Dear Christians: Don’t You Get It? Calvinists Think You Are Going to Hell
Yes, the gospel that SBC dimwits think they can colabor with denies the new birth in no uncertain terms. This isn’t rocket science: if the gospel that is good for the goose is also good for the gander; this assumes that no change takes place inside of the believer. And in case you haven’t read the papers lately that’s exactly what Christians are acting like.”
I think I have taken my last trip to SBC Today .com and SBC Voices .com. I have been referred over there a number of times to observe truth tone deafness on steroids. A heretic is running our flagship seminary, but the big news is that Tim Tebow cancelled his speaking engagement at FBCD. The big hero this time in the ongoing drama of SBC folklore (in our own pitiful minds) is Dr. Jeffress, who like all other SBC notables has never called out another leader for the same scandalous filth that is going on in most denominations. He will call out homosexuals, but the rape cover-ups in the SBC are a taboo subject. We call out the sins of the world, but to call out our own sin is “gossip.” All of these guys just really make me want to puke. Because they are sorry excuses for leadership—we are a joke in the eyes of the world and rightfully so.
Other articles posit the supposed strength of Calvinists and non-Calvinists working together in the SBC. So, the likes of David Platt will gladly play along while believing that synergistic sanctification is a false gospel and works salvation. This is a simple thing, Jerry Vines needs to call Al Mohler on the phone and ask him if synergistic sanctification is works salvation. I think the answer would surprise him if Mohler has a rare moment of truth telling. Of course, if Vines decides to do something about it, he then has to explain how he missed this all along and focused on symptoms rather than the issue of Calvin’s false gospel. I have been a lay pastor since 1986, and I missed it. Why? Because I was clueless, that’s why. More studied than a lot of Christians, I had a very poor understanding of justification, sanctification, and covenants, and still have a lot to learn. What’s so hard about that? Just admit it! What’s the big deal?
All of this conversation in the SBC about getting along with Calvinists could just as well include the Jehovah Witnesses or the Moonies. There is no difference; a false gospel is a false gospel and a cult is a cult. Calvinism was the epitome of a cult in Calvin’s Geneva and still is. You could slip a playing card in-between Calvin’s Geneva and Jonestown save the fact that Jonestown wanted to go out with a bang. But more to the point let’s talk about Calvin’s false gospel—the gospel that SBC yesomites say we should work together with.
In today’s church words don’t mean things because if they did we would have to do something about it. And we are mostly business as usual loving spiritual slugs. That’s what we need more than anything in the church today: leaders who take words seriously and will act accordingly. They will be easy to spot. When the sun is out during the day they will be walking around rather than sunning themselves on flat rocks like the majority. So, let’s talk about words.
“We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Really? Does this raise any red flags? No. It is so, so indicative of how mindless Christians are in our day. “Wow, that sounds pretty cool. More fish anybody?” Come now, let’s be honest; do we really believe that we have been appointed stewards of God’s life-giving word? Is that how we function? A name that has come up in this ministry a lot this week is Miles McKee. He states a lot of things on his Facebook page that brings hearty kudos from many because their eyes immediately gravitate to the word, “gospel” in the sentence. “Oh there it is! The word gospel! Amen brother!” But let’s look at his statements more closely. Here is the subline of his Facebook page:
Preaching Christ crucified to the saved and lost alike. The goal is to pack this web site with rich gospel goodies.
Yes, and that is exactly what Christian children in adult bodies seek in our day, “rich gospel goodies.” Yum, yum, yum. We can’t take the word of God and help people in real trouble; we are too busy feeding on our gospel goodies. Note the picture below—that’s us. It is also how the world sees us, and rightfully so.
GOSPEL GOODIES! Yum, Yum!
But note that we are supposed to be preaching Christ crucified to Christians. This doesn’t raise any red flags. Note that the same message preached to unbelievers is also fundamental to the message Christians still need to hear daily. Still no red flags. Particularly alarming should be the idea that Christ’s crucifixion is perpetual in the Christian life. That’s what Calvin believed. He believed the atonement is perpetual. He believed Christ’s death is continually reapplied to the Christian’s life by faith alone until we reach heaven. We are then judged according to whether or not we continually appropriated Christ’s death in our life by faith alone until that day. It’s keeping our salvation by staying at the foot of the cross. We are saved by faith alone, and at any given time that we are not living our Christian life by faith alone we lose our salvation (or they say we were not really saved to begin with). That’s why we preach the same gospel to the saved as well as the unsaved.
It would therefore seem that the new birth would have to be redefined, and you would be right about that. This doctrine necessitates the denial of the new birth. Hence, McKee also states the following:
Contrary to much of today’s evangelical preaching, we must state that the message of New Birth is not the gospel.
Regardless of the fact that Christ’s own gospel presentation to Nicodemus was, “You must be born again,” this doesn’t raise any red flags either. The mindlessness truly boggles the imagination. Graeme Goldsworthy, the foremost hermeneutical authority recognized by Calvinists in our day footnoted (with full agreement) an article written by Anglican Geoffrey Paxton entitled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” Yes, the gospel that SBC dimwits think they can colabor with denies the new birth in no uncertain terms. This isn’t rocket science: if the gospel that is good for the goose is also good for the gander; this assumes that no change takes place inside of the believer. And in case you haven’t read the papers lately that’s exactly what Christians are acting like.
Moreover, Calvinists think the evangelical new birth gospel is works salvation: “It would be better to die a heathen than to live a religious life and die without Christ” (McKee). And trust me, synergistic sanctification is the “religious life” being spoken of here.
The Calvinist gospel, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us, is a perfect storm of deception that perfectly facilitates the confounding of salvific terms—I get that. But yet, I see a prevailing arrogance among Christians that since we are so smart, deception will always be evident to us. We are so good at doing Christianity we don’t need practice or diligent study. Our claim that faith is pure and simple is a cloak of arrogance that covers for our bankrupt spirituality and the brunt of jokes among the heathen. If there is a God, where is His representation upon the earth? “Well, we don’t attempt to be the gospel with our own works, we only preach the gospel.” And to that the heathen say,
“Amen.”
paul
It’s Time for the Laity to Fish or Cut Bait, and Happy Anniversary Julie Anne
“Calvin believed the Reformers were given a mandate by God to rule the world; hence, the out-of-control tyranny in the American church.”
I will take this opportunity to wish Julie Anne Smith a happy anniversary. I received an email stating that she opened her blogshop one year ago today. She sent me a tweet from The Gospel According to Calvin blog (TGC). As Charles Surgeon said,
There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.
Wow. Really? Progressive justification is the gospel? Don’t think so. Otherwise known as The Gospel Coalition, the tweet promoted a new book. Books written by New Calvinists are the neo-orthodoxy of the day. And there are people in the world who insist that Hitler was really a good guy. They are called Neo-Nazis. Today, we have Neo-Calvinists. It’s really time for the laity to fish or cut bait; how much longer are we going to continue to allow the philosopher kings to treat us like idiots? After reading the link that Julie sent me, it begs the question: How stupid do these guys think we are?
For some time they have been trying to rewrite Reformed history. That’s what the Resolved conferences were all about. And now there is a new book out attempting to cover Calvin’s bloody tracks leading from the Geneva theocracy. TGC is promoting the work via a review by heretic Michael Horton who like Tim Keller, constantly gets a pass on promoting naked mysticism.
Calvin believed the Reformers were given a mandate by God to rule the world; hence, the out-of-control tyranny in the American church. I will keep saying it: I lay the present-day spiritual abuse tsunami at the feet of Calvinism. The arrogance that follows their delusional vision is seen in how stupid they think the average parishioner is, and Horton’s review is a typical example. He states the following in the review:
Manetsch sets the context by noting the early reformation of the Genevan church reduced the city’s clerics (including monks and nuns) from 500 to 15, turning the convent and two monasteries into a public hospital and school. He observes the Ecclesiastical Ordinances, drafted by Calvin in 1541, established a rotation of ministers in all the churches to avoid the impression the ministers were preachers, not pastors…. Few historical figures have suffered more in terms of rumors passing for fact. It’s long been observed by specialists (Roman Catholic as well as Protestant) that Calvin was far from the Ayatollah one typically finds in the paragraph devoted to him in high school textbooks. Manetsch dispels these rumors with close attention to primary sources.
Does Horton really think that we are not going to consult the Googleberg press on this? Literally fifteen seconds later, here is what I was reading from Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances written for Geneva:
Here follows the third order, or elders
Their duty is to supervise every person’s conduct. In friendly fashion they should warn backsliders and those of disorderly life. After that, where necessary, they should report to the Company [of pastors] who will arrange for fraternal correction…As our Church is now arranged, it would be most suitable to have two elected from the ‘council of 24’, four from the ‘council of 60,’ and six from the ‘council of 200’. They should be men of good repute and conduct…They should be chosen from each quarter of the city so that they can keep an eye on the whole of it.
And let there be no doubt about it: this is the vision that the New Calvinists have for the American church. As Southern Baptists, we call it, “aggressive Calvinism.”
I just call it Calvinism. Shorter, more to the point, and truer.
paul
Revised: Calvinist Tom Chantry and My Friend the King
My little exchange with pastor Tom Chantry here at PPT (see screen shots below) has prompted me to make a point that I have been thinking about for three years. I know my use of the “philosopher king” nomenclature is seen as satire, but it really isn’t. These guys think they have authority over all of us. They really do. I could cite data galore, but I will instead mention the Calvinist pastor from Bellefontaine, Ohio who tried to place me under church discipline as a process possibly ending with me being declared an unbeliever. I have never talked to this guy in my life until he called me to….”I am trying to gain a brother here.” This is just fact: Reformed elders think heaven will honor their declarations and remove names from the book of life. Calvin and Luther believed elders have that kind of authority (Calvin’s “power of the keys”), and their offspring are all too eager to believe them. Though I don’t know for certain, I think my name has been removed from the book of life by Reformed elders on three occasions.
And like the Bellefontaine case, these guys think they interpret reality for us. I was instructed to repent of what I saw (the Man of God conference controversy) because this philosopher king proclaimed that I really didn’t see it. This resulted in a visit to my home by three local pastors who pushed his agenda, albeit two of them didn’t really get what was going on. But the message was basically the same: I didn’t really see what I saw because they said so.
They think many take this idea seriously. And worse yet, I think they are right. These guys come to PPT and declare me unknowing, and that is the end of the discussion among their Kool-Aid drinking followers. When members of their church come to PPT and see that the philosopher king has passed judgment on me regardless of the facts—end of discussion. In spite of the damning data in regard to CJ Mahaney, a group of philosopher kings declared him fit for ministry—end of discussion. Hence, victims of his spiritual despotism can only watch as he enjoys rock star status among followers that Jim Jones would have died to have for himself. More correctly, some only watch while others have dragged this sorry excuse for a pastor into court. American pastors have become so bloviated with this idea that secular courts are now the only recourse for Christians to expose unspeakable evil in the church. It is clear: church discipline is only for congregants and not elders. The pastorate refuses to rebuke renegade pastors publically as they are commanded to do by Scripture. Instead, they go a step further and cover for them.
I was once a fire system inspector for a private firm in Indiana. I was primarily assigned to homes for the mentally disabled. It was a very interesting job. It was a job that preached many sermons to me throughout the week. I remember that I was once grumbling to myself on the way to an inspection about my life in general. After I saw the residents of that home, I never grumbled about my imperfect circumstances again. That is a sermon that is fresh in my mind until this day.
Then there was one who I will call “Purity.” After a while, I had my own names for the residents. These names reminded me of what God was teaching me through their lives. She was a sixteen-year-old that had the mind of someone around six-years-old. She was fascinated that I have a daughter that is a missionary in Puerto Rico. She followed me around as I was doing my work trying to find out everything she could about my daughter. Till this day, I wonder if there is a more sincere soul walking upon the earth. She was a sermon about the beauty of righteousness—a sermon I will never forget. Then there were the gatekeepers. They wheeled around and acted like they were asleep while the staff changed the codes on the entry/exit doors. They then enjoyed giving vendors and inspectors the codes so they didn’t have to mess around with all the red tape at the administration office. A wonderful service! And “Anna” who appeared to be merely mumbling in her bed, but closer observance revealed a person in constant prayer.
But my favorite was the king. He really thought he was a king. The staff also aided him in his endeavor to be a hard-working king. They bought him a crown and a cape. He would go from room to room with a legal pad and write new laws and then verbally proclaim them. Well, this was pretty cool. I got permission from the company to take him out to lunch. The plan was Burger King of course, but unfortunately, the opportunity never presented itself after I obtained permission.
I’m thankful for the king. He enables me to think lightly sometimes of the Calvinists who also really think they are kings. But they have no excuse and I don’t like them because unlike the king, they are abusive spiritual despots. He went from room to room proclaiming good laws that he thought would help people. He wasn’t really interested in controlling people. He wasn’t interested in power.
He is a good sermon for the Calvinists because if you are only a king in your own mind—at least be a good one.
paul
The Googleberg Press and Alex Grenier
“The present-day gargantuan internet pushback against the philosopher kings follows forty-three years of silence by the clergy in the face of unspeakable violence against the laity.”
The spiritual infomommas over at The Wartburg Watch blog propagate the idea that the internet is the modern-day Gutenberg press, and I agree 100%. During Medieval times when the concerns of people at large were totally disregarded by the elite few, the people had no knowledge and no voice. Civilization has a natural balance; those in power are greatly outnumbered by those who aren’t in power. Lack of knowledge and lack of communication has always been the strongest army against the masses. Armies help, but they do much better against other armies. Wars against the masses are hard to define and messy. History teaches us that wars against countries endowed with loyal citizens are almost impossible to win in the long run. That’s why nationalism is strongly emphasized if a leadership is smart.
The spiritual peasantry of our day has been denied a voice by the Protestant philosopher kings. Though emasculated by the Enlightenment era, Protestantism’s Geneva Light began brewing its malt liquor in 1970, and since then, an incomprehensible crying out for justice has fallen on deaf ears. In essence, Protestant ideology rejects the concept of victim, and where there are no victims justice is not necessary. John Calvin scoffed at the idea of justice, calling it “mere iniquity.” Protestant fruit has never fallen far from the Catholic tree.
Perhaps this idea has never been better articulated by Alex Grenier, a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed against him by tyrannical clerics, who are also his parents:
There is no denying that injustice does occur. We petitioned the church, we petitioned the government [their hands are often tied for many reasons; e.g., church/state issues]—still no justice in our situation. Freedom of speech is often the last resort for victims.
Be sure to finish this post by listening to Alex’s short, but profound video on this issue.
And freedom of information works, because in the final analysis, the producers make things tick. As a business associate once told me: “Nothing happens in American business until a salesman sells something.” And spiritual tyrants can’t put on the feed bag without the agreement of their producers. And when the producers are getting hammered with unbecoming news, tyrants begin to live from paycheck to paycheck. Can we say, “James MacDonald”?
The present-day gargantuan internet pushback against the philosopher kings follows forty-three years of silence by the clergy in the face of unspeakable violence against the laity. It is a huge contingent with a one-two punch: doctrinal discernment and behavioral whitepapers. The controversy among them that makes me smile is the following: doctrinal discernment bloggers accuse the spiritual abuse bloggers of focusing too much on behavior and not the doctrine that causes the behavior. On the other hand, spiritual abuse bloggers accuse the discernment bloggers of focusing on doctrine only with little regard for the pain and suffering caused by the behavior. I love it. Together, they have become a powerful force.
But this has now gone far beyond blogging. Blogging has put feet to warfare in the civil courts. And warfare in the civil courts is forcing secular law enforcement to get involved. When victims cannot get justice within the church, and they go to the media, the media will usually shy away from the story because they have to substantiate all of the facts themselves. But with a lawsuit, the facts are substantiated in court, and that makes for easy reporting. When the abuses become headline news, this also makes it easy for law enforcement, and they also avoid the they are persecuting the church accusation. There are now several of these lawsuits afoot. I think these lawsuits will lead to the demise of the New Calvinist movement which is due for a historical social death anyway.
The clergy has no one to blame but themselves for this mess. Clergy doesn’t confront clergy. Very well, eventually, the laity will rise up and do the confronting. This is the way it has always been. It is the natural bent of reality.
paul
Tom Chantry Doesn’t Like the Charismatic Brand of the Reformation’s False Gospel
“Chantry doesn’t like Charismatic subjective results of the same Reformed objective gospel. Therefore, he denies that they have the same gospel. That’s not true.”
I was sent a post written by Reformed Baptist Tom Chantry. As the rats begin jumping from that sinking ship named New Calvinism, the boring side of Calvinism is trying to distance themselves from Charismatic Calvinists like CJ Mahaney. New Calvinism, which is a resurgence of authentic Calvinism, at least makes heresy a little fun with concoctions like the scream of the damned which was an ad hoc addition to the 2009 Resolved Conference hosted by the who’s who of contemporary Reformed doctrine. Usually, the tyranny and spiritual abuse that goes hand in metaphysical hand with Reformed doctrine dampens any semblance of humor, but this bunch is special; their shenanigans can bring laughter to the darkest realities. Nevertheless, Chantry bemoans the following reality in said article:
That “Reformed Charismaticism” should eventually go down this path – dragging the rest of the “New Calvinism” with it – was predictable. Such a doctrine has no solid confession. It pays scant attention to the means of grace. It is not actually Reformed in any meaningful sense.
Chantry’s grammatical scare quotes indicate so-called Reformed Charismaticism on the first wise and New Calvinism isn’t “New….” on the second. He is dead wrong on the first and absolutely correct on the second.
Let’s take the second scare quote first. New Calvinism isn’t new, it’s a resurgence of the original authentic article. That would be, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. That’s a contemporary tag, but is an apt in regard to the authentic Reformed gospel. Nothing happens inside of us—grace comes from outside of us completely.
“But Paul, that’s true isn’t it? We were not saved by anything inside of us; it all came from God’s righteousness that was imputed to us. Certainly, you are not saying that we had any righteousness inside of us that aided our salvation!”
Sigh. This is where the Reformers have been pulling the wool over our eyes for the better part of 500 years. They believe that righteousness is only imputed to us positionally, and not internally. We remain the same. God does everything in both salvation and our Christian walk. Our salvation is predetermined, and our Christian walk is predetermined. All righteousness/grace remains outside of the “believer.” Hence, and don’t miss this, only the gospel is objective. We are so totally depraved that if any righteousness at all is within us, anything that we would make of it intellectually would be subjective at best. The only reality lifeline man has is the same lifeline that saves him: the gospel.
Therefore, we live by the gospel; i.e., an “objective” endeavor to obtain a deeper and deeper knowledge of our sinfulness (as believers) in order to have a deeper and deeper understanding of God’s holiness and appreciation for the depths of His sacrifice for our sin. Depending on the stripe of Reformed buffoonery, the result is a manifestation of Christ’s obedience in the Holy Spirit realm as opposed to the worldly (flesh) realm or mere wellbeing of spirit with a disregard for whatever God decides to do in our lives.
In the first case, the perfect life that Christ lived on earth is imputed to our Christian walk so that we can live by faith alone in sanctification. When Christ’s obedience is manifested in the Spirit realm, we experience it because we are in that realm, but it is not because of anything inside of us. We experience it as if we are performing the work, but it is really the manifestation of Christ in the Spirit realm.
The latter is explained well in the magnum opus of the Reformation: Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation. In that document, he clearly states that we don’t work, but rather God works as it is predetermined for our particular life. Luther stated that as we mediate on our total depravity and God’s holiness we experience death which leads to a joyful resurrection. In other words, the gateway to joy is a deeper understanding of our total depravity. This is the basis of John Piper’s Christian Hedonism in 500,000 words or less. This was also Luther’s definition of the new birth. For Luther, the new birth was progressive and not a onetime event.
John Calvin then took Luther’s concept and applied its dualism (all reality being interpreted through God’s holiness and our depravity) to the full spectrum of how religion is experienced, lived, and believed. That would be the Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion. This all survives under masterful preaching that only follows this systematized dualism, but much can be preached about God’s holiness and our sinfulness. All preaching by the likes Spurgeon et al can be parsed into this dual prism. Missing is practical application and a true understanding of our role in the Christian walk which results in what we see today in the American church. This eventually leads to a social death and then historical resurgences that follow.
Some of what I am saying can be seen in Chantry’s rant:
One way to summarize the doctrine of divine sovereignty is this: It is God who acts, not man. How will the lost be saved? God must act. How will sinful Christians overcome the “old man”? God must act. How will the church grow in both holiness and influence? Again, God must act. He is the sovereign; He is the great Actor in every aspect of our spiritual life.
Notice that “old man” is in scare quotes. They don’t believe that there is any “old man.” We don’t change—we remain empty vessels. The Bible is merely a tool for aiding us in seeing Luther’s “cross story” as opposed to our “glory story.” Again, this fleshes out in many different ways among Reformed cultists. The sacraments, along with preaching Luther’s cross story, aid us in seeing the need for constant forgiveness, what is called “deep repentance” leading to death and subsequent resurrection experienced by joy. The Christian walk is an endeavor to live by faith alone which is an experience, not a work that we do. This is why the Reformers were so exercised in regard to the book of James—James stated a salvation by faith alone while calling for believers to add works to their salvific faith. This turns Reformed theology completely on its head.
Chantry’s thesis is beyond lame. The Charismatic New Calvinists know their cuts of Reformed theology very well. CJ Mahaney’s five word gospel, “Christ died for our sins” and all reality flowing out of that is classic Reformed theology. Chantry doesn’t like Charismatic subjective results of the same Reformed objective gospel. Therefore, he denies that they have the same gospel. That’s not true. When all reality is interpreted through dualism, the results are always subjective. But the prism is the same.
That’s why Jesus said that a tree is known by its fruit. If Chantry doesn’t like the fruit he needs to change trees.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
16 comments