Southwood Revisited
Actually Steve, I do have a life, that is why I don’t have time to publish the evidence
I have concerning the decadent lifestyle that Jean L.3 led before coming to Southwood.
I am also sure the Session has been advised of it also. But you know, herding the totally
depraved to the gates of heaven despite themselves is messy business, so I understand there
can’t be a concern about the mere morals of the philosopher kings. To disqualify Jean L.3
over his immoral lifestyle would not be looking at his life
in its “gospel context.”Have a nice day Steve. If you send me your address I will send you a free box of Kool-Aid
as a love offering.paul
Thanks for your immature statement of judgement and your self-approved obedience. Now you can check “being able to see other peoples corruption through a log” off your bucket list. No need for the Kool-Aid, I drink it daily from the Bible.
“Self-approved obedience” Steve? You mean as opposed to “elder-approved obedience”? Steve, you don’t read the Bible; you search the Scriptures for what the elders tell you to look for. And sorry to tell you Steve, I am not lower in the Reformed spiritual caste system than you because you mindlessly follow a Reformed elder. Therefore, your assessment has no merit.
Sorry. Now call Jean for something that will enable you to take on the day Steve.paul
You have just been “trolled” and caught. You have no knowledge of me at all, and yet you can make that statement about me “you don’t read your Bible”. Maybe you have just checked off enough of the “living in obedience list” to now replace Jesus and be all-knowing as well. That’s not Kool-Aid, but some type of elixir that only a few like you are fortunate enough to find. You might be the most happy person in the world…cause you sure have the naive thing down pat!
Steve, really, I do have a life, so please move on. I understand Reformed theology plenty, so you don’t have to inform me that applying biblical imperatives to life is replacing Jesus. Ok Steve, “you win the debate here.” Feel better? Now please move on.
paul
Excuse Me, But the Reformers Were Mystic Before Mysticism Was Cool
My daughter sent me some pretty decent articles yesterday. Apparently, everyone is catching on to the fact that John Piper and many other vaunted teachers of our day propagate contemplative spirituality. No kidding? What was our first clue? Maybe the conference with headliners like John MacArthur where Piper preached on the Gospels as being “pictures of Jesus”?
But what drives me absolutely nuts is the fact that even those who are blowing the whistle still don’t get it. Piper, Warren, Tchividjian, Keller et al know their cuts of Reformed theology. Where do folks think they get all of this stuff? In one of the articles my daughter sent me, Ken Silva of Apprising .org states the following (emphasis by underline added):
Unfortunately we live in a time where, in my opinion, a tsunami of apostasy—likely driven by 1 Peter 4:17 judgments—is rapidly heading toward the mainstream of, largely pretending to be Protestant, evangelicalism.
Sadly, we’re watching the Reformation being undone as more and more people embrace corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM); particularly within the sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church aka the Emerging Church. As a result, one of the trends developing as the above happens is a neo-Reformed new Calvinism, which I touched upon e.g. in Mark Driscoll And Neo-Reformed New Calvinist Contemplative Spirituality.
As I said in previous AM posts such as Acts 29 Network And Reformed Counter Reformation Spirituality? and Acts 29 Pastor Matt Chandler On Being A Reformed Charismatic, in my estimation, there’s very good reason for concern as these people are rapidly growing in popularity, and in influence within the younger sector of the Reformed Camp; blessed as they are by Dr. John Piper, who’s seen by some as a “pioneer” of this New Calvinism.
Everything I underlined in his statement is basically/fundamentally all the same. Piper et al are not changing anything; they are taking Protestantism back to its original roots of gospel contemplationism. I have never been perplexed about who Piper associates with; ie, Beth Moore etc. Silva’s so-called “Protestant evangelicalism” is a life form that strayed away from the original article through ideas contrived by treating the Bible as propositional truth as opposed to a tool for gospel contemplationism. But now, the real “unadjusted,” “underestimated,” “scandalous” gospel has been rediscovered.
Of late, this occurred in 1970 through the Progressive Adventism movement. A Reformed think tank called the Australian Forum took what those Seventh-Day Adventists started (the Awakening Movement) and launched it into the present-day New Calvinist movement. I document this thoroughly in “The Truth About New Calvinism” (TANC publishing 2011). This movement was the latest resurgence of authentic Reformed doctrine that dies a social death from time to time because of the tyranny that always accompanies it. It enjoys its present success because the AF systematized it. My apologies that a hillbilly such as myself found out about it, but it is what it is. Please excuse me.
Let me give credit where credit is due: Piper et al know their Reformed theology very well. The Reformers were mystic before mysticism was cool. Reminds me of the following song:
I Was Mystic Before Mysticism Was Cool, by John Calvin
I remember burning stakes
Even when they weren’t in style
I remember singin’ at executions
When Geneva was really wild
And I was listenin’ to Augustine
When all of my friends were diggin’ Baptists
And dissing popes
I was Mystic, when Mysticism wasn’t cool
I remember circlin’ the stake, pilin’ up green wood
And turnin’ down Michael Servetus for a way out of town
I remember when no one was lookin’
I was puttin’ peanuts in my beer
I took a lot of kiddin’
‘Cause I never did fit in
now look at everybody tryin’ to be what I was then
I was Mystic, when Mysticism wasn’t cool
(Chorus:)
I was Mystic, when Mysticism wasn’t cool
I was Gnostic, from my hat down to my boots
I still act, and look the same
What you see ain’t nothin’ new
I was Mystic, when Mysticism wasn’t cool
They call us New Calvinists
For stickin’ to our roots
I’m just sad we’re in a country
Where Arminians are free to choose
I was Mystic, when Mysticism wasn’t cool
(Repeat chorus)
Yeah, I was Mystic when Mysticism wasn’t cool
Question Concerning Last Sunday’s Potter’s House Message is Key
“The answer to this question identifies a definitive difference between the two primary gospels of our day. The major difference is how we participate in sanctification, and what that states in regard to what we believe about justification.”
I received the following question concerning Sunday’s message at the Potter’s House: “Regarding your statement, ‘It [the gospel] solves the paramount problem of mankind being unreconciled to God, and then continues to solve the myriad of problems associated with the fall, or the fallout thereof. The gospel is the truth that resolves the fall, and the fallout in our lives. The gospel not only solves the fall, but the fallout as well.’ My question is, how does that differ from saying the same gospel that justifies us [dealing with the fall] also sanctifies us [the fallout as well]? I believe you are right; the gospel deals with both.”
The answer to this question identifies a definitive difference between the two primary gospels of our day. The major difference is how we participate in sanctification, and what that states in regard to what we believe about justification. In the Potter’s House series on the book of Romans we identify the gospel as a call unto all mankind to commit one’s life to the full body of God’s truth for life and godliness. This includes believing that Christ made a way for us to be reconciled to God through His death for our sins, and His resurrection on the third day. It also includes a commitment to “obey the gospel” and “accept the word.” Obeying the gospel, accepting the word, and obeying/loving the truth are terms used synonymously with “the gospel” throughout the book of Acts and the New Testament in general. Saving faithis not a mereacclamation and mental ascent to the death, burial, and resurrection even if it is accompanied by a “treasure chest of joy” as John Piper teaches.
To only believe in the death, burial, and resurrection, and make no commitment to “obey all that I have commanded” is to join the world in suppressing the truth, putting our light under a basket, being salt that has no saltiness, and building our house upon the sand. The commitment to the full gospel saves us, not the doing of it. Jesus is “Lord and Savior”—not just savior. The commitment justifies us and seals us till the day of redemption. Therefore, to think that any of our doing in kingdom living maintains our justification is foolish because we are trying to contribute to a work that is already finished. This is Paul’s point in the letter to the Galatians which many New Calvinists twist to their own destruction. However, our learning and practice of the whole gospel (God’s revealed [and many-faceted] truth for life and godliness) does result in assurance of salvation (see 2Peter chapter 1, especially verses 5-11).
So, this gospel teaches a dependent colaboring with God in the sanctification process. OUR efforts may be aggressive in this because our part in the work does not, and cannot effect the work that is already finished by Chrsit: justification. Our work in this process is imperfect because we still dwell in mortal bodies, but there is a redeemed part of us that is US, or it wouldn’t war against our mortality that possesses a remnant of sin (Romans 7:21-23). As we will see as we progress in our study of Romans, Paul explains in painstaking detail why the redeemed still sin. However, he also explains why sin no longer characterizes the life of a believer.
So, to now answer the question, what is the difference between being sanctified by this gospel and the other gospel? The answer is simple: one gospel is a full body of truth that includes the death, burial, and resurrection WITH instruction for us to learn and apply while the other gospel is confined to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and is strictly information in regard to the works of Christ alone. This becomes a prism in which all reality and manifestations flow. Hence, the focus is meditation on the “gospel narrative,” and then reality flows from that. Not only is our Christian life powered by contemplating the works of Christ only, but reality itself flows from it. The premise of its hermeneutic is that all human history is redemptive (gospel) and is a predetermined gospel narrative. By searching the Scriptures for everything Jesus, and seeing our own responses to life in the lives of the biblical characters, we place ourselves into the gospel narrative and live in redemptive reality. History, from the big picture to the little picture of our lives, is a grand gospel narrative, and we enter the plot by seeing our own sinfulness in the Scriptures as set against Christ’s redemptive works (see page 94 of Paul David Tripp’s “How People Change”).
Therefore, instead of a full orbed knowledge of truth that includes the works of Christ that we learn and apply to our lives with intentionality, we rather meditate on the gospel narrative and await “new and surprising fruit” (How People Change pp. 207-221). To not do this is to “jump from the imperative to obedience.” Biblical commands are to show us what Christ did for us and what we are unable to do—that’s the purpose of the Scriptures—not the former purpose. Anything that does not flow naturally from the proper Reformed procedure for gospel contemplationism is works salvation because their way is “offering the works of Christ to God the Father by faith alone and not our own works.” This is critical because the Reformed gospel sees salvation as a “golden chain” in which sanctification connects justification to glorification. Therefore, we must be sanctified the same way we were justified in the links that connect justification to glory: by faith alone. Justification is not a finished work, it is a “golden chain” leading to glorification. However, Romans 8:30 speaks of glorification as being finished as well—no “golden chain” is needed. I believe Scripture speaks of glorification as a finished work as a way of stating that it is guaranteed because justification is finished. Therefore, Romans 8:30 speaks specifically to the separation of sanctification and justification.
This is why aggressive obedience is not a reason for concern in the prior gospel; there is no “link” between justification and sanctification. OUR works in sanctification are therefore the mode, and is intentionally mixed with our faith for the purpose of pleasing God. Though the will to do so is a gift from God, that doesn’t exclude our responsibility to make use of the gift!
So, one gospel is a full body of truth that we learn and practice in the sanctification process without fear of it being works salvation while the other gospel sanctifies us through faith alone—utilizing meditation to manifest the works of Christ and not our own.
That’s the difference.
paul
My Reply to a Reformed Pest
["pastor"], Yawn, yawn, and more yawn. I am not moved in the least by your baseless ramblings. You constantly go back to the same old Reformed elitist playbook. It won't work with me. It's all the same worn out manipulation to throw thinking people off the scent leading them to the truth. And the truth is: the Reformation is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. Never has something so vile ever been masterfully dressed to look so good. It is nothing more than Communism in biblical garb. The Reformation fruit can be seen in European church history where it incited war, after war, after war. In this culture where law prohibits its collusion with government, it propagates its tyranny through subtle manipulation and mind control. It is the exact same metaphysical philosophy that drives all cults, but evades the accusation via its own establishment of "orthodoxy." Its creeds, confessions, and counsels speak to the arrogant idea that the totally depraved saints need to be told what their own copies of the word of God state. There is a reason why Reformed churches behave no differently than the Catholic Church though they prefer a different doctrine designed to control people; they have the same father. The Popes, and the Westminster Divines; what's the difference? Nothing. The Popes stating that the saints need them to interpret the Bible, and the Westminster Divines saying they need to explain to the saints how each and every verse is about Jesus and nothing else, what's the difference? Nothing. Pedophile Priests, excommunication and slander used to silence critics, and other various acts of tyranny and injustice while clergy stands silent; what's the difference between the two? Nothing. The difference between all of that and the latest SGM scandal: absolutely nothing. I measure my success in communicating the truth by the persecution. Reformed folks can't help themselves; challenges to their ideas are intolerable to their humble theological egos. Their thoughts lust after the desire to have a theocracy like Calvin had where people who ask too many questions are burned at the stake. For now, they can only try to comfort their souls with the tools of excommunication, slander, dividing families, and mind control. paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment