The New Calvinist Tsunami: Where’s the Beef?
“They are pointing to the very decline that has occurred during their watch, and are recommending themselves as the cure because they are supposedly the new kids in town—every year since 1970.”
When the “elder statesman” of New Calvinism, John Piper, announced his retirement from Bethlehem Baptist Church as the “pastor of spiritual vision,” he spent hard-earned laity money to announce his post-retirement plans from Geneva, Switzerland where John Calvin reined as Protestant Pope. Piper proclaimed in the video, against all historical commonsense, that wherever the gospel of the Protestant Reformation is announced, light shines forth out of darkness. Of course, a cursory observation of church history exposes this statement as utter nonsense.
Furthermore, ever since the movement was born in 1970, the perpetual message year after year is that the movement is a recovery of the long-lost Reformation gospel. In other words, it’s been sold as a new revival every year since 1970. It’s been “new” for a very, very long time.
However, please note: New Calvinism grew like a wildfire from 1970 to 2005, and has totally dominated the evangelical church since 2006. So, where is all of the light out of darkness? Take note of this recent article from TownHall.com: http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2014/09/29/americans-concerned-about-declining-influence-of-religion-n1897237
Over the last 12 years, the percentage of Americans that think religion is losing influence in American life has increased dramatically. In 2002, 52 percent of those surveyed said religion is losing influence. In 2014, 72 percent of Americans said religion is losing influence.
However, while increasing numbers of Americans feel religion is losing influence, most feel this is a bad thing.
Fifty-six percent say that the waning influence of religion is a bad thing compared to 12 percent that say it is a good thing.
In a survey done by Pew in 2012, 58 percent of Americans said religion is “very important” and only 18 percent said it is not “too important” or “not important at all.”
In other words, it is not too late to reverse course by returning to the original model set forth by Christ: laity home fellowships with a focus on individual gifts driven by fellowship and not authority beyond that of Christ and his word.
58% of Americans still think religion is important, they are merely looking for the right expression of it. New Calvinism has been totally running the show since 2006, so where is the beef? They are pointing to the very decline that has occurred during their watch, and are recommending themselves as the cure because they are supposedly the new kids in town—every year since 1970.
Moreover, New Calvinism represents orthodoxy which has had more than 500 years to perform its “light out of darkness” routine and the results speak for themselves. Their version of the good news isn’t being bought.
They have NO authority, and their orthodoxy is shown to be without power. Come out from among them.
paul
There is NO Such Thing as “Legalism”
Originally posted March 21, 2013
We live in a unique era marked in its beginning by Christ paying the penalty for our sin (HEB 1:2). We are in the last days. We know that because it’s post cross. We live in this specific era which is also biblically described as a time of unprecedented deception (MATT 24:3,4; 2THESS 2:10-12).
Therefore, we must be careful to use specific biblical words in our communication of the truth. Those who define the language win the argument. Redefining the meaning of words to deceive is literally the oldest trick in the book; e.g., Satan redefined what God meant by death. “Surely, you will not die.” Depending on your definition of death, that was true—Eve didn’t die on the spot.
“Legalism” is a word that is not in the Bible anywhere. The concept/term was made popular by Martin Luther’s interpretation of law and grace. The term, “legalism” lends strong foundation to authentic Reformed doctrine. If you use the term, you are being a good Calvinist whether you know it or not. The Reformers were anti-sanctification because it suggests enablement and some room for self-esteem. The Bible does not call us to eradicate all concept of self for the sole purpose of the group, it calls us to evaluate ourselves truthfully (ROM 12:3). That’s why there is a severe lack of sanctification in the church today—we are all just good Protestants.
So, legalism is in, but the word for the primary nemeses of righteousness throughout the ages is out: “anomia.” The English word is, “antinomianism.” It means, anti (a) – law (nomia). And I assure you that manmade law is not in view. Ignorantly, Christians deem the word as just another 50-cent theological term even though it appears throughout the New Testament and defines the core of human woes. While anomia is ignored, a word that doesn’t even exist in the Bible is thrown around more often than we change clothes.
Because the ramifications of anomia pushback against Luther’s law/gospel theology, the word is translated in English Bibles as “wickedness” and “lawlessness” giving the idea of general bad behavior. The real idea is anti-truth, anti-God’s full counsel, anti-God’s wisdom, anti-sanctification, anti-kingdom living, anti-clear conscience, anti-life, anti-goodness, etc., etc. Christ points to it as the primary cause of lovelessness and cold-heartedness (MATT 24:12; PS 119:70). John indicts it as the very definition of sin (1JN 3:4).
Perhaps the greatest deception in all of this is the Reformed motif that the Pharisees are the poster children for “legalism.” Supposedly, they strived to keep God’s law as a way of earning His favor for both justification and sanctification of which are the same to the Reformers. The opposite is true; the Pharisees were full of anomia and voided the law with their anti-truth (MATT 15:1-9; 23:23-28). The Pharisees were not “legalists,” that’s a lie, they were antinomians.
Nothing cripples sanctification more than the Reformed idea that Christians can sincerely seek to obey God by following their born again new desire for the law and thereby unwittingly partaking in works righteousness. There is no more detestable evil under the sun because it causes a conflict between the new desire God has put in our hearts (ROM 7:25; PS 119:1ff.) and instruction that propagates a relaxed view of the law (MATT 5:19). This is why Calvinism has crippled the American church. They propagate a doctrine that sets us against the very desire that God has put in our new hearts.
Satan did not come to Eve in the garden as a “legalist.” He came to her as an antinomian. In regard to the time of the end, the apostle Paul refers to the antichrist as the man of anomia at least four times in his letter to the Thessalonians. From the beginning, and through the middle embodied in the likes of Baalam’s error and Korah’s rebellion, and culminating in the end, the doctrine of anomia is the primary beast that devours the souls of men. But yet, New Calvinist queen Elyse Fitzpatrick likens anomia to the Loch Ness Monster, and is celebrated accordingly for her supposed biblical insight.
It’s time to eradicate “legalism” from our Christian vocabulary and replace it with a description of the New Calvinist breed of beasts among us: Antinomians.
paul.
Love is a Choice, Hope is a Choice, and so is Salvation
Why are we commanded to love others in the Bible? Why are we commanded to be the masters of our emotions? Because love is a choice and right feelings follow right doing. That also gives hope.
Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
Let love be without deceit. Be haters of what is evil; keep your minds fixed on what is good.
These are the words that we do not want to hear from any doctor at any time: “There is nothing we can do.” Why would life be any different?
In a conversation with the father of the contemporary biblical counseling movement, he stated that as he traveled the country speaking in various churches, his assertion that Christians can actually do something was responded to like a “strange new doctrine.”
This is where Christians should come to grips with THE two prisms that interpret reality in today’s evangelicalism. The primary prism is…
The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.
This method of interpreting the Bible which is uniquely of the Reformed tradition posits the following interpretive method: the Bible is made up of an interpretive duo from beginning to end. The first part of any given body of text describes the salvific works of God, and is followed by the fruits of those salvific works. Hence, the primary purpose of the Bible is to meditate on what God has done, and the fruits that we merely experience that flow from God’s salvific works. Reformed teachers like John Piper have described the Bible as a record of God’s “saving acts” [plural] from beginning to end. As we meditate on those acts, using the Bible, fruits that flow from that mediation are described via biblical imperatives (commands).
So, biblical commands demonstrate what flows from justification, and are meant to demonstrate to us what we cannot do—Christ has already done it for us. Christ died for our justification, and lived for our sanctification. Therefore, according to this tradition, biblical commands are justification’s “fruit catalog” (Paul David Tripp), and must be seen in their “gospel context” (Id). To “jump from the imperative directly to obedience” (Reformed mystic and NCT guru Chad Bresson), is to circumvent the saving works (again, plural) of Jesus. Stated plainly, works salvation.
How does this work according to the Reformed crowd? For example, note that Romans 12:1 states “therefore,” followed by a string of imperatives. Supposedly, the first 11 chapters show God’s saving works (the indicative), and 12:1 following shows the manifestation of works that we should expect to see in our lives as a “mere natural flow” (Id) from the indicative. These manifestations are a subjective experience that give us as much cause for assurance as possible because we are actually experiencing a small portion of the exact same glory that we will experience in heaven.
Know this: 80% of all pastors in the U.S. interpret Scripture in this way, and another 15% function this way without realizing it. This method of interpretation fits with two other doctrines of formal orthodoxy; double imputation, and mortification and vivification.
In other words, the antithesis of cause and effect; in more words, the idea that God will keep promises to us if we do certain things first, is indicted as works salvation. The indicative must always precede the imperative to demonstrate that the obedience is not ours, but a fulfillment of Christ’s righteousness and not our own—that would be works salvation. “What does that look like?” (lest we go to hell for living according to a verb): any obedience that we “experience” is assumed to be flowing from some exposure to the indicative. The primary endeavor for the Christian is to stay connected to the “vital union” through gospel contemplationism; this will result in the righteousness (obedience) of Christ being imputed to our Christian life in order to keep us saved.
By the way, observe a Catholic Mass sometime, it’s the exact same principle.
When it gets right down to the nitty gritty, the vast majority of religions and denominations function on this principle. Hence, choice must be necessarily exchanged for determinism. If we can’t do anything, lest it be works, that only leaves one doer. Moreover, HOPE must then be defined as something that God may or may not do for you. Likewise, PROMISE cannot be contingent on anything we do, it must be qualified by a different “if.” Not “if” you will do this, that, or the other, but rather “if” God has decided to do it for you.
So, our only hope is in what God might do for you or someone else. A “sure” promise or “certain” promise is something that God will certainly do, but as far as you…maybe, maybe not, regardless of anything you do—you have no ability to choose, and if you do, it’s works salvation.
Where there is no real choice there is no real hope. Hope is redefined as a promise that you can only hope was made to you because what you choose has no bearing on receiving the promise. “Reward” must also be redefined as a “prize” that you get for winning a cosmic lottery because God decided to call your number. You do not know for certain that you were picked until the “final tribunal.” The best assurance you can have is experiences that God may, or may not have decided to give you in your Christian life.
But let’s close with one last thought on our subject at hand: interpretation. If God really meant something totally different from how we normally interpret “choice,” “hope,” “promise,” “reward,” “command,” etc., why wouldn’t He simply state it plainly?
paul
The Christian Serf
Originally published February 12, 2014
One reason, among many, that I delight in not being a part of the institutional church is I am no longer a serf to American Christian academia. Did I really “tithe” to God in the past? No, I paid taxes to a multi-billion dollar corporation that is in the salvation by membership business. As an elder of a fairly large Evangelical church that was on the cutting edge of doctrinal conservatism, I created somewhat of a stir by recommending that the church start a benevolence fund. I found these types of confrontations surreal and confusing, until I grew up. But even before I grew up, I at least knew that recommending a widows list would be dead on arrival. What jumps out of the passages like an A-Bomb when you read the Bible for yourself is the fact that all giving is need-based, not institutional based.
Like government institutions, there is a separate standard for leaders and serfs. Christians often find themselves in double serfism accordingly, and this is completely unnecessary. Besides, it hinders real ministry. Like government—like church, and this week we have an excellent example accordingly.
The Obamas, for some time, have been attempting to legislate what Americans eat, for our own good of course. Specifically, the First Lady has been in charge of two programs that dictate what we are allowed to feed our children. However, TPNN reports that an upcoming White House dinner boasts a menu that has 1000 more calories than a meal one can order from an establishment of Big Fast Food which is among many capitalistic evils like Big Oil.
That’s the point: the standard is always double. You see, the enlightened can handle life-stuff like food and guns, but such things must be kept from the great unwashed masses because of our unrestrained appetites. This is a simple metaphysical construct that was up and running as soon as God blocked entry back into the garden with the baddest angel in the universe. This herd mentality eventually led to the flood. Even then, God had to later do the confusion of languages thing because men insist on letting others think for them and following bad ideas.
Like government—like church. What do we do when we want to “start a ministry”? We ask the elders for permission. While attending the aforementioned church, still as an elder, I was contacted by an inner city church that simply wanted us to come in and take them over. I thought it was an excellent opportunity for many in our church to serve God in the inner city. The opportunity met with stiff resistance. One man told me that he wouldn’t dream of participating in such a ministry without at least a Master’s degree. Others said that our church already supported a ministry that did the same kind of inner city work. By accepting the offer, we would have been usurping them in some way.
We don’t think of the institutional church as something that hinders ministry because of its huge programs and infrastructure, but let me remind you that those programs are limited to institutionally approved workers while the primary expectation of the Christian serf is to work a job, keep their mouth shut, and tithe at least 10%. In fact, many churches are disciplining members for not tithing. And why is there so much fear among Christians in regard to “church discipline”? Obviously, Christian serfs believe that the institutional church has the authority to declare them unbelievers. Scoff at membership by salvation if you must, but it is clearly how the institutional church functions.
And what is more obvious than the double standard? In the midst of the “church discipline” craze, where is 1Timothy 5:20?
But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.
Members being disciplined/excommunicated is an epidemic while the former is rarer than fine gold; also, rampant fear of elders is ever so evident and can only be chalked up to the belief that salvation is found in the institutional church.
Christian serfism is a plague that can only be cured by a New Testament model of worship.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments