Are Christians Losing Their Voice in the World Because They are Just Plain Stupid?
Originally published December 30, 2013
I was born again in 1983, but being saved by God does not automatically fix stupid in the here and now. The first stupid thing I did was to join a Baptist church because, by golly, I was saved and I was going to do this Christian thing the right way. Though a selfish sinner ruled by lust, like all of humanity, I had some good God-given qualities; i.e., I took satisfaction in doing a quality job. I brought that quality with me into my Christian life.
To some degree I am not at fault. How was I to know that Baptists are Protestants? How was I to know that Baptists would teach me the ways of Protestant orthodoxy? How was I to know that the fathers of Protestantism despised reason?
Are Protestants stupid? Sure they are. What other breed of homosapien would invest thousands of dollars to learn extensive knowledge about a religion founded by men who believed mankind to be totally depraved and unable to properly understand reality? Stupid? Maybe “sane” is the better question; who endeavors to earn a PhD in total depravity? Moreover, consider the fact that men who earn these nomenclatures of knowledge that plunges the depths of man’s incompetence are themselves men of renown and respected as knowledgeable about knowing nothing.
Yes, supposedly, according to Calvin and Luther, when Paul told the Corinthians that he knew nothing but Christ and Him crucified, he wasn’t talking about knowledge of other gospels, he was talking about the “foolishness of the cross.” Hence, the world rejects the cross because they believe man can know something of value other than the salvific work of Christ. They therefore see the cross as “foolishness.” Calvin and Luther mocked the thinkers of their day and ridiculed those who proposed that the Earth was round and the solar system was in motion. Their serial killing children, the Puritans, attributed the exploits of Benjamin Franklin to demonic powers. Any knowledge other than the cross is not the “cross story,” it is the “glory story.” The glory of man rather than the glory of God.
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree. As a pastor, I saw no need whatsoever to learn any “vain philosophy,” and certainly didn’t learn any in high school or seminary. In both cases, Plato is a touchy subject. The Colonial Puritans were ridiculed for being Platonists by their Aristocratic detractors who were children of the same Enlightenment movement that clearly saved Europe from being a third world country shrouded in superstition. The Puritans founded our public school system. They also founded the Ivy League schools from which all of our seminaries came. These were prodigies of Socrates and Plato who defined true wisdom as knowing nothing.
From that gene pool came the Gnostics who defined the “secret knowledge” in the same way. Basically, they were peddlers of happiness in the midst of knowing nothing: “Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” And if you messed up the unity and happiness of the communal group led by those with the gnosis, you died a lot sooner.
So, what in the world philosophy inspired this rant? Some time ago, it came to my attention that an atheist website reposted one of my articles in a favorable light. Even after being awakened to the importance of world philosophy and ideas by church historian John Immel, I was horrified. Certainly, I had to then consider that what Calvinists say about me may be true; am I really an “enemy of the cross”? Worse yet, this is a website that has a global rating of 609 with Alexa, that’s #609 worldwide (Google is #1). This multiplied the horror of my evil deed even more. Certainly, if these atheists liked what I wrote, it was pure evil!
Fearfully, I reread the post in order to come to grips with my horrific folly. Soon the fear turned to utter disbelief. The post pointed to the authoritative wisdom of God in the Scriptures. Huh? I reread it again; why would they promote these ideas on their blog? The post, at least in my estimation, assumed metaphysical interpretation via the Bible. So, I stuck around and read some other articles on the website. Clearly, I perceived more of a problem with stupidity than with God. In fact, I couldn’t find any article that had a problem with God in particular; the consistent theme seemed to be that Christians are anti-reason, and my friends, it is no less a fact that Luther called reason a filthy whore that should have dung rubbed in her face to make her ugly.
Now enter what I perceive going on among contemporary Christian youth in our day, especially after our mission to the Cross Conference in Louisville this past weekend. The youth that were attracted to that conference are thinkers. Granted, they are hindered by Churchianity, but the desire is to be thinkers well equipped for battle in the arena of ideas. That is what draws them to this vein of Calvinism from the T4G camp—it is perceived as being an intellectual Christianity. It’s bogus, but nevertheless, T4G does a good job of selling themselves that way, compliments of hard cash from the working class laity. Hence, this particular group of youth are ripe unto harvest if you make your case. My friends, this is good news.
Now consider the Passion variety of youth (Louie Giglio versus Al Mohler et al). They are where the Louisville group will eventually end up if something isn’t done. The Passion group is quintessential Gnosticism. Louisville really hatched a vision for us, but we are researching in order to ascertain whether or not the Passion crowd is too far gone at this point. Furthermore, the youth we encountered in Louisville are more likely to be heard by those beckoning for Christianity to show itself reasonable. By the way, John Piper is the bridge between the two movements. But with both movements, a transition from less teaching to more experience orientation can be clearly seen.
When it gets right down to it, Western religion and culture is predicated on the debate between Plato and Aristotle. How ironic that the contemporary Calvinists of our day maximize the use of the very technology that their mentors despised. Though they hate Aristotle and the children he bore like Ayn Rand, without them, Al Mohler would be just another Hindu priest adding to the pollution of the Ganges River with cremation grounds. In the same way that those priests proclaim that horribly polluted river a place of purifying, Al Mohler and company are living contradictions.
At any rate, ignorance of these matters has not served Christianity or our society well. Christians do error if they think that they do not have to choose the reality that they will function in. Until Christians can define their reality, they will look stupid and act stupid. The Neo-Calvinist leaders of our day do not want our youth to know that they must make that choice, for if they do not understand the reality that they live in and how it functions intellectually…complete control is imminent.
Our ignorance of these matters is evident because we don’t understand why 900 people would voluntarily stand in line before a giant vat full of flavored poison. This is not complicated: those who interpret realty for others dictate perception. Why was I so horrified that atheists posted my article? Why was I so horrified that they listened?
I still have a lot to learn about how the world works.
The Protestant Reformation was NEVER About the Bible
It was brought to my attention yesterday that Mr. Reformation himself, John Piper, hands down the most popular Calvinist of our day and the “elder statesman” of the Neo-Calvinist movement, stated the following in The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin ( John Piper, Crossway Books, 2000, page 73):
We need to rethink our reformed doctrine of salvation so that every limb and every branch in the tree is coursing with the sap of Augustinian delight.
This is an outright admission that Plato is the foundation for understanding reality and the Bible. Augustine’s integration of Platonist philosophy with the Bible was well documented by Susan Dohse during the 2013 TANC Conference. Once one pursues knowledge in this information age regarding what was really going on during the Reformation, you see that it was nothing more or less than a philosophy war. You can take that literally because armies in fact brought swords and catapults to the theological debates going on during that time.
So, why did Martin Luther make Sola Scriptura a central focus of the Reformation? Due to the rise of the Age of Reason, the Bible being made readily available to the great unwashed masses was inevitable. Ingenuity invented the printing press, and the handwriting was on the wall. The masses were going to get a Bible in every hut, and it was obvious that Augustinian-like slaughter was not killing people fast enough to prevent mass distribution, so the next best thing was to mandate how people interpret the Bible. That’s what the Heidelberg Disputation was all about. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes indeed, Scripture alone, but with what interpretation? Not the use of reason. To Luther and the Reformers, a serf believing in the ability to reason is like a toddler playing with a loaded gun. Basically, this is a discussion about grammatical interpretation using reason versus redemptive narrative. Those who would use reason to interpret the Bible were known as the “schoolmen,” and Calvin refers to them 69 times in the Calvin Institutes. The references are not complimentary. Like Luther, Calvin saw the use of reason to interpret the Bible as a rogue hermeneutic and antithetical to Platonist principles of philosophy.
This is an issue that has never been brought to the forefront among Christians for consideration even though most pastors preach via meta-narrative, and most Christians assume the use of reason to reach logical conclusions past, “I am a totally depraved person who can know nothing beyond the foolishness of the cross.” This is why Protestants are the most confused individuals on the face of the earth. Protestant pastors interpret reality in a totally different way than those being led.
And so it goes: Sunday after Sunday, the churches are full of parishioners trying to draw logical conclusions for living from a sermon designed to lead parishioners to one conclusion only: the only thing you can understand is that you cannot understand anything save that you deserve hell, and everything other than that is a an undeserved gift. Principles for living life? What life? Life isn’t for living, it is only to be praised as something done to us, not by us. The only thing we should be doing is hell, not life.
Therefore, if you raise a concern, or ask a question, this immediately reveals the fact that you just don’t get it. You are living for your own glory, and not the glory of the cross story. Knowledge and pride are inseparable, and of course, “pride precedeth a fall.”
paul
Gnosticism and the Contemporary Institutional Church
“Secular” Is NOT Synonymous with “Evil”
Gnosticism does not interpret reality in three dimensions. That’s why it is of the Dualism family of philosophy. EVERYTHING is good or evil, material or invisible. This is the “knowledge of good and evil.” ALL of reality is interpreted and defined by one or the other. This also involves Anti-Type epistemology as well: opposites define each other; we would not know light if not for darkness, and evil gives deeper understanding of good and vice versa.
This was the basic hypothesis of the Calvin Institutes (see 1.1.1.) and Protestantism in particular. Martin Luther interpreted ALL reality via the “glory story” and the “cross story.” The story of man and the story of redemption. Luther believed that man cannot reason or know reality, and God sent Christ to marry the invisible to the visible as the only gateway of wellbeing—the only gateway of understanding between the shadow world and the true forms through suffering. This IS the Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic so highly touted in Reformed circles. It is behind comments by the likes of John MacArthur Jr. that people doubt their salvation because they have not suffered enough as a Christian.
This worldview has seriously crippled Christianity’s ability to minister to the world because, among many examples, the secular is always defined as being evil. America was founded on secular principles: separation of church and state. The founding fathers saw the secular as a force for good that freed man to pursue life and happiness. This was the first time in history where faith and force were separated.
Other words that are unfortunate Christian synonyms for evil… “flesh,” and “leaven.” The latter often denotes influence whether good or evil; the former, like the secular, can be used for good or evil. The framers recognized that church and secular together, never turns out well. This is why movements such as the Moral Majority are egregiously misguided.
Here is an example of God using the secular for good purposes, and His call to Christians to support such:
Romans 13:1 – Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
paul
John Piper Continuationism, and Preaching the Gospel to Yourself
One of the more valuable lessons taught to us here at TANC was during our first conference in 2012. John Immel demonstrated historically and philosophically that people always believe what they believe and do what they do for a reason, and that reason is logic—logic drives behavior. Find the logic—find the reason for the behavior, or belief.
At the time, I was in good graces with Old Calvinists because I had published The Truth About New Calvinism: Volume One, exposing the dastardly evils of the Neo-Calvinist movement which was supposedly an aberration of Reformed soteriology. They threatened to boycott the conference because Immel hadn’t been vetted by them. At the time, the decision to tell them to hang it on their beaks was based on principle alone while unaware I was trading orthodoxy for knowledge that really gets down to why church looks like it does in our day.
So, why do bosom buddies John MacArthur and John Piper differ on Cessationism (first century miracles ceased after they served their purpose)? MacArthur is very inconsistent because he started out as a grammarian interpreter of the Scriptures. Later, circa 1994, John Piper et al convinced him that New Calvinism was authentic Reformed soteriology, and I don’t think MacArthur was willing to reject the Protestant narrative wholesale. If you understand how the Reformers interpreted reality, you understand how taking the Scriptures at face value is going to cause the mass confusion that we see today.
Hence, one example among many: MacArthur’s dispensationalism is going to drive many New Calvinists nuts because one of the pillars of Platonism follows; truth is immutable. Regardless of what the Bible plainly states literally, viz, that God has used different economies to bring about His will, the Reformers insisted that the Bible had to be reconciled to the great thinkers of old. That would be Plato and company. This is by no means ambiguous history. MacArthur’s unwillingness to reject Protestant tradition makes him what he is: one of the most confused pastors to occupy the pulpit in our day. He can be defined as one who interprets reality using two contrary epistemologies: grammatical and redemptive. This is indicative of most Protestant pastors who must try to interpret truth with two contrary epistemologies in order to hang on to Protestant tradition. This is the very reason for the confused mess that we see in the institutional church. For this reason, the institutional church is intellectually bankrupt.
This ministry is benefiting greatly from information sent to us. A reader sent me a video of John Piper being interviewed at a conference in London. In regard to how Piper answered a question, the reader wanted to know if his answer was related to the whole, We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day. Answer: yes. And, I believe I have learned something new in regard to Piper being a Continuationist. In his answer, Piper put together Galatians 3:2 and 3:5 to make the case that we are sanctified by the same gospel that saved us. Because the Christian life is supposedly powered by the finished work of justification, Christians must return to the gospel daily in order to be sanctified.
However, take serious note: to the Reformed crowd who know what they are talking about, this isn’t semantics about the best way to be sanctified, this is stating that we must keep ourselves saved by faith alone in Christian living. If we “move on to something else” other than the same gospel that saved us, we “lose both” justification and sanctification. Get this into your head: they make epistemology a salvific matter. Many Calvinists like Paul David Tripp have stated that a literal interpretation of Scripture is equal to works salvation.
In the Conference Q and A, Piper notes verse 2…
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Then he connects it to verse 5…
Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—
Piper uses the adjoining of these two verses to make the case that the Holy Spirit only continues to work in our lives after salvation via the same way we were saved (by faith alone). In other words, Piper makes this verse an issue of sanctification, and not the context: justification. But, to make this point, he must concede that miracles are also a continuing part of His works when people live by faith alone in their Christian lives. This is a good indication of why he is a Continuationist.
It also bolsters the Reformed view of obedience as realm manifestation. Obviously, miracles result when God manipulates the laws of normality; in the same way, the works of Christ can be imputed to us without us actually doing the work. It’s just a lesser miracle. Christians are to live by faith alone and assume that any good works we do are wrought by the Holy Spirit and not us. Martin Luther was very specific about this in the Heidelberg Disputation. For the Christian to think himself able to do a good work is a “mortal sin.” The Christian life is to be lived by experiencing justification subjectively. As long as we “attend good works with fear” of accreditation, our good works are only “venial” and perpetually covered by Christ’s death. This is the Reformed formula for living our lives by faith alone. This is nothing new, and is the exact same thing that James railed against in his epistle to the 12 dispersed tribes.
Paul was making the point that justification is completely out of the control of those who choose to believe. Man didn’t seek out God and collaborate with Him on reconciliation. Man didn’t call for peace negotiations. God pursues man, corners him, and presents the plan and the terms. If man accepts, the Holy Spirit quickens him or her. Even when man believes and accepts the terms, he/she cannot rebirth themselves any more than they can wrought miracles on their own like the Holy Spirit does—they can only believe.
That was Paul’s point; justification is completely apart from the law of sin and death. The Galatians were being taught that keeping a dumbed down version of the law of sin and death kept them saved. Paul said NO, if you want to justify yourself by keeping the law of sin and death, you must keep all of the law perfectly. He added that circumcision did not matter (justification by keeping the ritualistic parts of the law), but only faith working through love (obedience to the law of the Spirit of life).
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment