The True Gospel Verses Calvinism: Part 3
“Pleasing God can’t be the goal because we are not free to aggressively obey and apply the word of God to our lives lest we unwittingly ‘make sanctification the ground of our justification.’”
What’s in a name? With “The Centrality of the Objective Gospel Outside of Us,” much. This is the core doctrine of Reformed theology.
Centrality
Reformed theology puts strong emphasis on the works of Christ to the exclusion of the other Trinity members. In fact, given their concept of “emphasis,” the other members of the Trinity are relegated to insignificance. Reformed theology distorts the Trinity. “Emphasis” is an actual Reformed hermeneutic that has its roots in Gnosticism. Again, let the Reformed scream and cry like alley cats in the night—their theology is deeply rooted in Gnosticism, and if you’re looking for it—it’s easy to see. The very illustration of the two men, one with Christ within, and the other with Christ without, is a Gnostic concept. It’s based on the idea that matter is evil, and spirit is good. That’s why the likes of Piper et al have a problem with “infused grace” as discussed in part 2. The righteousness of Christ (by the way, the Bible always refers to the righteousness of God the Father being imputed to us, not Christ) must always remain outside of us because we are still evil and of the earth. The biblical concept of the new birth flies in the face of Gnosticism. This is at the heart of the recent “Jesus in my heart” controversy of late.
“Centrality” makes Christ (or “gospel”) the key to all truth and relegates all else to insignificance. This clever Gnostic concept enables Reformed academics to agree that something is indeed truth, but insignificant. And in fact, if the insignificant is emphasized, it is an aberration of the truth because a “good thing is being emphasized, but not the BEST thing.” Which is always Christ and the gospel. This comes from the Gnostic concept that reality cannot be seen through the material world, but must be obtained through the spirit world. Matter, and the objects thereof are shadows of reality, or inferior copies of reality and goodness. Life is experienced via the “two worlds” with a minority having insight into the world of reality. Plato, the father of Gnosticism, believed that philosophers who had (through striving) come to see spiritual things, should rule over the masses who function in the shadows of reality.
Reformed theology merely makes “the gospel” that reality, and everything else “shadows.” And they aren’t even ambiguous about it. This concept is a major theme of Rick Holland’s book, “Uneclipsing The Son.” Holland is a former associate of John MacArthur who wrote the Forward to said book. MacArthur’s statements in the Forward are nothing short of shocking:
Rick Holland understands that truth. This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our own hearts….The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock. Second Corinthians 3:18 describes in simple terms how God conforms us to the image of His Son: ‘And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another’ (emphasis added). We don’t ‘see’ Christ literally and physically, of course (I Peter 1:8). But His glory is on full display in the Word of God, and it is every minister’s duty to make that glory known above all other subjects.
This, of course, is not the truth, and gives license to acknowledging the other two members of the Trinity and the new birth as truth while rendering them insignificant due to “emphasis.” In Gnosticism, emphasizing the shadows over the life giving sun is to emphasize a mere reflection or inferior copy of the truth. Hence, challenges by Holland/MacArthur associates like Pastor Steve Lawson to “come out from the shadows” are no mere coincidental use of words. Major Reformed ministries of our day have “Between Two Worlds” and “Between Two Spheres” (well- known Gnostic themes) as their major themes. Am I here right now? What could be more obvious?
Objective Gospel
According to Gnosticism, all reality (objective truth) is outside of man, and in another realm. Reformed theology merely makes Christ and the gospel the totality of all reality in the other world. Like Gnosticism, the gospel is deemed a higher knowledge that can’t be obtained by observing the shadows of the gospel, but the gospel itself must be meditated on to obtain the higher knowledge. That is why the importance of “always getting to Christ and the gospel in every passage” is strongly emphasized. On a Reformed website entitled the “Objective Gospel,” there are several videos posted that are lectures from the who’s who of today’s Reformed teachers. In one video, Paul Washer teaches that the gospel is eternal knowledge and can’t be completely known. I am not sure what I can add to that in order to make my point. Reformed teachers are merely Plato’s philosopher kings in my book. The Earth Stove Society, a Reformed think tank for New Covenant Theology, states the following in regard to tenet number one of New Covenant Theology:
New Covenant Theology insists on the priority of Jesus Christ over all things, including history, revelation, and redemption. New Covenant Theology presumes a Christocentricity to the understanding and meaning of all reality [emphasis mine].
Outside of Us
According to Gnosticism, man cannot possess goodness because he is of the material world. This is why 1st century Gnostics taught that Jesus didn’t really come in the flesh and continually drove the Apostles nuts. The New Testament is replete with contentions against Gnosticism. Hence, Reformation theology rejects the idea that Christians change for the better. The cross illustration in part 2 should make that case. This Reformed concept is articulated well by Reformed pastor/blogger Terry Rayburn:
There are several problems with that essentially Legalistic view of Sanctification, as reflected in the following observations:
1) Our flesh cannot get better. In Romans 7:18 Paul wrote, “For I know that NOTHING good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh…” Your flesh cannot be improved. Flesh is flesh, and spirit is spirit.
2) Our new nature, on the other hand cannot get better, because it has already been made new and perfect through regeneration. We have been given a “new heart” (new nature, or new spirit), and not a defective one, which would be absurd. This new spirit has been made “one spirit with Him” (1 Corinthians 6:17), such that when we “walk according to the Spirit” (i.e., the Holy Spirit), we also walk according to our own new spirit.
3) Those who deal with Sanctification by zeroing in on so-called “Progressive” Sanctification as the main point of Sanctification, are at best in Kindergarten.
Therefore, if one carefully examines the words used by Reformed teachers, they rarely, if ever state specifically that we actually change as born again people. If we are totally depraved, how can we really change? Obviously, we can’t. Therefore, when Reformed academics seem to say that we change, that’s not what they really mean. “Spiritual Transformation” is the term most often used. Or, “Christ is formed in you.” In other words, we somehow manifest a spirit realm without really changing ourselves. Admittedly, I do not have the Reformed details of how this works nailed down completely, but without a doubt, the answer will be found in a deeper understanding of Gnosticism itself. Again, it’s obvious that the totally depraved do not change.
Reformed theology is a form of Gnostic antinomianism that has plagued the church from the beginning when Satan said to Eve, “Has God really said….,” and claimed to have a higher knowledge called “good and evil.” The goal for the believer is justification—not Paul’s imperative to make it our goal to please God. Pleasing God can’t be the goal because we are not free to aggressively obey and apply the word of God to our lives lest we unwittingly, as discussed in part 2, “make sanctification the ground of our justification.” Reformed theology promises to be a greater danger to the church than any cult would ever dream of. It must be exposed.
Anytime that aggressive sanctification is circumvented, lack of assurance fills the void—the Apostle Peter makes this clear in the first chapter of his second epistle. Also, the world is not impressed with a philosophy of incompetence among God’s people—they will not be convinced that he who fathers the inept can save their souls.
I will finish with a last word on the question by a reader that prompted this three-part article. Part of the question concerned the perseverance of the saints. This, of course, is tied closely with the subject of assurance. Unfortunately, false assurance or lack thereof will be rampant in Reformed circles because of the circumvention of free and aggressive sanctification. Like many other aspects of the Christian life, perseverance is a joint colaboring with God. The effort is many faceted. First, God promises to keep us (Jude 24). But that doesn’t mean we have no role in the process. God’s commands are to us, not the Holy Spirit. Secondly, God controls circumstances in order to prevent us from falling (John 18:4-9, 1Cor. 10:13). This indicates that theoretically we could fall away, but He intervenes in circumstances so that we are able to bear it. So, whatever he allows to happen—we can bear it. Thirdly, applying the word of God to our lives builds up our ability to persevere (James 1:2, but especially Matthew 7:24-27). Fourthly, God encourages us by promising rewards for perseverance (James 1:12, Rev. 2:26). But much more could be added here. God’s word and its life applications are deep and rich—not narrow according to Reformed theology.
Lastly, Reformed theology is works salvation by antinomianism, and its practical application, what there is of it, is Gnosticism. The Apostle Paul said that if anyone comes preaching another gospel, “let them be accursed.” And I say amen to that, and I really don’t care what their names are.
paul
G3: Baucham; Washer; Lawson; a Gathering of Calvin’s Spiritual Despots
You have heard of T4G (Together for Gospel Sanctification), and The Gospel Coalition. Now we have G3: Gospel, Grace, Glory. The conference will be held near Atlanta in January of 2013. The conference will feature avowed Calvinists Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, and Steve Lawson. Baucham has been increasingly more visible among the New Calvinist club. He was all the rage at this year’s, uh, well, what they call the “Shepherds” Conference at John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church. Baucham’s association, along with The Counsel on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood makes the strong connection between the New Calvinists and the Patriarchy movement apparent. More and more, all of the players in the spiritual despot tsunami are networking together to bring the American church under the bondage of Reformed spiritual despotism spawned by their adulated father, John Calvin.
Studying New Calvinism for five years now, my secondary curiosity concerning various abusive groups that I suspected were somehow connected with New Calvinism are coming more into focus. Their gospel/philosophy is basically the same, with spiritual abuse following. For several months, many have been encouraging me to focus more on the tyranny than dissecting the theology, and I am listening. Doctrine aside, New Calvinism is old Calvinism, and G3 is Geneva 3.
All three of these men proudly proclaim themselves to be Calvinists, and well they should. American jurisprudence is the only thing that limits their persecution of dissenters to bogus church discipline, character assassination, and misogynism. Jesus himself said that the student is like the teacher. As the despotic spirit of Calvin continues to manifest more and more as these groups consolidate resources, the fact that they would utilize the sword of government to control the masses is evident. They barely stop short of it now, using the government courts to sue bloggers, and holding members hostage under threat of being declared damned if they walk away from hybrid systems that combine counseling and church discipline.
In at least one case that I know of, a pastor who left Paul Washer’s ministry for doctrinal reasons was literally stalked for months, including elders who harassed the man’s wife at her workplace. Baucham’s “accountability” system at his church is a copy of the system that Calvin’s doctrine police used in Geneva—complete with yearly in-home inspections by elders. Many New Calvinist mega-churches now have their own in-house security teams that are practically full blown police stations. MacArthur’s church would be one good example of this. Accounts of MacArthur’s use of this security team to escort unwelcome dissenters off GCC property, and in some cases to their cars, is lengthy. There are even claims that this security team has apprehended people, and taken them into the church where they were confronted by GCC elders. As a former rabid respecter of John MacArthur, I have found reports of his heavy handed leadership style hard to accept; nevertheless, this is part of the Calvin motif.
They claim to be Calvinists while excusing Calvin’s murderous behavior because he supposedly lived in times when going Old Testament on people was socially acceptable, while on the other hand, claiming that he was an exegetical genius. Really? While continually beating the drum of doctrine = behavior, somehow, that doesn’t apply to their daddy, and “A tree is known by its fruit” must be read in its “gospel context” lest we think that it might apply to the enlightened Calvin as well.
Rather than replaying much of the sordid details of Calvin’s atrocities against those who disagreed with him, Martin Luther summed it up best:
Martin Luther said of Calvin’s actions in Geneva, “With a death sentence they solve all argumentation” (Juergan L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, vol. I, p. 285).
In fact, Calvin had a word for anybody who dared to object to him having “heretics” put to death:
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he banishes all those human affections which soften our hearts; that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honour, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories? Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face.
Ya, I want to be a Calvinist, how about you?
Observing the minutes of the Geneva counsel between 1541- 1549 also endears one to Calvin as well:
During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft.
From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgements of death and seventy-six decrees of banishment were passed.
Another, tired out on a hot summer day, went to sleep during a sermon: prison.
Another praised Castellio’s translation of the Bible: expelled from Geneva.
A couple of peasants talked about business matters on coming out of church: prison.
Two bargees had a brawl: executed.
A man who publicly protested against the reformer’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled.
A book printer who in his cups [columns] had railed at Calvin, was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city.
Jacques Gruent was racked and then executed for calling Calvin a hypocrite.
Each offence, even the most paltry, was carefully entered in the record of the Consistory, so that the private life of every citizen could unfailingly be held up against him in evidence.” (See Pike, pp. 61-63).
Sources quoted in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. 8:
The death penalty against heresy, idolatry and blasphemy and barbarous customs of torture were retained. Attendance at public worship was commanded on penalty of three sols. Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured or warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment.
Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.
A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.
A banker was executed for repeated adultery.
If anybody wants details on the difference between New Calvinism and old Calvinism from a doctrinal perspective, and the supposed life application thereof—it’s a little complicated, but behavior isn’t complicated. New Calvinist hacks like Lawson, Washer, and Baucham want to separate Calvin’s tyranny from his doctrine
…lest you would think they would ever do the same thing.
paul
The Real Integrity of the Men of the 2012 Resolved Conference
The Advertisement:
Who they are and what they endorse:
Transcript of Phone Conversation between C.J., [Mahaney] Doris and Larry Tomczak on October 3, 1997 [pp. 10-11]
C.J.:
Doctrine is an unacceptable reason for leaving P.D.I. [now SGM].
Larry:
C.J., I‘m not in sync with any of the T.U.L.I.P., so whether you agree or not, doctrine is one of the major reasons I believe it is God‘s will to leave P.D.I. and it does need to be included in any statement put forth.
C.J.:
If you do that, then it will be necessary for us to give a more detailed explanation of your sins.
Larry:
Justin‘s name has been floated out there when there‘s statements like “revealing more details about my sin.” What are you getting at?
C.J.:
Justin‘s name isn‘t just “floated out there” – I‘m stating it!
Larry:
C.J. how can you do that after you encouraged Justin to confess everything; get it all out. Then when he did, you reassured him, “You have my word, it will never leave this room. Even our wives won‘t be told.” I repeatedly reassured him: “C.J. is a man of his word. You needn‘t worry.” Now you‘re talking of publically sharing the sins of his youth?!
C.J.:
My statement was made in the context of that evening. If I knew then what you were going to do, I would have re-evaluated what I communicated.
Doris:
C.J., are you aware that you are blackmailing Larry? You‘ll make no mention of Justin‘s sins, which he confessed and was forgiven of months ago, if Larry agrees with your statement, but you feel you have to warn the folks and go national with Justin‘s sins if Larry pushes the doctrinal button? C.J., you are blackmailing Larry to say what you want!
Shame on you, C.J.! As a man of God and a father, shame on you!
This will send shock waves throughout the teens in P.D.I. and make many pastor’s teens vow, “I‘ll never confess my secret sins to C.J. or any of the team, seeing that they‘ll go public with my sins if my dad doesn‘t toe the line.”
C.J., you will reap whatever judgment you make on Justin. You have a young son coming up. Another reason for my personally wanting to leave P.D.I. and never come back is this ungodly tactic of resorting to blackmail and intimidation of people!
C.J.:
I can‘t speak for the team, but I want them to witness this. We‘ll arrange a conference call next week with the team.
Doris:
I want Justin to be part of that call. It‘s his life that‘s at stake.‖
C.J.:
Fine.
C.J. never spoke with us [Larry and Doris] again. He was not a participant in the critical phone meetings that followed.
With All Due Respect, Your Buddy “Joe” Piper Doesn’t Know Either
Here are three bits of information to start: I can’t say enough good things about Grace Community Church, and I can’t say enough negative things about Joel Olsteen; but with that said, I don’t like hypocrisy either. One of these days, I hope to make it to a Shepherds conference held annually at John MacArthurs church (Grace Community). Once again, my efforts fell short this year. One of the speakers at the 2009 conference was Pastor Steve Lawson of Mobile, Alabama. He brought the house down with a rendition of Joel Olsteen’s appearance on the Larry King show. Basically, Larry King asked Olsteen if non-Christian faiths were wrong about salvation because they didn’t believe in Christ. Olsteen said he didn’t know, which was bad enough, but Lawson was able to put a hilarious spin on the discourse because of the way Olsteen stuttered and stammered while answering. As I watched the video excerpt of Lawson‘s performance, I found myself somewhat offended. Why? Two reasons: I think everybody was having a little bit too much fun with it at the expense of one who is also created in God’s image. Secondly, they (Lawson, MacArthur, Mohler, et al.) seem to have a favorite buddy these days, John Piper. Lawson and MacArthur spoke with him at the Resolve conference this year. Like my grandmother use to say: “Birds of the feather flock together.” So, let me get this straight, Piper is less confused than Olsteen? Oh really? Consider the following outrageous statements he makes in his book, “Desiring God”:
“Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 55)
“The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith.”
(John Piper, Desiring God, page 69)
“Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition…is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist.” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 61)
“We are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy.” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 66)
“Something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind the act of faith which pleases God, a new taste has been created. A taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. Behold, a joy has been born!” (page 67)
“Before the decision comes delight. Before trust comes the discovery of treasure.” (page 68)
So what’s the big dif? That’s what Olsteen emphasizes, a hedonistic joy now; not only that, Olsteen is not the only one of the two that “doesn’t know.” Here is what Piper says on page 55 of the same book:
“Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, ‘Believe in the Lord,’ but, ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 55)
“Could it be!?” What does he mean, “could it be?” Doesn’t he know? He’s talking about the gospel! So, why is it ok for Piper not to know, but not Olsteen? Oh, that’s easy. Piper is “reformed” and Olsteen isn’t. If you carry the reformed label these days, you have the Joe Biden thing working for you. You know, “Ahhhh, that’s just Joe.” Yes, what an anomaly Joe Biden is; he can say anything he wants and “Ahhhh, that’s just Joe.” Truly, John Piper has to be the Joe Biden of modern evangelicalism.
Recently, I read an endorsement for a reformed book posted on Facebook. Later, my daughter informed me that the author was a Charismatic. In fact, many who hold to Charismatic doctrine are now widely accepted in reformed circles because they have the “gospel” right. Such is the environment we find ourselves in. If you are “reformed,” you can toy with God’s word anyway you see fit, even in regard to how we are sanctified. Just believe in monergistic justification, and you are now free to play with God’s word anyway you want to.
Let me finish by saying something good about Joel Olsteen. At least he doesn’t pretend to be orthodox. The guy has plainly said: “I’m not a theologian.” That’s called honesty. Something could be learned from him in regard to that.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
74 comments