The Reformation False Gospel Denies the New Birth
“This can be plainly seen in one of the most well-articulated Reformed treatises on the subject of the new birth: it is an article endorsed by the Reformed icon Graeme Goldsworthy, and the article is entitled, The False Gospel of the New Birth. Any questions?”
“This Gnostic paradigm enables those of the Reformed tradition to affirm the truthfulness of the new birth, while denying its significance. The new birth is a mere shadow of the only important thing that can power our lives. Like their Gnostic parents, they are masters of deception in this way. It enables them to dismiss the plain sense of Scripture on a large scale while building their antinomian juggernaut.”
_______________________________________________________
Hopefully, the Reformation will one day take its proper place in history as one of the great cults. Like all cults, it utilizes familiar biblical terminology, but has assigned a different meaning to the terms. Though the Reformers and their offspring frame explanations of salvific elements in biblical plausibility, their words are carefully chosen to deceive those who are not “ready” for their deep Reformation “truth.”
Basic elements of Reformed ideology are a direct affront to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Christ said, “You must be born again,” and this the Reformers deny. The biblical meaning of the new birth is a total recreation of the saved person. The old self was put to death and no longer lives—we are new creatures. “Behold, all things are new.” The old man who was inflamed in temptation by the law is now dead, and the believer is now free via the new birth to pursue freedom in the law, though not perfectly. This is what the new birth does: it changes the relationship of the law to the saved individual. He/she is no longer under it for justification, but upholds it as a kingdom citizen and slave to Jesus Christ. Failure thereof temporarily disrupts the intimate family relationship with the Father and the Son, but can be restored through a repentance that is not a washing, for we are already washed.
This creates an abundance of difficulties for Reformed theology. An actual transformation of the individual that includes the efficacious union of Christ, rather than the life of Christ being the only life in a spiritually dead believer, is the Waterloo of Reformed theology. Are we alive with Christ? Or are we still dead with Christ? Is sanctification by faith alone because we are still dead, or are we creditable colaborers who are able to truly love our Lord through our actions?
In Reformed theology, there is no new birth that makes us new creatures with Christ, the “new birth” is “Christ for us.” Not just for forgivenessof sins, but for EVERYTHING. “You can do nothing without me,” is translated, you can’t do anything at all because you are still spiritually dead.
Reformed theology is a let go and let God doctrine on steroids. And in Reformed theology, to deny that Christians remain spiritually dead is paramount to works salvation because the law remains the standard for justification. Instead of being dead to the law for justification, we are still dead to law for sanctification as well—the relationship has not changed—Christ must keep the law for us to maintain our just standing. This is why, according to most Reformed theology, you can lose your salvation if you do not live the Christian life by, “faith alone.” Trying to obey the law in sanctification is supposedly insanity because the standard is still perfection—we are still under the law. Not only that, we are still spiritually dead to boot. Justification texts are deceptively applied to sanctification and vice versa. It’s all the same.
This is why Reformed theology turns truth completely upside down at every point. It is a gargantuan library of lies that cover for other lies. It started with a false premise, and has spent over 500 years building, refining and crafting its narrative. It uses the same metaphysics that Satan needed to be equal with God. To compete with God, Satan needed to be different—so he created the antithesis of God: evil. Therefore, in Satan’s book, the whole story, or the rest of the story, or the totality of “wisdom,” should have included his creation as well: the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of good alone is knowledge of God alone—Satan would have none of that.
Hence, the first sentence of the Calvin institutes describes wisdom as primarily the knowledge of God and us (who remain totally depraved). Therefore, according to the same garden metaphysics, we must remain evil in order to have a working epistemology. If we change, if we become more and more like God, the epistemological gateway is diminished. A deeper and deeper knowledge of our depravity can no longer be set against a deeper and deeper knowledge of God’s holiness—leading to more and more “wisdom.” Therefore, the idea of the new birth drives a stake through the heart of the first sentence of the Calvin institutes. The transformation of us just points more to knowledge about God and less about our former condition—this seems to upset Calvin’s epistemological apple cart.
But whether or not you buy my working theory on the deeper issue of metaphysics, the fact remains that Reformed theology clearly teaches that we remain totally depraved as Christians. The only argument is whether or not neo-Calvinism has distorted the original intent of the Reformers. I contend that they have not. And if they have, the Calvin purists can blame themselves because an apt treatise against the neo-Calvinists is nowhere to be found, but rather fellowship. If Calvinists don’t want to wear the shoe that fits, let them come out from among them.
In the Reformed mindset, to claim transformation through the new birth is to make salvation about us, and less about God. Such is not the truth because God doesn’t need evil to better define Himself, nor does He need evil as a contrast to magnify His glory. Therefore, pointing to our own evil does not glorify God. Becoming more like God glorifies God; Christ makes this clear in the Sermon on the Mount. But notable contemporary Reformers state the opposite, saying that emphasizing the enabling power of the new birth (as Christ did with the word, “must”) “eclipses” the glory of Christ:
It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.
~ Geoffrey Paxton (Australian Forum)
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~ Michael Horton
And the new-birth-oriented “Jesus-in-my-heart” gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism. (footnoted to Paxton’s article with above quote).
~ Graeme Goldsworthy (Australian Forum)
In it [Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern] it gave one of the clearest statements of why the Reformation was needed…. I would add that this “upside down” gospel has gone away— neither from Catholicism nor from Protestants.
~ John Piper
Another way those of the Reformed tradition explain away plain truth about the new birth is the Reformed Emphasis Hermeneutic which is based on Gnosticism. Truth is beyond what the five senses can ascertain. What the five senses can ascertain are shadows and forms of the vision of the good. So, to “emphasize” what the Holy Spirit is helping us do within is emphasizing what we sense, and what Reformers call “subjective experience.” The only true objective truth is “the objective gospel outside of us” which is a Reformed mantra (http://www.objectivegospel.org/). What they have done is reversed normal metaphysics in the same way Gnosticism does. What we observe is no longer empirical, but deemed subjective; only the true vision of the good is objective; ie, the gospel outside of us. Therefore, to emphasize the new birth is to emphasize the shadows and forms of the higher good, and not the higher good. It is “emphasizing a good thing, but not the best thing,” and, “emphasizing the fruit, and not the root.” This Gnostic paradigm enables those of the Reformed tradition to affirm the truthfulness of the new birth, while denying its significance. The new birth is a mere shadow of the only important thing that can power our lives. Like their Gnostic parents, they are masters of deception in this way. It enables them to dismiss the plain sense of Scripture on a large scale while building their antinomian juggernaut. This can be plainly seen in one of the most well-articulated Reformed treatises on the subject of the new birth: it is an article endorsed by the Reformed icon Graeme Goldsworthy, and the article is entitled, The False Gospel of the New Birth. Any questions?
Reformed theology is in no wise truthful on any point other than some facts that are used as coconspirators in their evil plot to take away from God’s objective truth, and also add to it. Their doctrine drives a stake through the very heart of the true gospel. They boldly deny the words of the Lord of Lords, the glorious Holy King: “You must be born again.”
And their desert will be just.
paul
Spiritual Communism, Obama, and the Future of America
There are many perplexing events taking place around us that really shouldn’t be that confusing at all: how in the world could Obama have won the election with this kind of economy (a first)? How could the Obama administration turn their backs on the Benghazi consulate and leave them for dead? Why would we not secure our border with Mexico immediately in the face of terrorist infiltration of our society on a large scale? How can the horrors of late term abortions be acceptable to any lawmaker? How can we take money from hard workers who are barely scrapping by and give it to those who won’t work?
“Because Obama is evil.” “Because Obama is a typical Democrat.” Because Obama isn’t a Christian.” “Obama is stupid.” Maybe, but even if those reasons are true; they are beside the main point. What Obama is standing for does not defy common sense at all if you understand his….philosophy.
Obama’s philosophy is one of two primary ancient philosophies that were among those living in the cradle of civilization. Those two primary philosophies are determined by how they answer one single question: who owns man? Now, if you hang around with my crowd, they are quick to respond by saying, “God owns man! Are you stupid?” Maybe, but this is also beside the main point.
The fact that God rightfully owns man is a given; how God has decided to execute His ownership is a much broader consideration. It begins with giving Him the glory that is due, which of course starts with the gospel. Once that is established, or nevertheless not established in the minds of many, is man created with a capability to be responsible for the sum and substance of his life before God? Stated another way: are men a herd of mindless animals created by God who need His specially anointed cowboys to manage the herd? Is mankind CAPABLE? This boils down to the philosophy of competence versus incompetence.
Sure, man depends on God for his needs—no doubt there, but past that, is there a capable colaboring involved that God expects on a Christian level, and on a non-Christian level as well? In other words, on the judgment day, will God only judge man for what he decided to do about His Son or will God judge man according to other things as well? The answer follows:
Matthew 12:36
I tell you, on the day of Judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,
Man is both capable, and responsible. He is competent. And many concur—Christian and non-Christian. Does capability equal free will to choose God? I won’t go there, but it is clear that man is capable for something, and that he is free—born free if you will. It is interesting to note that procreation was going to happen with Adam and Eve regardless of the fall (Genesis 1:28), but they were only mandated to rule over creation; and not each other. This idea doesn’t exclude roles or leadership in some sort of project, but it does exclude God-appointed masters who have a special pipeline to His higher knowledge; eg, a spiritual caste system.
The latter is the other side of the argument, and qualifies the prism that I will use to clarify the rest of my thesis in this essay. Church historian John Immel organizes it this way: who owns man? Does government own man? Or does man own man? This is how I am going to frame my contention as well, but with a little twist: who owns man? Does government own man at the behest of God as a higher life form, or as a personification of an impersonal cosmic power? Or does man own man as a competent individual who will answer to nobody but God for the sum and substance of his/her life?
This is the battle of the ages. All mortal blood spilled on the earth finds its ancestor in this fundamental question. Man functions by His philosophy. The competence versus incompetence is the metaphysical argued with epistemology, determining ethics, and resulting in politics. And God is above all of it with His own metaphysical declaration—the Bible. Yet, in case no one has noticed, God Himself does not rule directly on earth—not yet anyway. Therefore, man is free, but what will one day be responsible before God at the judgment. Throughout Scripture, Christ describes Himself as a master who has gone on a long journey and assigned His servants to certain responsibilities while He is gone. When He returns, there will be an accounting.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch we call earth, the battle continues. It is a war, and has always been a war between those who demand to rule the incompetent masses by proxy, and the free, capable, and responsible. Hence, as a footnote, the latter often objects to the former demanding obedience to that which violates their consciences—stated another way by the apostle Peter: “We should obey God and not man.” Likewise, the apostle Paul: “Follow me as I follow Christ.”
For the most part throughout human history the philosophy of incompetence has reigned, and always clothed with virtue. Being guided by the enlightened who have been selected by God or the evolutionary survival of the fittest, life is for the sole purpose of serving what’s best for the whole of society, or the group. Self-identity as one who is utterly worthless unless defined by contribution to the whole is the epitome of good. Individualism is evil, and detrimental to the whole. Contribution to the whole in obedience to the government defines purpose. Carrots dangling on strings and motivations vary from hundreds of virgins, food, shelter, and clothing, to merely avoiding the boiling pot and starving beasts.
Cultural varieties are emperor worship, the government-approved god of your choice, and theocracies of all stripes. Historically, around the 6th century, its lame doctrine of mythology was replaced with the more sophisticated social engineering of Plato. Western culture is heavily vested in Platonic thought which presented the ideal society as ruled by philosopher kings. The second category of citizen was the soldiers who enforce the will of the philosopher kings. The third and lowest strata in the Platonic caste system were the producers. Again, the life purpose of the producer or common citizen was his/her ability to contribute to the group. The anti-virtue was individualism. Plato also believed that the soul mirrored the metaphysical society. One was born with a soul that matched the need of his/her environment; ie, society. This is evolutionary-like thought. One is born a philosopher king, a soldier, or a producer. Rather than man being created by God separately to rule over creation and subdue it, he is rather a product of it. Creation is the creator of man to meet its own needs as opposed to God creating man. Thus, creation is the god, not the personal saving God. Plato probably received these ideas from ancient forms of Hinduism while in exile after the execution of Socrates.
From there, this construct was adopted by the Doctor of Grace in the Catholic Church: St. Augustine. The Catholic Church throughout history has been the epitome of Plato’s Republic. Augustine’s understudies, Martin Luther and John Calvin, though the most notable figures of the Reformation—never fell far from the Catholic tree. They were merely more principled philosopher kings than the Catholic Popes. Though they railed against the Catholic Church’s supposed inferior soteriology, they retained the exact same Platonic caste system and remained endeared to Augustine. Calvin quoted Augustine on every 2.5 pages of the Calvin Institutes (or over 400 times).
The combination of these two caste systems, though estranged, wreaked bloody havoc on Europe for 300 years. The tyranny of the Catholic Church was also the tyranny of the Reformers: same philosophy, same results. From this turmoil and darkness, arose a pushback from the Enlightenment era. The founding fathers of America were a product of that movement. Our Constitution was specifically drawn to prevent the horrors of the European Dark Age. Paramount was the goal to keep philosophers of any sort from having the soldier to enforce their dogma. America is predicated on the separation of the soldier and the philosopher king. It was founded on rugged individualism and the assumed competence of man.
America was initially blighted by the Reformation caste system via the Puritans who held to Calvinism. The Bible they brought to America (The Geneva Bible) on the Mayflower was a Reformed commentary and the product of Calvin’s bloody theocracy in Geneva. Both movements failed. Tyranny eventually dies a social death.
This trifold caste system rejected by America found life as Communism in Europe after the American Revolution. Secular detractors of the philosophy who fled to the US; eg, Ayn Rand, understandably saw selfism as the contra philosophy. Of course, the wise Christian seeks a balance between “think[ing] higher of ourselves than we ought” as opposed to selfishness as a cure for the eradication of necessary self-confidence and truthful assessment of the individual. However, it is interesting that many contemporary proponents of Reformed theology in this country still rail on Rand, and make her one of the primary foes of Calvinism. So, to be against Calvinism is akin to being a follower of Ayn Rand. This, of course, is ridiculous. But don’t miss the main point: Why do Calvinists see a non-religious individual like Rand as a threat? Because they know it really isn’t about theology—it’s about the fundamental philosophical presupposition about man, and they know her understanding of such is a threat to the real heart of their theology.
This philosophical war will rage in this country till the return of Christ. It interprets most of what is before us in the news on a daily basis. We are presently in a transition. The welfare state is not the communist state. The welfare state is the transition period that communists use to convert a society into Plato’s utopia. Right now, the welfare state in America is about 47%. But there are no welfare recipients in a Communist state, only kings, soldiers, and PRODUCERS. Hence, the welfare recipients are eventually informed that they are the producers—if they want to eat.
This thesis answers many perplexities in our day. The shared belief that mankind is incompetent makes for strange bedfellows and alliances. Open borders feed the temporary welfare state that leads to Plato’s Republic. The day when the welfare recipients are informed that they are the producers. If not deceived, they could have been free producers rather than slaves of the government. Benghazi and abortions are sacrifices for the betterment of the group, as are many other considerations.
Obama was elected by the temporary welfare state which is right now at 47%. The other 53% must hold their ground and educate the public. The welfare state must be educated in regard to the fact that they are being used and headed for slavery. And if not them—at least their children. The real debate must be continually put forth:
Who owns man?
paul
The Future of New Calvinism is Political
I have learned much about Reformed theology in the past five years. As I compile facts that point to logical conclusions, those logical conclusions are usually confirmed and lead to additional information. In other words, when you see a duck walking across a field, it is safe to assume he is looking for a body of water, or already knows where one is, and headed in that direction.
And though there is very little information to be found regarding the idea, it is safe to assume that New Calvinism is headed towards a marriage with the government. It’s what Reformed ideology does—it’s who they are. And the fact that John Piper et al continually espouse the position that they think such is a bad idea—there assertion shouldn’t be taken seriously. If ducks could talk, what would you think if one told you he thought ponds were a bad idea? Exactly.
Cooperation with state to enforce “truth” with the sword is a strong Reformed tradition that is all but completely absent in our day except for the remnants of it in Europe where it was spawned. There are actually Reformed political parties there that hold a few seats in parliaments and other branches of government. While calling their confessions, counsels, and creeds “subordinate” truth, they also refer to it as “orthodoxy.” Sure, orthodoxy is subordinate to the Bible, but the dirty little secret is the fact that only the “Divines” can really understand the Bible, and therefore interpret it for the totally depraved ignorant masses. The masses readily concur that orthodoxy is subordinate to the Scriptures, but that agreement has no practical implications for their lives other than the idea that orthodoxy is the only truth they can understand. It might as well be Scripture, and is treated as such. A prime example is the following excerpt:
But the fact remains Reformed Christians are a part of a confessional heritage. Our confessions are summaries of what [we] believe the Word of God teaches.
As confessional Christians, we must stand on our confessions as the principles of our Christian life. Below is the opening paragraph of Article 36 of the Belgic Confession of Faith, Dr. Beeke’s primary subordinate standard:
“We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes, and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose He hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship, that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed, and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must, therefore, countenance the preaching of the word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by everyone, as He commands in His Word.”
How can such a high and glorious view of a magistrate in subjection to the gospel be confessed as an article of faith and then pragmatism be promoted as the application of that confession? (Online source: http://gentlereformation.org/2012/11/03/why-the-word-of-god-will-not-let-me-vote-for-mitt-romney-a-gentlemanly-response-to-dr-joel-beeke/).
The Reformed ideology of Plato’s Republic with its philosopher kings (church elders and Divines), soldiers (the government) and its producers (society at large) runs deep and long in the Reformed tradition.
We don’t see it now, but we will.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment