PPT Top 10 Gnostics of the American Church
The present day New Calvinism movement is a return to the exact same viral Gnosticism that plagued the New Testament church. New Calvinists proudly claim St. Augustine who was an avowed Neo-Platonist. Platonism later became various forms of Gnosticism. Martin Luther’s theology of the cross laid the foundation for the functioning Platonism that has plagued the church sense the 16th century. Luther, in his endeavor to define Augustinian philosophy for the Reformation, made the cross a Platonist hermeneutic that transcends the material world and the five senses. This was Luther’s definition of a true theologian. Said Luther:
That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25).
This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.
He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
The manifest 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 (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, »For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.« Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, »Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.«
So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: »Show us the Father.« Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, »Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father« (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6) »No one comes to the Father, but by me.« »I am the door« (John 10:9), and so forth.
~ The Heidelberg Disputation to the Augustinian Order of 1518: Thesis 19, and 20.
Hence, the visible is evil, and man is visible. Like Plato’s theory of the pure forms, the invisible is the true, good, and beautiful. The material is the world of shadows. Any wisdom connected to the material world is the “theology of glory.” Luther stated it in no uncertain terms:
The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible…
John Calvin then articulated Luther’s theology of the cross by developing a full-orbed philosophical application in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin also affirmed the foundations of Augustinian Neo-Platonism by citing Augustine, on average, on every 2.25 pages of the Institutes.
Like certain Platonic disciplines that were immutable gateways to the immutable true ideas in the mutable shadow world, Luther merely made such the cross. Plato’s philosopher kings were able to transcend the five senses enslaved to the material world and extract the ideas of the true forms for the betterment of the Republic. Luther’s “true theologian” is the present-day philosopher king dressed in biblical garb. The top ten follow:
#10 Elyse Fitzpatrick
#9 Albert Mohler
#8 Mark Driscoll
#7 Phil Johnson
#6 John MacArthur Jr.
#5 Mark Dever
#4 Michael Horton
#3 Tullian Tchividjian
#2 Tim Keller
#1 John Piper
“The New Calvinists are not worried; they don’t believe the American church has the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the fact that John Calvin was a Platonist philosopher. It is time for that theory to be vigorously tested. Even if that theory is believed, it can be attributed to Reformed orthodoxy predicated on the incompetence of the human race wondering about in the shadow world while rejecting the idea that the new birth makes a difference. The new birth is not the mere experience of a changed realm; it is the reality of a changed person, a person that is not only justified positionally, but changed into a just person living for God’s glory. Christians don’t merely “reflect” the glory of God, they are not merely “transformed into an image” of God’s glory, they are new creatures who glorify God with their own actions. The Spirit does not merely manifest Christ in a realm, he colabors with the new creature in the truest sense.”
Dear Jane, I Don’t Know About NT Wright, But I do Know Phil Johnson is a Heretic
Paul,
What do you think about this video about NT Wright being called a heretic by Phil Johnson? Phil says Apostle Paul warns in Galatians about the heretic belief that denies imputed righteousness of Christ.
I think Phil is a puffed-up talking head, but curious on your take of this.
Jane.
Jane,
Thanks for this. Phil Johnson is a hardcore proponent of authentic Calvinist (AC) Reformed doctrine. It holds to the double imputation of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to our justification and sanctification. The Bible emphasizes that the righteousness of the Father was imputed to us APART from the law before the foundation of the world. For AC, it is important that it is specifically stated that it is Christ’s righteousness that was imputed to us because He is the only member of the Trinity that would have “kept the law” as a man. And that’s the crux of the heresy, it advocates a righteousness that is NOT APART from the law. It fuses WORKS with grace.
The cute little Calvinist end-around on that is the idea that it is alright that justification is based on perfect works because Jesus keeps the law in our stead. IF we live by the same faith-alone gospel that saved us, the perfect obedience (Christ’s righteousness) of Christ will be perpetually applied to our life and we will be found covered by the righteousness of Christ at the ONE final judgement where the law must be satisfied. The problem here is that a satisfaction of the law is in view, and that is completely antithetical to the point that the apostle Paul strives to make in the Scriptures about grace being apart from the foundation of works. WHO DOES THE WORKS IS NOT THE POINT–WORKS PERIOD IS THE POINT.
But in this false doctrine a practical problem arises. We have to keep our salvation by faith alone so that perfect works will be perpetually applied to our account in sanctification so that we can remain justified. Because of this fusion of justification and sanctification and the fusion of grace and works, our Christian life becomes focused on the ambiguous endeavor of living by faith alone apart from works. The standard for what saved us is now the same standard for our Christian life. “It is [NOT] finished.” If our justification was not finished at the cross, what was Jesus talking about? Plainly, justification is not finished, we have to maintain it by faith alone. This is merely works salvation by proxy; ie., our faith alone in sanctification is a rectifier that imputes works to grace.
Furthermore, it requires a complicated theological system that defines what IS A WORK in sanctification versus what IS NOT a work in sanctification. Critical to the AC construct therefore is the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic that rectifies biblical commands to a faith-alone construct. Simply put, it is a way to only EXPERIENCE obedience rather than to be the actual DOER of the law in sanctification lest it become, “the GROUND of our justification.” Hence, interpreting our Bible grammatically leads to works salvation because it necessarily implies “a leap from the imperative to obedience” rather than the imperative being rectified by the progressive imputation of Christ’s obedience.
It’s backdoor works salvation.
Moreover, it makes sanctification exactly what the Reformers themselves called it: “subjective.” That’s their words exactly, not mine. The power in our sanctification is subjective because we only experience obedience and do not participate in it. We are to meditate on the OBJECTIVE gospel and passively observe the SUBJECTIVE results by faith alone. Hence, “the subjective power of the objective gospel.” John Immel would say that this is all about control; it makes sanctification an ambiguous and fearful endeavor that beckons the saints to depend on God’s annointed to guide them through the tricky and treacherous waters of Christian living by faith alone. Of course, James addressed this very problem in his epistle.
And Immel is absolutely correct about the control issue. That’s why Phil Johnson advocates this doctrine: he is a despicable tyrant filled with lust for the need to control people. Like Calvin, he advocates this false doctrine so as the apostle Paul said, let them both be accursed.
paul
My Answer to Justin Taylor and Pyro Blog Regarding the “Gospel-Centered” Take on “Gossip.”
“None of these videos will make sense for anyone who doesn’t follow this brand of blogging or this brand of gospel centrism. I admit that.”
~Frank Turk
“By the way, the term, ‘gospel-centered’ saturates the Pyro blog, and it means much more than you think it does. Understanding the meaning of this term is key to understanding why they think the crying out on behalf of raped children is gossip…. This is much more than just a common understanding of how we are saved—this is a radical worldview.”
“Susan also came from such circumstances and slept one night in contemplation with a gun under her pillow. ‘Survivor’ is a word that is only worthy of irony in the minds of New Calvinists like Frank Turk who have a twisted worldview. And one only needs to read the SGM legal brief to know exactly who Frank Turk is mocking.
As the New Calvinist cartel circles the wagons around CJ Mahaney, an abnormal number of blog posts concerning “gossip” have appeared on the Evangelical blogosphere. I checked my calendar to see if perhaps February 12 is Gossip Awareness Day. Hmmmm, not finding it on the calendar.
Dan Phillips is one of the authors of the Team Pyro blog along with Frank Turk. Phil Johnson, most prominent in the John MacArthur venquilitrist show, is a former author on the blog. Phillips posted the exact same article that Justin Taylor posted (and the same day) on the Gospel Coalition blog. The post insinuates that the survival of a local church is paramount to all else. “Gossip” is a “church-killer.” Bill Gates would be asking me for money if I had a nickel for every time we hear this from the who’s who of New Calvinism:
Yes, yes, what they did to you is horribly wrong! But exposing this under any circumstances could destroy that church, and whoever destroys the temple of God will be destroyed by God!
Per the normal, an exegetical argument from the Bible was not executed, but rather run of the mill Reformed orthodoxy. That brings us to the gospel-centered motif that drives almost everything in the American church in our day. By the way, the term, “gospel-centered” saturates the Pyro blog, and it means much more than you think it does. Understanding the meaning of this term is key to comprehending why they think the crying out on behalf of raped children is gossip. And it starts with orthodoxy. In the Reformed construct, elders receive the word from God, and then repackage it in a way that can be understood by the totally depraved unenlightened masses. Hence:
It is wholly an issue of whether or not authority comes from God through the Scripture to the elders and pastors of your church and is therefore the basis for their credibility and their exercise of spiritual responsibility.
This was a comment made by Frank Turk in the comment thread of a Post by Johnson entitled “Should Type-R Charismatics Get A Free Pass?” Type-R refers to Reformed Charismatics. And yes, according to Team Pyro, they should get a pass because….
I have warm affection and heartfelt respect for most of the best-known Reformed charismatic leaders, including C. J. Mahaney, Wayne Grudem, and Sam Storms. [Let’s call them “Type-R Charismatics.”] I’ve greatly benefited from major aspects of their ministries, and I regularly recommend resources from them that I have found helpful. I’ve corresponded with the world-famous Brit-blogger Adrian Warnock for at least 15 years now and had breakfast with him on two occasions, and I like him very much. I’m sure we agree on far more things than we disagree about. And I’m also certain the matters we agree on—starting with the meaning of the cross—are a lot more important than the issues we disagree on, which are all secondary matters.
Got that? ALL other issues apart from their “meaning of the cross,” i.e., gospel-centered are “secondary.” This is the tie that binds. “Cross-centered” and “gospel-centered” are often used interchangeably. This is much more than just a common understanding of how we are saved—this is a radical worldview. The uniqueness of it can be further demonstrated by this:
We are glad that you admit it Frank. Refreshing. But before we continue, let me interject an example of the kind of hypocrisy that comes part and parcel with this worldview. Here are the five points outlined in the post by Pyro and TGC blogs:
1. Ask, “Why are you telling me this?”
2. Ask, “What’s the difference between what you’re telling me and gossip?”
3. Ask, “How is your telling me that thought, that complaint, that information going to help you and me love God and our brothers better, and knit us closer together as a church in Christ’s love?”
4. Ask, “Now that you’ve told me about that, what are you going to do about it?”
5. Say, “Now that you’ve told me about that, you’ve morally obligated me to make sure you talk to ____ about it. How long do you think you need, so I can know when this becomes a sin that I will need to confront in you?”
But yet, consider this by Phil Johnson:
Shortly after that (in early 1992), John MacArthur, Lance Quinn, and I met with Paul Cain and Jack Deere in John MacArthur’s office at Jack Deere’s request. Deere wanted to try to convince John MacArthur that the charismatic movement—especially the Vineyard branch—was on a trajectory to make doctrinal soundness and biblical integrity the hallmarks of Third-Wave charismatic practice. He brought Cain along, ostensibly so that we could see for ourselves that Cain was a legitimate prophet with a profound gifting.
But Cain was virtually incoherent that day. Lance Quinn remarked to me immediately afterward that it seemed as if Cain had been drinking heavily. (In retrospect it seems a fair assumption that this may indeed have been the case.) Even Deere apologized for Cain’s strange behavior that day, but Deere seemed to want us to assume it was because the Spirit was upon Cain in some unusual way. They both admitted to us that Cain’s “prophecies” were wrong at least as often as they were right. When we cited that as sufficient reason not to accept any of their prophecies at face value, they cited Wayne Grudem’s views on New Testament prophecy as justification for ignoring the errors of prophecies already proven false while giving credence to still more questionable pronouncements (Ibid.)
If Johnson and Quinn confronted Cain about their concerns before they gossiped to Deere about it, they may have known exactly why Cain was acting the way he was. Furthermore, why was his demeanor relevant to what he specifically stated? Moreover, unbeknownst to Deere or anyone else for that matter, Cain could have been on medication for a medical problem. That is why Matthew 18 states that if you have a concern or issue with someone; first, go to them “ALONE.” This is only a grain of sand on the beach in reference to the kind of hypocrisy that is constantly vomited out of the Pyro blog and is indicative of their grossly distorted worldview.
What is that view? I have written on this extensively, but here I go again. Volumes could be written about this, but I am stating what coincides with the subject of justice. Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation was written about six months after the 95 Theses disputation. It is really the magnum opus of the Reformation. Calvin then took Luther’s HD worldview which he got from Pope Gregory/Augustine and developed it into a full orbed philosophical statement adorned with Bible verses. That would be the Calvin Institutes.
Reformed theology sees all reality from Luther’s Theology of the Cross. Basically, there is only two prisms from which to interpret the world: the glory story (existentialism), or the cross story (all reality is seen through objective redemption history outside of us). The cross story objectively categorizes all of life into two categories: God’s holiness and our sinfulness. Reality is the difference between the two and defines each more fully leading to greater and greater understanding. The first known counseling manual written by a clergyman was based on this concept; i.e., Gregory’s “Pastoral Care,” which is the model for most Reformed pastoral counseling in our day. Everything else is the glory story which is considered to be a gargantuan cesspool of subjectivism; specifically, anything at all about us.
….I think that the idea that Christians have been given The Truth, and The Truth is utterly embodied in Christ, and that we shouldn’t pretend like other explanations of reality have any worth because they have no eternal worth is, at its core, the only true monotheism. Its unquestionable that this is the reason we evangelize and not merely discuss our faith as if it was one of several viable choices (Frank Turk: Unleash the Response; Pyro blog).
It’s really a great gig if you want to believe in it. You can totally separate yourself from the realities of the world by focusing your whole mindset on our worthlessness, powerlessness, and hopelessness. All of our hope is in Christ and everything He has done—not anything we do. At all. To the degree that we are able to empty ourselves, we can detach ourselves emotionally from the world. This mindset enabled Puritan Christopher Love’s pregnant wife to write him a seemingly celebratory letter prior to his impending execution for meddling in English political affairs. Love could have escaped execution and not left his wife with a quiver-full to care for on her own by merely promising to mind his own business. He refused. Luther’s worldview, articulated by Calvin, spawned the most radical religious sect ever known to man—the Puritans, who are the envy of New Calvinists—particularity Phil Johnson.
Therefore, all of the misfortunes and tragedy of life serve to humble us. They eradicate the glory story, and lift up the cross story. Luther specifically states this idea in his HD. Life is about deathly humbling that brings about resurrections. These resurrections are experienced by joy in our deprivation for the clay vessel is being shattered and thereby allowing the glory of the cross to shine forth into the world. We have this treasure in earthen vessels; the glory of Christ, which can only be manifested when we suffer the way He did. All suffering is a cross event. Are we not to take up our cross and follow Him daily? Got cancer? Awesome! Another cross event! Been raped? What an awesome opportunity to show forth the forgiveness you have received! There aren’t any victims, just preordained cross opportunities.
This is why the Reformers were indifferent to suffering and didn’t take the concept of justice seriously. Calvin called justice, “mere iniquity” (CI 3.12.4). This is why New Calvinists disdain the idea of victims, justice, and “survivors.” They often preface these words in what we grammatically call scare quotes. Scare quotes preface the word with the idea of “supposedly,” or “so-called.” So, let me give you an example from Pyro blog:
OK: enough is enough. I’m opening this post and the comments below for one reason only: SGM “Survivors”.
Note the scare quotes utilized by Frank Turk. Interesting. You see, Susan and I counsel people who have left abusive church organizations, and when we asked one counselee to tell us about other families that left—this is what we heard:
Some turned their back on the faith. Some do church at home, and some committed suicide. Not many marriages survived.
Susan also came from such circumstances and slept one night in contemplation with a gun under her pillow. “Survivor” is a word that is only worthy of irony in the minds of New Calvinists like Frank Turk who have a twisted worldview. And one only needs to read the SGM legal brief to know exactly who Frank Turk is mocking.
This would also explain why Pyro continually defends the president of SGM, a defendant in the class action sexual abuse lawsuit filed against SGM. The following screen shots from Pyro illustrate this below, including Frank Turks indictment of SGM whistleblower Brent Detwiler:
This Reformed worldview is the reason for the present-day tsunami of spiritual/sexual abuse in the church. While the Reformed accuse dispensationalists of escapism their doctrine is a gnostic-like escape from the here and now. It has always appealed to intellectual elitists and run along the upper socio-economic paths. It avoids the messy, painful experience of fighting for the most vulnerable among us. Embracing pain and suffering as the gateway to joyful resurrections is the pastoral easy-button. This gives them time to blog about the “deep things” of God and supply cover for abusers.
The logic is the same, the mentality is the same, and the behavior is therefore the same: coldblooded, vindictive, and controlling.
paul
New Calvinists Don’t Play Well With Others
For some time, this blog has been harassed by a New Covenant theologian from Costa Rica. He has not only harassed me which I am accustomed to anyway, but he has also harassed my readers with endless circular arguments that are typical of New Calvinists. He has also showed hostility towards those who disagree with him which is also part of the New Calvinist mode of operation.
This post is sort of an apology as well to my readers. I am a layman and not much of an IT guy, so between working/writing/husbanding/fathering and not knowing all the ends and outs of web stuff—it took me awhile to figure out how to blacklist him from the site. I know, moderating mode is easy, but that’s also TIME that I don’t have. We will see if my new tweaking of the blog settings will work.
However, this all brings back to mind how hostile, condescending, and elitist New Calvinists are in general. This comes from two sources: One; New Calvinists think they are completing the original Reformation. In their minds, literally, today’s gospel narrative in the “ongoing redemptive drama” is the same as it was during the great Reformation. They are Luther’s children and I will give you three wild guesses as to who we are. Secondly; they resent the fact that evangelicals have supposedly led myriads into hell because of the separation of justification and sanctification; specifically, some of their own relatives. When they talk about “justification by faith,” let me give you a heads-up fellow evangelical—they are talking about sanctification also: “The same gospel that saves us also sanctifies us.” What do you think they are saying when they say that? Please, words mean things—start listening to them and stop assuming you know what they are saying!
Look, this mentality came directly from the Australian Forum. Everything is either Rome or the Reformers—the subjective gospel or the objective gospel. Listen to the contemporary NC crowd carefully and you will hear them say it all the time. Piper said it while commenting on Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern seminary. On the one hand, they’re Reformers that will go down in church history, on the other, Roman Catholicism is behind every bush. It’s visions of grandeur on steroids.
This mentality is driving the hostile takeover of many ministries, ie, Coral Ridge as one example, and rampant elder abuse of parishioners. Parishioners in New Calvinist churches may rape pillage and steel, but don’t you dare question doctrine. In one particular case in a well-known NC church , a parishioner sent a letter to an excommunicated individual (same church) who questioned doctrine; the parishioner stated that she knew why he was targeted, and that she was not only a member in good standing, but living with her boyfriend out of wedlock under the full knowledge of the elders. I saw the letter. After all, we are all totally depraved anyway, right?
This mentality can be seen among their leaders on a national level. The wagons have been circled around CJ Mahaney for the exact aforementioned abuse I am talking about. It is my understanding from people who follow that venue that the website SGM Survivors . Com has been up for four years while John MacArthur, Al Mohler, and others clamor to hold events with him. His heavy handed squashing of detractors is irrelevant; “He has the gospel right.” Not that it mattered that much as I had only been there three times in about four years, and that at the behest of others, the Pyro blog blacklisted me for pointing out that Piper often flip-flops between justification and sanctification in his messages without any transitions. Frank Turk, a Pyro contributor, rebuked me for daring to “slander” Piper and said “to know Piper is to grasp Piper.” He also aped the often used you can’t criticize a NC unless you have read everything they have written routine. Of course, that would exclude any criticism of Piper because he has written about 600 books—all concerning the eternal depths of joy and proofs that God is a happy God which is supposedly a primary theme of Scripture as opposed to discussion about His holiness. The author of the blog, the insufferable Phil Johnson, bemoaned the fact that women had the audacity to criticize a teacher of “Piper’s stature” rather than being in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
I was in a Christian bookstore the other day and it occurred to me that other people telling Spirit filled Christians what God is saying to them is big business. The New Calvinists are making big bucks selling the idea that they are the new Reformers here to finish what Luther started (by the way, Luther’s contention with Rome was on a moral issue, [indulgences] not salvation by grace alone). And you’re either with them, or you are with the Romans. Character doesn’t matter, if CJ draws a crowd, CJ is too big to fail. Follow the money.
Enough is enough—Christians need to take the church back from New Calvinism. And by the way, Christ said, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” So, sometimes I wonder about this whole “Reformation” motif to begin with. Had Rome temporarily prevailed against God’s church? Don’t know, but I can tell you that I don’t believe it because a bunch of men say it’s true. And the “new” Reformation? Well, that’s definitely a stretch.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
57 comments