“Nothing But The Blood” Why New Calvinism Has All But Completely Taken Over the Protestant Church
The difference between function and intellectual profession is an interesting study. Initially, Protestantism’s mode of operation and traditions accurately reflected its church-state progressive justification and salvation by church membership.
Americanism infiltrated and integrated contrary principles into the Protestantism that had come stateside, but then proceeded to corrupt Protestantism worldwide with open society principles. What evolved was worship predicated by authoritarian church ownership of salvation while professing the OSAS (once saved always saved) priesthood of believers.
Stated another way, OSASPOB was an intellectual staple for years while church ritual pointed to the Protestantism of old: ownership of salvation by the institutional church. Sunday worship proclaimed a salvation that we would ridicule while preaching at the office coffee table.
This is how we lived for years while assuming that we were the antithesis of Catholicism.
And what better example than a song we all sang for years Sunday after Sunday with tears in our eyes and from the depths of our heart? “Nothing But The Blood.” Consider the lyrics:
What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Refrain:
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
For my pardon, this I see,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
For my cleansing this my plea,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
This is all my hope and peace,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Now by this I’ll overcome—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Now by this I’ll reach my home—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Glory! Glory! This I sing—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus,
All my praise for this I bring—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
The song lyrics propagate an egregious false gospel. It is the idea that Christians commit ongoing sins that need a reapplication Christ’s death. So, instead of salvation being a finished work that frees us to put our faith to work, the focus must be ongoing “atonement” by perpetually returning to the same gospel that saved us. And according to good old fashioned Protestantism, that ongoing atonement can only be found under the authority of the institutional church.
Hello. What do you think , “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day” means?
This isn’t complicated and it is what it is. This is just good old fashioned Baptist orthodoxy. The blood of Christ was not sprinkled on the mercy seat in heaven for the once and for all ENDING and taking away of ALL sin; no, no no, the blood of Christ is a what? Right, a “fountain.” Um, what’s a “fountain”? Again, this isn’t complicated theology by any stretch of the imagination.
Look, one could write a book on how this one song propagates Catholic-like soteriology, but suffice to say that salvation is presented in the present continuous tense throughout the song including an outright denial of the new birth. If you were born of your parents, and I assume you were, you have their DNA—you don’t say that you “have no DNA of your own” and to do so is tantamount to saying that you birthed yourself into the world. Righteousness is the Father’s DNA of the new birth, and if righteousness is not part of your state of being, you are not born again and you are not saved.
Said another way, if you have been given a gift, it would seem evident that you take ownership of it or else it’s not a gift. Salvation is never described as a loan—it’s a gift. This doesn’t mean that you created the gift; it merely means that you received it. You have no gift that you have not taken ownership of. Hence, if you have no righteousness of your own, you have not received the gift of righteousness and you are not saved.
Why would you sing joyfully from the depths of your heart about not being saved? Have we lost our minds? Just how silly are we?
New Calvinism, Neo-Calvinism, Neo-Protestantism, etc., is a return to authentic church and is taking over the church like wildfire because its original gospel has always been running in the background. New Calvinism is un-confusing the church and leading Protestants back to Calvin’s Geneva.
And in every case, a brick and mortar church is either a confused congregation on its way back home, or has already arrived.
Come out from among them and be saved.
paul
Why Man is ABLE to Choose Salvation
It would seem that God pursues man and gives him every opportunity to be saved. It would seem that God corners man with the truth and does everything but make the decision for him. Much could be discussed on this wise, but this post is about inside and outside law.
Man is created with the works of God’s law written on his heart. The conscience then judges according to that law by excusing or accusing one according to their conduct in what they think or what they do (Romans 2:14-16). Also, the Spirit uses the same law to…
John 16:7 – Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Creation also speaks to God’s existence and righteousness (Rom 1:20). Hence, man is pressed upon from the inside and outside from four different sources: conscience, the Spirit, creation, and evangelism. Christians should be greatly encouraged to evangelize because they have the other four working with them.
Man is constantly convicted from the inside and outside concerning his sin and need to be saved from the judgement to come. Nevertheless, his tendency is to hide from God as Adam and Eve did and to deliberately suppress truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). But, when we evangelize, we are being like our Father who sought out Adam and Eve in the garden.
Much is made of the ordos solutus or “order of salvation.” Of course, predeterminists insist that regeneration must take place first which prompts the “believer” to then make the choice—being unable prior to the Spirit’s choosing. The Reformed also use John 3 to make the case that the Spirit regenerates first which invokes saving faith. This is why we have seemingly strange events recorded in Scripture—so we will not be in the dark regarding these questions.
Clearly, the biblical order is the hearing of the word, belief/trust, followed by the baptism of the Spirit. This can not only be seen in Acts 10, but…
Acts 2:37 – Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
Repent (believe), and you “will” receive the “gift” of the Spirit or the baptism of the Spirit. Faith comes by hearing the word of God followed by the baptism of the Spirit which puts the old man to death and resurrects him to new life. This also unites the called, that is, Jew and Gentile both into one body. This uniting of the called (Jew and Gentile) is referred to as a mystery that is revealed in the New Covenant (Eph 3:6). The emphasis is that God has called both Jew and Gentile to be saved and united into one body—not some particular calling of individuals preselected for salvation.
At any rate, clearly, belief comes first as a response to hearing the word of God before Spirit baptism which is the gift that follows. Regeneration does not come before belief. Apparently, the four resources that come to bear on those under law are enough to enable one to make a choice.
paul
Do New Calvinist Elders Believe They are Salvific Mediators Between Us and God?
While some continually comment here at PPT that they can’t understand a thing John Immel and I write, they understand more than they realize. And some advice: not understanding a teaching A-Z doesn’t = “don’t understand it.” Focus on the elements that you do understand and add it to your knowledge. Those are building blocks used to build something; specifically, knowledge.
Also, say that John and I are diving way deep to look for sharks, and you see one swimming around the boat. That’s the experience I had yesterday when it was brought to my attention that New Calvinist elders are now plainly stating that they = “local church” and the “authority” of the local church. But the way the reader explained it was simple and profound:
“I thought there is only one mediator between God and man?”
Bingo. “But Paul, can we really say that New Calvinist elders think they are salvific mediators between us and God?”
ABSOLUTLEY.
New Calvinism is a return to the authentic Reformed gospel. Because Augustine, Gregory, Luther, and Calvin were Platonists and didn’t interpret reality with the grammatical normative, Protestants migrate away from Reformed authenticity into a hybrid, or light form of the original. That is why today, you have historical grammatical Calvinists (Jay Adams et al), and historical redemptive Calvinists (John Piper et al). It all boils down to mystical (mystical doctrines are always married to tyranny because it presumes the masses cannot understand reality) Calvinism and objective Calvinism. The latter retains contradictory vestiges of the former; primarily, sound soteriology, combined with Augustinian eschatology. You don’t have to understand all of these terms; simply file the concept away in your mind. The concept is a simple one.
The Reformation was really nothing more than the same Gnosticism (Gnosis: secret or lofty knowledge) that has plagued God’s people from the cradle of civilization. The Catholic Church was born of the Gnosticism that wreaked havoc on the first century church. Much of the New Testament is written with Gnosticism as a backdrop. Augustine et al were always Catholics and never left the foundations of the Catholic Church. I believe the present-day landscape of the church is absolutely identical to what was going on in the first century except for the technology.
Part and parcel with Gnosticism is the idea of the spiritual elite mediating between the masses and God; in particular, the salvific part (because the masses cannot comprehend reality). Augustine believed that one could not know for certain if they were saved or not, but posited the idea that your best shot is obedience to the institutional church. This is deep within the psyche of Western thought, and why there is so much money in religion. The American landscape is saturated by churches with $500,000 yearly budgets because that is where salvation is found—no matter how you live. Give at the office, and live any way you want to during the week.
And that’s why the Reformation also distorts the Trinity. The Trinity is applicable truth. Sometimes we look at the Trinity as One for certain applications, and sometimes we make the separate distinctions for other applications. In regard to mediation, God must be Father and Son must be mediator. The Reformed gospel makes Father and Son the same and elders the mediators. But there is only “one” mediator.
Like I said, New Calvinism is a return to the authentic Reformed gospel. Calvin et al clearly believed in the authority of elders to forgive sins on earth in God’s behalf:
Wherefore, our initiation into the fellowship of the church is, by the symbol of ablution, to teach us that we have no admission into the family of God, unless by his goodness our impurities are previously washed away (20).
Nor by remission of sins does the Lord only once for all elect and admit us into the Church, but by the same means he preserves and defends us in it. For what would it avail us to receive a pardon of which we were afterwards to have no use? That the mercy of the Lord would be vain and delusive if only granted once, all the godly can bear witness; for there is none who is not conscious, during his whole life, of many infirmities which stand in need of divine mercy. And truly it is not without cause that the Lord promises this gift specially to his own household, nor in vain that he orders the same message of reconciliation to be daily delivered to them.
On the other hand, the Lord has called his people to eternal salvation, and therefore they ought to consider that pardon for their sins is always ready. Hence let us surely hold that if we are admitted and ingrafted into the body of the Church, the forgiveness of sins has been bestowed, and is daily bestowed on us, in divine liberality, through the intervention of Christ’s merits, and the sanctification of the Spirit.
22. To impart this blessing to us, the keys have been given to the Church (Mt. 16:19; 18:18). For when Christ gave the command to the apostles, and conferred the power of forgiving sins, he not merely intended that they should loose the sins of those who should be converted from impiety to the faith of Christ; but, moreover, that they should perpetually perform this office among believers. This Paul teaches, when he says that the embassy of reconciliation has been committed to the ministers of the Church, that they may ever and anon in the name of Christ exhort the people to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20). Therefore, in the communion of saints our sins are constantly forgiven by the ministry of the Church, when presbyters or bishops, to whom the office has been committed, confirm pious consciences, in the hope of pardon and forgiveness by the promises of the gospel, and that as well in public as in private, as the case requires. For there are many who, from their infirmity, stand in need of special pacification, and Paul declares that he testified of the grace of Christ not only in the public assembly, but from house to house, reminding each individually of the doctrine of salvation (Acts 20:20, 21). Three things are here to be observed. First, Whatever be the holiness which the children of God possess, it is always under the condition, that so long as they dwell in a mortal body, they cannot stand before God without forgiveness of sins. Secondly, This benefit is so peculiar to the Church, that we cannot enjoy it unless we continue in the communion of the Church. Thirdly, It is dispensed to us by the ministers and pastors of the Church, either in the preaching of the Gospel or the administration of the Sacraments, and herein is especially manifested the power of the keys, which the Lord has bestowed on the company of the faithful. Accordingly, let each of us consider it to be his duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it. Of the public reconciliation which relates to discipline, we shall speak at the proper place (Calvin Institutes 4.1.20-22).
In contrast, the apostle Paul said there is only ONE mediator, and made a clear distinction of terms between “mediator” and “teacher”:
1 Timothy 2:5 – For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.
When is the discernment blogosphere going to hunker down on this simple concept and demand that those who play both sides of the fence clarify their position on this? And why is it important? Because the idea of mediators other than Christ always leads to tyranny. Mysticism is the mother because it presupposes a truth/reality beyond the five senses that the masses cannot understand. It is anti-grammatical, and posits a redemptive stargate. Grammatical rules are merely guardrails, and empirically hinder orthodoxy on God’s behalf. Grammatical interpretation empowers the individual.
This was the forte of the first century Nicolaitans, which means, “power over the laity.” And this is exactly where we find ourselves today—history repeating itself.
paul
Matthew 25:14-29: More is at Stake Than Semantics Concerning Sanctification
Jay Adams wrote the following helpful words in a recent post:
“There are two ways to serve the Lord, only one of which actually renders service that He approves. One way is to have an intellectually correct view of what God requires and then to make an attempt to fulfill the requirements. The other way is to gain an equally correct view of what God requires and then tell Him that you cannot fulfill the requirements. The latter view is the proper one.
But, of course, it is not enough to tell the Lord that you can’t do what He requires. That, admission must be followed immediately by your acknowledgment that He can, and is willing to, enable you to do so by His Spirit, which in turn must be followed by your request for such help.
God blesses the humble, who acknowledge their own insufficiency. But He never takes that as an excuse for failing to meet His requirements. He has provided all we need for life and godliness, so no excuse is valid. On the other hand, we will not be given that for which we do not humbly ask.
So, a proper balancing of biblical truth is necessary: we cannot/we can—on our own/with His help. So, believer, in serving God, we serve well when we serve Him in our insufficiency fully aided by His sufficiency. Even Jesus, the all-sufficient One ministered under the power of the Holy Spirit. True godly service is that which involves both the human and the divine.”
True, and very helpful words for understanding. I would only add that our “human” involvement does include effort, or as JC Ryle states it: “exertion.” And why not? Unlike worldly endeavors, our efforts are guaranteed to yield positive results when we depend on Him and follow His ways of doing things. It is storing up treasures in heaven rather than where thieves steal and moths corrupt. “’I’ can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13). What a wonderful verse! It is a staple verse in my relationship with Susan. We don’t even waste time saying, “Well, I’ll try,” when one of us confronts the other about changes we need to make in our lives, knowing that the Phil 4:13 reminder will be immediately implemented. Also, when we don’t “feel” like we have the will to do God’s bidding, that’s false as well according to Phil 2:13. God will always grant the will. As Dr. Adams states above, no excuses.
In Matthew 25:14-29, Christ speaks of a servant who offered an excuse rather than service. Christ calls the servant “lazy,” which is the antithesis of work. The servant did not work in his spiritual life. God enables according to the gifts given; this is another truth that can be born-out here, but obviously, work on our part is still required. And we would do well to strongly consider the end result: “And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Though Jay’s post deals with sanctification and this passage of Scripture deals with justification as can be ascertained by the last statement cited by Christ, the post offers helpful insights to hang our thoughts on. Jay speaks of trying to do things right without depending on Christ, and knowing what is right, and not doing it. Both will lead to God’s “[dis]approval” or loss of reward. But what of the belief that we can’t work in the sanctification process, with or without God’s enablement? Now, I’m not going to speculate on an articulation of the servants thinking, but nonetheless, we can conclude that it was derived from an inaccurate assessment of God’s law, ie., what the Lord expects, and the false assessment resulted in him not working for the lord, ie., spiritual laziness. Working off of Jay’s helpful prism, this is wrong information (or, in essence, a misinterpretation of the law) leading to wrong behavior and self-deception, not the use of right information implemented in the wrong way, ie., a self-dependent / non-humble attitude.
So, when presenting the gospel, is it a true presentation if the Lord’s expectations are not accurately presented? What if we are told that we are not saved by the law (true), that we can’t keep the law (true), and that the law has no role in our relationship to God because it has been abrogated by whatever “feels like love” (not true: Francis Chan,“Crazy Love”p. 110). What if the presentation says that the gospel is strictly a “proclamation” and not something to be “followed” (not true: Michael Horton, “Modern Reformation” Nov. / Dec. Vol.15 No.6 2006 pages 6-9) even though Christ said “follow me,” and what He was referring to was “teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded”?
Again, I am not going to make any judgments regarding what the exact thinking of the servant was, but there is another safe conclusion that can be drawn: the servant was playing it safe. In his mind, he was erring on the side of safety (“I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you”), but to his horrible detriment. In our day, has the law of God been so misrepresented that we think to avoid it is to error on the side of safety? I think so. The belief that Jesus obeys for us—is that playing it safe because we can supposedly give Him all of the glory? Is the belief that all of the imperatives in the Bible are “indicative” of what Christ has done and not anything required of us indicative of that belief? Absolutely.
Lack of dependance on God can lead to non-humbleness in two different ways: lack of dependance in works, but also lack of dependance on God in understanding—leading to spiritual laziness. The slothful servant made the fatal error of leaning on his own understanding:
“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.”
The servant misunderstood the Lord’s expectations, and didn’t even understand the best course of action based on the wrong information, that is another safe assumption. Is a gospel presentation void of repentance, and the standard of repentance, a valid gospel presentation? I doubt it. Telling people that any effort on our part to represent the gospel with our behavior is trying to “be the gospel” rather than presenting the gospel (Michael Horton, “Christless Christianity” pages 117-119) regardless of what 1Peter 2:12 and 3:1,2 clearly states—is that instruction that does not lean on biblical understanding and leads to spiritual laziness? Definitely.
Gospel sanctification must be contended against because it is clearly a false gospel; more is at stake than semantics concerning sanctification.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment