? What is this Calvinism that is fundamentally orthodox according to Dr. David Allen? Well, in the Calvin Institutes, Calvin teaches that the “washing”; i.e., salvation, is “perpetual,” and the atoning work of Christ on the cross is also perpetual (3.14.11). I kid you not.
In 4.1.21,22, and elsewhere, Calvin states that sins committed in the Christian life separate us from grace, and we must therefore receive daily salvific forgiveness of sins, and this forgiveness can only be found in the institutional church and under the authority of pastors. This should give relevant meaning to the “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day” jingle that is popular among SBC leaders.
I could go on and on and on with examples, but you get the point.
The SBC fans are paying good money to have their gospel picked for them while the SBC elite laugh about it at the local pub over a few cold ones. It’s time for that gig to be over.
Trust me, the fans have God’s permission to choose their own gospel. You do not have to go to a conference to get permission from elitist charlatans. Take me for instance, I am a licensed Southern Baptist pastor, and I confess that Dr. David Allen can take his false gospel and stuff it in a place of his choosing. No pun intended.
paul
Totally Unexpected: Dr. James White Backs Down From Public Debate; Susan Weighs In
“No Calvinist, including John MacArthur, can win a debate on Calvinism with ANY Christian who can read. Why? Because Calvin makes anti-gospel statements in the Institutes that cannot be defended. Truth be known, these guys are not going to debate anybody who is familiar with the Calvin Institutes. On this wise, they couldn’t even win a debate against Forrest Gump, and they all know it.”
How surprised was I that Dr. James White backed down from a public debate with me? I was working on an introduction. The Introduction that will never be spoken follows, but I have some thoughts first. Actually, the thoughts come from my better half, Susan Dohse. Susan was totally taken aback by the in-your-face elitism from Dr. James White and Dr. Allen both, and weighed in with the following ideas:
Why do you need any credentials at all? Why pass on a public discussion between two brothers on any subject? If he is a leader, would that not at least be an opportunity to model proper dialogue between Christians? Furthermore, your challenge is unique, why would he not seize the opportunity? What is he afraid of?
Well, Susan and I don’t agree on everything, I cannot assert that this man is a brother, I don’t know that, and he backed down from a definitive, outlined rebuttal against the gospel he believes in. Basically, I am stating publically that he believes in a false gospel, and he will not defend it. This makes me 2/0/0 on Calvinists backing down from a public debate with me. The first agreed initially, but negotiations broke down when I was told I couldn’t read from the Calvin Institutes. And that my friends is the crux of the issue. No Calvinist, including John MacArthur, can win a debate on Calvinism with ANY Christian who can read. Why? Because Calvin makes anti-gospel statements in the Institutes that cannot be defended. Truth be known, these guys are not going to debate anybody who is familiar with the Calvin Institutes. On this wise, they couldn’t even win a debate against Forrest Gump, and they all know it.
Here is the introduction I was working on before the big surprise:
I am not here tonight to debate the doctrine of election or the five points of Calvinism. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, that debate hasn’t solved anything and precious few have been persuaded either way. That is a debate where people come already convinced, one way or the other, and are simply looking for permission to remain where they are.
To the contrary, Calvin’s soteriology is against what is clearly stated in the Bible. It is a brazen affront to the biblical gospel and Pauline soteriology in particular. Said another way, there is very little theory here and many facts. The devil in the Reformation gospel is in the details.
Ironically, Calvinists don’t really believe in the doctrine that they have effectively hidden behind for more than 500 years—the doctrine of election. As one saved out of Calvinism myself, I always rejoiced in the idea that God had chosen me before the foundation of the earth, well before I was even born, and therefore, nothing could separate me from the love of God. When I joyfully shared this with other Calvinists, I was puzzled by the flat response. I am no longer puzzled.
Election, in the Calvinist construct, only qualifies us to enter the race. From there, we have to keep ourselves saved by faith alone in the Christian life. It reminds me of the rock and roll hit, “Taking Care of Business” by Bachman-Turner Overdrive: “we work hard at doing nothing all day…taking care of business [by being re-saved every day].” This is the simplistic and powerfully deceptive false gospel of Calvinism; it requires us to keep ourselves saved by not doing works in the Christian life. Yes, there is much more to the jingle, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” than most are aware of. That is not a Calvinist prescription for a more apt way to be sanctified in the Christian life, it is a prescription for keeping ourselves saved.
“We must.” When those two words are anywhere in the Christian life, it begs the question: for justification, or sanctification? If for justification, it must be works salvation. The Reformation crowd often speaks of “the golden chain of salvation” in context of objective, subjective, and final justification. What they call “progressive sanctification” is really, “subjective justification.” That’s a huge problem. It requires us to remain saved by continually revisiting the same gospel that saved us. We enter a race where the reward is salvation, not rewards for Christian obedience to a risen Savior. This begs the eschatological question as well, “How many resurrections, and how many judgments?” It begs the question of dichotomy between justification and sanctification. Is justification a onetime finished work while sanctification only is progressive? Why did Calvin state that justification is “progressive”?
And why did the Reformers insist that the Christian life is a New Testament expression of the Old Testament Sabbath? The idea that works in sanctification brings Sabbath death?
Yes indeed, the fusion of justification and sanctification makes Christian living a minefield on the way to glorification. It requires a careful consideration of what is works in sanctification and what is not works in sanctification. It is a formula for “keeping ourselves in the love of God” and instruction on how Calvin’s gospel continues to “save believers.”
It is often the masterful exposition of sanctification in a justification way. Calvin’s soteriology of works salvation clothed in antinomianism. It posits an unfinished work of the cross, a rejection of the new birth, and a law that gives life.
paul
For the Sake of the True Gospel STOP Saying that Christ’s Righteousness is Imputed to Us
Please stop picking up on every little jingle that sounds good and mindlessly repeating it. In Christian circles, every hour on the hour, whether on TV, radio, or a blog, we see or hear, “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” or “we have the righteousness of Christ” etc. Is this technically true? And why does it matter? The fact is, the Bible never states that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us, but rather states in many, many, many places that the righteousness of God the Father has been imputed to us. Is that distinction, or if you will, technicality, relevant? Yes it is; very much so.
Why the constant emphasis on the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us when the Bible emphasizes the righteousness of the Father instead? Well, this is a tradition originally promoted during the Reformation out of necessity. It is the righteousness of Christ that must be imputed to us because the Reformers taught that Christ had to keep the law perfectly during His life in order to secure our justification. Hence, righteousness had to be secured by someone fulfilling the law. So, since the righteousness had to be earned or established by Christ, it can only come from Him. If this approach creeps you out—it should.
Reformed types call this the active obedience of Christ. His death on the cross is the passive obedience of Christ. This makes Christ the primary procurer of our salvation and devalues the role of God and the Holy Spirit. God calls and declares us righteous (imputation), Christ died for our sins (the imputation of our sins to Christ), and the Holy Spirit regenerates (the new birth). Salvation is Trinitarian. If God doesn’t call and impute righteousness, no salvation. If Christ doesn’t die for our sins, no salvation. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t regenerate, no salvation.
A Trinitarian view of salvation keeps law in its proper place, a Christocentric view of salvation causes all sorts of problems with the law. It posits the idea that the law had to be fulfilled as a standard for justification—that’s a huuuuge problem.
We are justified APART from the law. This makes it possible for us to aggressively obey the law in sanctification without it affecting our justification.
Adding to the creepiness is the idea that since the law is a standard for our justification, and we can’t keep it perfectly, the perfect obedience of Christ is continually applied if we live by the same gospel that saved us. This also necessitates the death of Christ being perpetually applied to our lives as well (the Calvin Institutes 3.14.11).
When Christians speak of the imputed righteousness of Christ, they are unwittingly partaking in a distortion of the Trinity. Because the Reformers were Platonists, they believed that Christ was the true, good, and beautiful, and everything else, and everyone else, are shadows. And I do mean everyone else, including the Father and the Holy Spirit. Consider these quotes by Reformed teachers:
Christ alone means literally Christ alone, and not the believer. And for that matter, it does not even mean any other member of the Trinity!
~ Geoffrey Paxton
The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock…We don’t ‘see’ Christ literally and physically, of course (I Peter 1:8). But His glory is on full display in the Word of God, and it is every minister’s duty to make that glory known above all other subjects.
~John MacArthur Jr.
And in regard to the Holy Spirit:
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~Michael Horton
Simply Stated: Why is Calvinism a False Gospel?
Simply stated, Calvinism is a false gospel because it denies that salvation is a onetime event in the life of the believer. In other words, when a person believes in Christ, all of their sins are not forgiven once and for all time. The sins we commit in our Christian life go against our just standing, so we must continually revisit the same gospel that saved us in order to maintain our just standing. This is a problem because we have to do something to keep our just standing. The Reformers taught that salvation as a onetime finished work is a false gospel.
In our present day which is experiencing a resurgence of the original Reformation gospel, we assume that the mantra, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” is just a popular opinion about the best way to grow spiritually in our Christian life. Not so. The revisiting every day of the same gospel that saved us is necessary to maintain our just standing before God. “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us” is another popular mantra that is deceptive; a re-visitation of gospel is a must for keeping ourselves saved according to the Reformation gospel.
This is why the Reformers redefined the biblical new birth. Instead of the new birth being a onetime event in the life of the believer, making us a new creature, they made the new birth a continual rebirth experience only needed to maintain our salvation. Another way this could be stated follows: a perpetual re-salvation experience. Contemporary Reformed theologians call this “mortification and vivification” in their systematic theology.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment