A Passing Thought on Chapter Twelve in the Calvin Institutes
All of Chapter 12 in the Calvin Institutes, from the first word to the last, is a diatribe on completely emptying ourselves as Christians in regard to any self-confidence or worth in order to receive God’s blessings. Job one, for the Christian, is to constantly endeavor in a deeper understanding of our own depravity. Calvin’s philosophy led many to think those who disagreed should be burned alive with the paper that their ideas were written on, while ironically, Calvin thought himself more compassionate and argued that their ideas should be humanely severed from their bodies.
Beaverton Scandal is Just More New Calvinist Spiritual Tyranny
Frustrating. Once again, we are focused on symptoms and not the disease. New Calvinism and its doctrine/philosophy is the disease, Beaverton is a symptom. Beaverton what? Beaverton as in Beaverton Grace Bible Church in Beaverton, Oregon. Here is their website: http://www.beavertongracebible.org/. And here is the scandal: http://bgbcsurvivors.blogspot.com/2012/05/anticipation.html.
Another survivors website to add to my blogroll. But it is the same old story: 1; New Calvinism comes to a church. 2; Members start asking questions. 3; New Calvinists use the techniques they learn at conferences to dissuade concerns. 4; But most churches have at least a few people that can think for themselves which = trouble/possible exposure that the leadership is slowly assimilating the “unadjusted gospel” into the minds of the people. 5; Since one of the tenets of this doctrine is that the (usually newly appointed under the new system) elders can bring someone under church discipline for ANY sin, and contesting the “underestimated” gospel is paramount to propagating false doctrine, the pesky member is disciplined and thereby neutralized as a threat to the authority of the elders. And, to discuss why the “sinner” is under discipline would be, but of course, gossip. The pesky member can now scream, squawk, or anything else they would like to do to no avail; their credibility is history. It’s the same old, worn out, five-step story being played out over and over again while rolling up the body count on the landscape of American Christianity.
This has been going on now for 42 years. The sharp increase in church discipline reported by the Wall Street Journal in 2008 is directly related to the New Calvinist movement which was launched by the Australian Forum think tank in 1970. It is a return to heavy handed Geneva style Reformed leadership—the days when Calvin had “heretics” burned and beheaded. Here in America, the scarlet letter of church discipline and lawsuits are the next best thing for those who dare contend against the “scandalous gospel.” Granted, many who contend against it don’t understand the theology per se, but have concerns about the results they see: control issues; fast changes without regard to the feelings of others; unbalanced preaching; and troublesome ideas like our total inability as believers to please God. That’s too close for comfort for most New Calvinist spiritual despots. This movement is also the primary supporter and catalyst for other movements like Quiver Full, Patriarchy, Vision Forum, SGM, Shepherding, etc. These movements comprise easily 90% of the spiritual abuse that takes place in American Christianity.
But yet again, even though it would seem like New Calvinists are on the ropes with the embarrassing revelation in the Beaverton situation concerning John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church, they win. Why? Because once again, symptoms are the issue, and not the movement’s doctrine/philosophy driving the behavior. Ronald Reagan knew how to get rid of a problem. He didn’t focus on the naughty behavior of communism—he sought to destroy the beast. And for certain, many bloggers don’t want to see the demise of New Calvinism for they would have nothing to write about anymore. In the same way, the National Inquirer dreads the idea that movie stars and politicians would start behaving.
This is a nasty philosophy: a play scripted with three primary characters; the enlightened totally depraved chosen by God to contain the total depraved peasantry until the day of apocalypse, and using the law and government for guardrails. Phil Johnson’s response to the Beaverton situation is beyond disingenuous. He knows grade A well that once a parishioner is excommunicated, they can be “treated like an unbeliever.” I can confidently say that his reference to the defendants as “believers” is not what he believes about them. With this doctrine, authority = truth which is why MacArthur will once again entertain with CJ Mahaney at this year’s Resolved Conference despite the fact that CJ has never repented of his criminal activity. Stuff happens in the messy business of controlling the totally depraved in order to present them to God as those who excepted the fact that Jesus has always obeyed for them (and any obedience on our part rejects the atonement). CJ’s behavior is unfortunate collateral damage in a war where the one in 99 is expendable for the Geneva commune. By the way, while New Calvinists pontificate about the virtues of separation of church and state, this ministry receives information regularly about their consorted effort to get in bed with the government, especially through the U.N.
I guess my only question is how high does the destroyed family body count have to get before people wake up?
As James Carville said in the four words that got Bill Clinton elected: “It’s the economy doctrine stupid.”
paul
LOL! John Piper Would Only Change “One Thing” About John Calvin
….and by the way, we are all totally depraved; so you know, stuff happens.
In this video, Piper forgets a lot of history about Calvin. Listen to the short clip, and then read the following excerpt from a church historian. Listen, I’m really busy today, but it’s ok, I know the smartness/intelligence of my readers; they are not going to take Piper’s word that ONE of the people Calvin had murdered taught false doctrine about the Trinity. Remember, New Calvinists believe that emphasizing the other two members of the Trinity as much as Jesus is misguided “emphasis” and therefore a false gospel (please don’t make me dig up the Michael Horton quote on that one).
In preparation for TTANC volume 2, I am studying the teachings of theologians who contended against Calvin in his day. Very interesting, seems that some of them had a problem with Calvin’s view of the relationship between sanctification and justification. Sound familiar?
Furthermore, Piper states that the melding of church and state didn’t serve the Puritan legacy well. Oh really? This ministry is inundated with information that I unfortunately don’t have time to pursue regarding consolidated attempts by the New Calvinist movement to get in bed with the government. Trust me, they would luuuuuuuvvvvvv to silence their critics through law enforcement—starting with bloggers. In fact, the present cases on this are not that hard to find: lawsuits; outrageous defamation of character; bogus church discipline; blackmail; coercion border-lining on outright kidnapping ; etc. On the last one, I know of an actual case right now and am working with the situation. The New Calvinist church is holding an individual hostage (in regard to remaining under their authority via church membership) because of what the person knows about the church. They “have something” on the individual and are using it to control them. Which by the way is a criminal act according to the state law where the church is located.
Piper is right about one thing: job one for the founding fathers of America was to make sure the church did not get back in bed with the government on this side of the pond. Particularly, churches of the Reformed type, which were barely less forgiving than Rome towards those who disagreed with them. Also like Rome, the Reformers were a little uncomfortable with the free reasoning of mankind in religious issues. Consider this soundbite from Martin Luther:
“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”
—Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.
“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
—Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.
“Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their heads in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise.”
—Martin Luther, Table Talks (as quoted in Religious History: An Inquiry by M. Searle Bates, p. 156).
In other words, Luther would not have thought much of the “NOBLE” Bereans. And again, Piper is right because the founding fathers of America were a product of the Enlightenment era. I’m thinkin’ they didn’t agree with Luther’s attitude toward free thought; unless of course, it was Reformed, and preferably Augustinain, a forefather of Gnosticism.
As the Institutes of the Christian Religion greatly influenced the theology of the Reformation, Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances greatly affected the structure of many Reformed churches and their relation to the community. One major element of the Ecclesiastical Ordinances was the Consistory, the central church governing apparatus, composed of ministers and elders. Its purpose was to maintain ecclesiastical discipline and theological orthodoxy, but when the social community of the city is identical to the church community, the result is that ecclesiastical discipline and religious heterodoxy have social implications. Very quickly church offenses become civil offenses or at least offenses with civil consequences, as the medieval Church came to see.
The Consistory oversaw the conduct of the believers-citizens of Geneva down to the minutest detail, intervening with disciplinary measures such as public rebuke and excommunication. But because the civil and the ecclesiastical authority were so closely intertwined, condemnation by the Consistory could lead to civil punishments such as public fines and even exile and execution. People were brought before the Consistory for every sort of offense, including petty ones such as singing jingles critical of Calvin, card playing, dancing, and laughing during a sermon. The Consistory also sent out members to each parish to look for transgressors, who, if discovered, were tried by the Consistory. Every household was visited annually, before Easter, to ascertain the status of prospective communicants. If Geneva was the “Rome of the Reformation,” the Consistory was its Inquisition and Calvin its Pope.
Geneva under Calvin’s influence controlled its citizens’ lives, including their private lives, well beyond what the medieval Church did. The individual Christian in the Church of Geneva was “free” to interpret the Bible for himself, provided he interpreted it exactly as Calvin did.
Was Calvin a “dictator”? Surely not in the conventional sense. He held no elected office, nor did he exercise direct political power in Geneva. He was mainly a pastor, not a politician. And yet we mustn’t go as far as some of Calvin’s supporters, who say he was “simply” a pastor. He possessed tremendous influence in the political community, well beyond that of a mere civic leader. And that influence translated directly into civil law strictures and punishments. Geneva was not an absolute State, in the modern sense, but neither was it a free state, except perhaps for those who already accepted its rigid norms of conduct.
A prime example of Calvin’s influence in Geneva is the case of Pierre Ameaux, a member of the city council, who had criticized Calvin as a preacher of false doctrine. The council told Ameaux to retract his statement, but Calvin wanted a harsher punishment. Ameaux was forced to go through town dressed only in a shirt, with a torch in hand.
Ameaux’ fate was a mere embarrassment; the embryonic freethinker Jacques Gruet was executed for criticizing Calvin, for blasphemy and for protesting the stringent demands of Calvin’s Geneva. He was tortured and beheaded. Calvin also got Jerome Bolsec banished for the Frenchman’s disagreement with Calvin regarding predestination, thus proving that, while Geneva was a haven for Protestants throughout Europe who agreed with Calvin, it could be oppressive for those who did not.
But the most celebrated case is that of Michael Sevetus, who didn’t get off as lightly as Bolsec. The Spanish physician-writer took it upon himself to reformulate the doctrine of the Trinity in what were essentially Gnostic categories. But Sevetus made the mistake of sending Calvin an advance copy, which led, by a rather Byzantine route, to Calvin tipping off the Catholic magistrates in Vienna that the heretical Sevetus was practicing medicine in their city. That brought the apparatus of the Inquisition down on him. Sevetus managed to escape and wound up, in all places, Geneva, en route to Naples. Calvin had him arrested, tried and sentenced to death. As an act of mercy, Calvin requested that Sevetus be beheaded, instead of burned, but in this case Calvin’s request was not honored (http://goo.gl/1Y1u5) [sic].
paul
R.I.P Presbyterian Church USA via ECO and Waiting to be Joined by the Southern Baptists
The late Dr. John “Jack” Miller must be smiling right now. His Sonship Theology which was born of the Australian Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel and transmitted in Presbyterian circles via Westminster Seminary is well on its way to finishing off what’s left of the PCUSA. When Sonship Theology started taking on heavy flack in 1999, its handlers changed the name to “Gospel Transformation.” The doctrine left the Forum in two directions: Reformed Baptist circles via New Covenant Theology, and Presbyterian circles via Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology.
The doctrine was pretty much snuffed out in Reformed circles where fiery Baptist pulpit pounders called it out for what it is: antinomianism. But in Presbyterian circles, “antinomian” seemed “extreme” and even “harsh.” Well, now that the doctrine is getting ready to completely consume the PCUSA, at least everybody will still be friends.
The doctrine was a born sectarian beast. A biblical sect is a group that divides using false doctrine. The movement, now known primarily as New Calvinism, never started its own congregations, but instead started groups and organizations for the sole purpose of orchestrating hostile takeovers of existing congregations. That’s what sects do. Ernest Reisinger left the Presbyterian Church circa 1980 to start Founders Ministries for the sole purpose of taking over the SBC with COGOUS (the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us).
The Bible makes it clear that there is only one way to stop a gangrenous sect: confrontation and separation, but the leaders of our day thought they could take a softer approach; such as, forums where everybody could get together and have “discussions” about such “disagreements” that the church has “struggled with for centuries.” There isn’t truth verses deadly false doctrine, just “disagreements.” A good example of this is Jesus’ letter to the eighth church where he told them to get together and discuss “disagreements.”
And by the way, the doctrine is sanctification by justification with Gnosticism as its “practical application.” No big deal; let’s talk. The sectarian arm of New Calvinism that is polishing off the PCUSA is the ECO, or Evangelical Covenant Order of the Presbyterian Church. They recently announced the following:
ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians says that 47 congregations are now in the process of leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA) and preparing to join the new denomination.
“This process is different in the context of each presbytery, but always involves careful discernment, discussion, prayer and several congregational meetings” according to an April 27 press release.
The release said that Trinity Presbyterian Church in Satellite Beach, Fla., with 877 members, was the first congregation to begin the process.
Some of the churches in the process of leaving the PCUSA and joining ECO that have either had their decisions publicized in newspaper articles or on public blogs include:
First Presbyterian Church, Colorado Springs, Colo., 4,108 members
First Presbyterian Church, Greenville, S.C., 3,508 members
Indian River Presbyterian Church, Fort Pierce, Fla., 631 members
First Presbyterian Church, Dunellen, N.J., 290 members
United Presbyterian Church, Canon City, Colo., 168 members
First Presbyterian Church, Miami Springs, Fla., 73 members
ECO’s release stated that “Other congregations will be voting in coming weeks. Yet another group of congregations is in the process of discernment with their sessions. After each congregation votes there still needs to be a vote to approve release by their presbytery.”
And by the way, the organization only opened its doors in January of 2012. This exact scenario is taking place in the SBC and any kind of intestinal fortitude to stop it is nowhere in sight.
I am no prophet, but the future is easy to call on this one: new denominations will be forming to offer an alternative to New Calvinism which has all but completely taken over the church. Historically, this is how denominations happen.
paul
Open Letter from “Friend” Challenges PPT’s Tone
I love working from other people’s framework of thought to write articles because the outline is usually the most difficult to develop. The following comment (for all practical purposes an open letter) offers an opportunity for this sanctified laziness, and some long overdue clarification. First, the comment:
Paul,
I understand your frustration with New Calvinist theology, which you believe to be fundamentally erroneous. I can also make sense of your indignation with regard to your excommunication from Clearcreek Chapel, which you believe to be unjust. These are sensitive and provocative issues that naturally lend themselves to strong emotions. What I do not understand is the vindictive nature of your blog. Keeping in mind that there is always going to be a wide range of disagreement, even among genuine believers, about matters of doctrine and practice, can you honestly say that you doubt the very salvation (that is, the basic belief in the atonement of Christ) of this particular church’s members and elders?
If not–if you cannot deny that at the very least, the membership and leadership of Clearcreek Chapel PROCLAIM to believe in the gospel of Christ–then I must urge you to be mindful of the manner in which you discuss the men and women who so profess. Even if the leadership at that church has wronged you in the way they administered discipline, it is not your place to seek vengeance through the use of this blog. I anticipate that you will cite a desire to protect fellow believers from doctrinal error as a primary reason for your writing, and it may be so. Only God knows the heart. But whether that is your intention or not, I would strongly encourage you to transform the purpose of your blog from one of accusation and refutation to one of Spirit-enabled, Christ-centered, God-glorifying, constructive writing that seeks to edify others in all that it proclaims. Such an endeavor would leave little room for the derision that seems to characterize many of your posts.
As I said, perhaps you are entirely correct in your assessment of your dealings with the elders of Clearcreek Chapel. Let us assume that you are. Even still, because it is a church of professing believers, I urge you to remember that, as I’m sure you know, Ephesians calls us to practice “humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph. 4)
Even among our enemies, this exhortation applies. I pray that the Spirit may persuade you to set aside grievances and instead to “bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them”, “live in harmony with one another”, “never avenge yourself, but leave it to the wrath of God”, and, “if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” (Rom. 12)
Please consider my encouragement.
Peace of God be with you.
A Friend
Let me take these well-organized/stated thoughts and reply to them:
I understand your frustration with New Calvinist theology, which you believe to be fundamentally erroneous.
Actually, New Calvinism is more than “fundamentally erroneous.” It is a false gospel that fuses justification and sanctification together making sanctification a virtual minefield for Christians to walk through on the way to a supposed judgment to determine a righteous standing. In sermons on “the golden chain of salvation,” John Piper speaks of participating in the “links” in just the right way. If we don’t, we are “making sanctification the ground of our justification.” Um, this is clearly works salvation by what New Calvinists would call “justification by faith alone.” But keep in mind, it is really sanctification by faith alone. And in essence, works salvation by faith alone because the two are fused. Their formula makes faith alone a WORK that maintains our justification—this is what makes it so deceptive, but deadly in every way.
The pastor of Clearcreek Chapel has said: “A separation of Justification and sanctification is an abomination.” What is an “abomination” is the New Calvinist formula that identifies certain things as works and non-works for use in sanctification, as if faith/belief is not human activity. When justification and sanctification are fused together, everything we do in sanctification relates back to our justification, making it works. In essence, we are maintaining our just standing by NOT making this, that, or the other a “ground for our justification.” This is a very clever false gospel. In fact, so clever, I must surmise that it was hatched from the pit of hell itself.
What I do not understand is the vindictive nature of your blog. Keeping in mind that there is always going to be a wide range of disagreement, even among genuine believers, about matters of doctrine and practice, can you honestly say that you doubt the very salvation (that is, the basic belief in the atonement of Christ) of this particular church’s members and elders?
No, and I say again, “no,” we should not “keep in mind that there is always going to be a wide range of disagreement, even among genuine believers, about matters of doctrine and practice…” What we need to keep in mind is the fact that such “wide range of disagreement” is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. This plays into the New Calvinist Emphasis hermeneutic. Many things are true, but the only thing that brings about meaningful results is what you “emphasize,” ie., the gospel. This is Platonist to the core. All other realities are shadows of the truth and inferior to the gospel, which as Clearcreek elder Chad Bresson has said: “is the measure of all reality.” Let me repeat that; the gospel is the “measure of ALL REALITY.” Add to that the following: Paul Washer has said that the gospel is a deeper knowledge that cannot be fully known, and never will be. New Calvinists have made themselves the gatekeepers of the higher knowledge—the only “objective truth completely outside of us.” This is Gnosticism on steroids.
Unity, I repeat, unity, ONLY comes from having the “one mind,” and that being the one mind of Christ, our Savior and Lord. A “wide range” of disagreement is to be avoided like the Bubonic Plague. Christ said to make disciples by observing “all that I have commanded.” If making disciples is only through the gospel, I am sure our Lord could have made that point. In fact, observe in the Gospels how often Christ talks about His own walk to the cross as compared to other subjects. The New Calvinists know this, which is why John Piper states that the only theme of a narrative is determined by its ending. Oh really? What a lame assertion in an attempt to make every verse in the Gospels about justification!
In regard to your next point, I strongly suspect that New Calvinist leaders are unregenerate false teachers. I believe John Piper is the premier false teacher of this day, with many following. And I have no reason to believe that the Clearcreek elders are regenerate, but have much reason to believe otherwise. I believe that Clearcreek parishioners who follow them (while not making any definitive judgment) should be treated “like” unbelievers. The whole Clearcreek assembly was confronted according to Matthew 18, but they continue to refuse to seek my forgiveness for a litany of gross sin against my family. Not owning sin is the mark of an unbeliever. For instance, they stand behind the Clearcreek elders in their written statement that is full of outrageous/untrue statements about me. This document was used to counsel my wife to divorce me. But yet, a copy of the document obtained by me includes my former wife’s copious notes which at various places clearly contradicts the accusations made by the elders.
Note in the below jpeg of the document that her copious notes contradict the most serious accusation: that I was not supplying for the basic needs of my family for a three-year period. She corrects that accusation by saying that we were not increasing our savings, or reducing debt (company debt that had nothing to do with personal debt), and that she had to help at times (from part-time cleaning jobs as she did an excellent job running our household full-time for 20 years). Furthermore, for any Clearcreek parishioner who has the guts to look at the evidence, I can supply financial records pertaining to the same three-year period that clearly shows the following: $700.00 dollars a week was direct deposited into Shirley’s personal checking account weekly by my company. This also included 100% medical coverage, and the company supplying all of my automobile and living expenses while I was traveling on company business (which was pretty much most of the time). In fact, as court documents show, Clearcreek’s attorney tried to contend against a motion made by my attorney to cancel alimony payments by claiming that I made $100,000.00 dollars in 2005.
I am not arguing that I was sinless, or that my family never struggled financially; I am arguing that a formal document giving my wife the green light to divorce me should be the epitome of truth in every word, and if it isn’t, they should be as big as the gospel they confess and make that right. They should at least confess indisputable sloppiness in this grave matter, not withstanding the casual mention of “misreading records” in the matter of my excommunication. A “misreading” attended by two elders who were supposedly counseling me!
Furthermore, the elders propagated the false accusation that I abandoned my family and moved to Fort Wayne Indiana while continually refusing to put the accusation in writing. This outrageous accusation was then furthered by many Clearcreek Parishioners such as Veronica Gelvin. Moreover, none of their accusations were repeated by my wife in her testimony before the guardian ad litem ordered by my attorney. Massive documentation that has been complied and archived reveals their accusations to be patently false. The refusal to repent of these outrageous sins committed against my family clearly reveals the utterly black heart of the Clearcreek assembly.
The Clearcreek elders and their following assembly pose a grave threat to God’s people. I have a duty to warn others with all zeal. In the future when it fits into my list of priories (and Lord willing), each and every Clearcreek parishioner will be entered into the Matthew 18 process, and if they do not repent, I will tell it to the church, and I will name names Publication1. I do not believe that Clearcreek parishioners bear the right to hide behind their vile leaders (each will be presented with this document).
Clearcreek is indicative of a huge problem that is growing in today’s church: the return back to Calvin’s Authority = Truth paradigm, and his heavy handed Geneva style leadership. Folks better wise up; the election/free will debate is not the major issue: spiritual tyranny and the philosophy/doctrine that drives it is the major issue. Whether the Southwood story, ABWE story, or my story, cries for justice fall on deaf ears Grace Partners 2. But yet our God is a God of justice. He warns us to take up the cause of those who are trodden down by oppressors. Until Clearcreek offers the slightest whimper of regret for the deep pain they have unrightfully inflicted on many people—here I stand, and I will not relent as long as the lover of our souls gives me breath. To Him be all glory, and I confess that I love Him with all of my heart. And thank you my dear friend for your concern, I pray that God will abundantly bless you.
And to you who stand silent and fellowship with Clearcreek as though they are innocent: shame on you. Shame.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment