SBC Blogger Muses About: “The Root of Angry and Divisive Calvinists”
The author of Borrowed Light blog has written a multi-part theses on why the following happens:
Two years ago Podunk Baptist Church sent a bright, energetic, and humble young man off to the seminary. This little gathering of believers has for over two-centuries housed some of the dearest saints. But Mark was different. Though young and a relatively new believer he stood out because of his marked brilliance, passion, and dedication.
Then, when he was invited back to preach:
Time went by and Podunk Baptist heard less and less of Mark. Finally, two long years later Mark accepts an invitation to come back to Podunk to preach a revival. The community is buzzing, in a way that only a small-town can buzz. Even people that darken the door of the church only on Santa’s birthday are considering coming to see if this kid’s fancy book learnin’ may have a remedy for their hurt….
Mark is introduced by the pastor; still the same guy that had shared the gospel with him years ago. After the glowing introduction the now-bearded Mark swags into the pulpit. It only takes a few sentences for Podunk Baptist to realize this is a different Mark than the one they sent away.
And it’s not good.
This revival will not be about the beauties and excellencies of Jesus. It will not be a passionate gospel exposition. This revival meeting will be five nights of Mark setting his old church straight. Each night he will put together a finely crafted sermon filled with three points addressing everything that the church erroneously taught him two years ago. Mark is in the “know” now.
What happened to Mark?
The author then wrote several more parts that presented his theses on what the root of this recent phenomenon is in the SBC, but here is the crux of what I think is up to like, six parts:
Really all of these posts is only backing up what Joe Thorn noted as the three reasons for angry and divisive Calvinists. In his interview with Ed Stetzer (which you should real all of including the comments, here) Thorn notes three principle reasons that I will summarize.
1. Over-zealous and excited about a new found truth. “Some of us, and I was one of them, would benefit from being locked up in a cage for a few years until our heart can catch up with our head.”
2. Anger at being denied this in the past. “They feel as if they’ve wasted years of their life, or the church has let them down. So, they’re angry about that…”
3. A short-circuit between the head and heart. “When we Calvinists are ungracious, unnecessarily combative, proud, and arrogant, we are not being true Calvinists. We are posers.”
So how do you disciple a young Calvinist whose either angry, over-zealous, or simply has a short-circuit between his head and heart? Apart from patient plodding and let the gospel take deeper roots one particular thing I do with young Calvinists (including myself) is introduce them to John Newton–and that will be what we do in Part Five and Part Six.
Note: According to the posts, Calvinism isn’t the problem, youthful indiscretion is the problem. Not.
I, myself, have undergone a transformation of thinking on this issue. I once thought that New Calvinism was the problem, and not Old Calvinism. And that’s right, well, sort of. True blue Calvinism that came directly from the man himself is a serious problem, but Old Calvinism as we know it today has undergone some transformations that have aligned it with most of evangelical Christianity except on issues of election. Determinism or foreknowledge? But traditionally, Old Calvinists and Arminians agree on the relationship between soteriology and sanctification—leading to, for the most part, an uneventful cohabitation.
But the New Calvinism in the SBC is a return to the original doctrine of John Calvin himself. Fogging the issue is the whole predestination / free will debate. Until recently, I only knew that my five years of research traced contemporary New Calvinism back to the Progressive Adventist Movement. The founder, Robert Brinsmead, claimed that he had rediscovered the true Reformation gospel of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Brinsmead labeled the doctrine, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. The doctrine is clearly progressive justification and sanctification by faith ALONE. I didn’t know for sure, but I sort of assumed that Brinsmead was full of it, or read into Luther / Calvin what he wanted to, and contrived the doctrine on his own.
Then it was brought to my attention by author John Immel that in fact, progressive justification is exactly what Calvin believed. And if you read Immel’s book, “Blight In The Vineyard,” you will learn the following: that particular brand of Reformed theology brought about the exact same kind of spiritual tyranny that we see in present-day New Calvinists. And besides that, it’s a false gospel that also denies the new birth and replaces it with various forms of mysticism. I confirmed what Immel shared with me by reading in the Calvin Institutes, and have written a couple of articles about it here and here.
Moreover, the “divisive” nature of the movement comes from the fact that New Calvinism fits the biblical definition of a “sect” to a “T.” A biblical “sect” is: a movement or group of people who divides with false doctrine. I wrote an article on that subject here.
Youthful indiscretion is not helpful, but the doctrine is the problem.
paul
Election Verses Foreknowledge Isn’t Even the Point; the Gospel is the Point
I am amazed at how God’s people have been distracted throughout the years over the election/foreknowledge debate. Wow, what a boondoggle for people of Reformed theology who don’t want folks looking too closely at what Calvin, Luther, and Augustine really believed. And if Calvin is Luther/Augustine light, there is even a bigger problem.
Yes, the Calvin Institutes are 1000 pages of mind-numbing theology, but if you know how to look, you can find the crux of the issues before Calvin lulls you into a hypnotic state with his linguistic drones. I was poking around in the Institutes in an effort to discover what Calvin believed about the final judgment of mankind, and in the process, discovered Calvin’s blatant false gospel on pages 508 and 509. Like his New Calvinist children, he believes that sanctification maintains justification, or stated another way, sanctification is justification in action. This makes sanctification very, very, very, tricky business—don’t try it at home without Plato’s Philosopher Kings or John Piper.
Fact is, people who believe that God elected some before creation and passed over others are not heretics. You may not like their view of God, but they are not heretics. Fact is, people who believe that God elected based on what He foreknew people would do, are not heretics either. But folks who believe that we must maintain Christ’s representation for an ongoing justification by believing a certain way in sanctification are heretics. Maintaining justification by doing something, doing nothing, thinking a certain way, or anything else boils down to our participation in justification. If sanctification and justification are fused together —this is unavoidable. It’s a false gospel. Plainly, Calvin states on the aforementioned pages of the Institutes that justification is “perpetual”:
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the church (2Cor 5:18,19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death, i.e., ablution, satisfaction expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul says not that the beginning of salvation is of grace, “but by grace are ye saved,” “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8,9).
A: “Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the church (2Cor 5:18,19).”
The message of “free reconciliation” is “perpetual” “in the church,” ie, sanctification by faith alone- which has never been orthodox. Justification by faith alone has always been orthodox, but not the former. Moreover, 2Cor. 5:18,19[20] is clearly speaking of a ministry of reconciliation that we proclaim to the world as ambassadors, and is not a message to be continually propagated “in the church.”
B: “Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described.”
Yes, because to claim any good works is to do so in the context of justification. If “free reconciliation” is “perpetual,” then our efforts would be works salvation. But, by the same token, it is impossible to avoid that reality if the two are joined—regardless of any special formula that the Reformers supposedly came up with. No wonder the Institutes are 1000 pages; it goes back to the primary point of my first book: it’s a formula that attempts to instruct one on putting a round peg in a square hole. Secondly, the idea that the saints have NO righteousness is a denial of the new birth as actual new creature-hood, as opposed to being merely translated into a different realm.
C: “Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual -efficacy in his death, i.e., ablution, satisfaction expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered.”
Here, Calvin states that the “perfect obedience” of Christ is continually applied to our lives to cover for our inability to possess any righteousness. This is the continual imputation of Christ’s active obedience to KEEP us saved (“Mediator to reconcile”). This is heresy. In essence, we must continually practice a justification by faith alone in sanctification. We participate in maintaining justification by faith alone apart from works because justification is progressive. This is plainly a false gospel.
D: “In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul says not that the beginning of salvation is of grace, ‘but by grace are ye saved,’ ‘not of works, lest any man should boast’ (Eph 2:8,9).”
Calvin is clearly making sanctification part of the justification/salvation process. He makes no distinction between God’s graces in sanctification and justification. The grace of God based on the works of Christ to declare us righteous is not a finished work, though Christ Himself said it was.
paul
MacArthur’s Behavior is Now Easy to Understand
Many are totally confused by MacArthur’s recent behavior, especially his association with embattled CJ Mahaney. Once again in 2012, as in every year since 2005, MacArthur will once again stand under the bright lights of the Resolved Rock Concert Conference and lend full Reformation credibility to one of the premier heretics of our day. His scathing assessment of Charismatic theology in Charismatic Chaos notwithstanding (Mahaney is a “Reformed Charismatic”), MacArthur has been recently found comfortable in his hypocrisy; which includes giving John Piper a pass on excluding repentance from his presentation of the gospel while rebuking others for doing the same.
MacArthur has clearly bought into the many problematic teachings of New Calvinism including the backdoor devaluing of the Father and the Holy Spirit in context of “emphasis.” In the forward to Rick Holland’s book, Uneclipsing The Son, MacArthur puts forth the same idea in said book: an equal emphasis on the other members of the Trinity in regard to salvation hinders sanctification. Emphasis is a hermeneutic; unlike horseshoes and hand grenades, there are no points for being close to Christ—He is everything, and “focusing” on anything else is to reject Christ completely and hinder sanctification.
All perplexing, until you realize that this is what Calvin, Luther, and Augustine believed. “Christ alone” in the Five Solas really means, Christ alone. Apparently, in MacArthur’s mind, these three giants of the faith are too big to fail, regardless of what Scripture teaches. Therefore, he has jumped on the New Calvinist bandwagon with both feet because they are a true representation of Reformation theology (at least in regard to Calvin, Luther, and Augustine).
And to me, this clears up everything. However, the Reformers were mere men, and all men look small when their wisdom is compared to “every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Even the apostle Paul constantly pleaded that he would be held to the standard of Scripture. At this year’s Resolved Conference, much will be made of these “great” men and what they said. Conspicuously missing will be the litany of quotations by these men that are an outrageous contradiction to the plain sense of Scripture.
paul
Hero Heretic: John Calvin Believed in Progressive Justification and the Total Depravity of the Saints
Maybe the title to volume two of The Truth About New Calvinism should be “The Truth About Old Calvinism.” I will be darned if Robert Brinsmead wasn’t right; he did rediscover what at least three of the Reformers really taught about the gospel. I realize that many “Calvinists” of our day don’t hold to everything Calvin taught, but after all, it is his name. I’m sure other people knew it, but Brinsmead and company repackaged it in a way that launched it into present-day New Calvinist mania. Bottom line: I could never understand New Calvinism until I read several issues of Present Truth and interviewed Robert Brinsmead; however, I wasn’t totally convinced that he got it from Luther and Calvin.
And here is the kicker: this is a “truth” that New Calvinists think they have to assimilate into their victims slowly—when they are “ready.” Only recently, New Calvinists like Tullian Tchividjian have finally stated in a clear way that they believe in the total depravity of the saints. Even Old Calvinists have come out against New Calvinists on these issues, but the fact is, New Calvinists are correct about what Calvin taught. Gosh, that feels good, finally being able to say that they are right about something. They are absolutely right: Calvin and New Calvinists are both heretical.
Progressive justification is a no-no. But yet, on page 502 of John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion edited by Henry Beveridge, we find the following title for chapter 14: “The Beginning of Justification. In What Sense Progressive.” Then, Calvin, after six pages of wordiness on steroids, begins to be clear on what he means by this title. On page 508, Calvin introduces the subject of righteousness in context of believers:
Let us now see what kind of righteousness belongs to those persons whom we have placed in the fourth class. We admit, that when God reconciles us to himself by the intervention of the righteousness of Christ, and bestowing upon us the free pardon of sins regards us as righteous, his goodness is at the same time conjoined with mercy, so that he dwells in us by means of his Holy Spirit, by whose agency the lusts of our flesh are every day more and more mortified, while that we ourselves are sanctified; that is, consecrated to the Lord for true purity of life, our hearts being trained to the obedience of the law.
The point of that citation is to establish who he is writing about, but as an aside, notice that he doesn’t really make the attributes of a believer specifically personal. He could be referring to us specifically, but he could also be referring to manifestations of the Spirit. This is significant because of what follows:
Still, however, while we walk in the ways of the Lord, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, lest we should become unduly elated and forget ourselves, we have still remains of imperfection which serve to keep us humble: “There is no man who sinneth not,” says the Scripture (1Kgs 8:46). What righteousness can men obtain by their works?
With Christians, if they believe the right things unto salvation, that question isn’t even on the radar screen in a sanctification context. But, as we shall see, Calvin is clearly talking about a “perpetual efficacy in his death” for “reconciliation.” Calvin continues on page 508:
First, I say, that the best thing which can be produced by them is always tainted and corrupted by the impurity of the flesh, and has, as it were, some mixture of dross in it. Let the holy servant of God, I say, select from the whole course of his life the action which he deems most excellent, and let him ponder it in all its parts; he will doubtless find in it something that saviors of the rottenness of the flesh since our alacrity in well-doing is never what it ought to be, but our course is always retarded by much weakness. Although we see that the stains by which the works of the righteous are blemished, are by no means unapparent, still, granting that they are the minutest possible, will they give no offense to the eye of God, before which even the stars are not clean? We thus see, that even saints cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation.
Here is where Calvin gets into the total depravity of the saints, but in addition, this is just simply a blatant contradiction to the plain sense of Scripture:
God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them (Hebrews 6:10).
Obviously, the saints are capable of working for God, and loving Him, and His people, in a way that would make it unjust for Him to not remember. This kind of exegesis by Calvin is completely unacceptable. Calvin continues on page 508 to make the point that even if believers could obey the law to some degree, that a violation of one point would make us guilty of breaking the whole law. He then cites James 2:10 to validate this view. This angle to establish a total depravity of the saints is a staple approach by proponents of Sonship Theology and New Calvinism. And it comes from Calvin himself. And it is just dead wrong!
On page 509, Calvin propagates the idea that a perfect righteousness as judged by the law must be maintained until (what one can only assume is) a judgment to determine justification. I haven’t read far enough to validate the judgment part yet, but at the very least, Calvin is stating on that page that a perfect righteousness in our stead must be maintained throughout sanctification. And of course, that implies an ongoing imputation of Christ’s active obedience.
Also, throughout, Calvin makes NO distinction between works for justification and works to please God in sanctification. The only logical conclusion is that works of any kind equal: for justification.
It’s late and I wanted to get this much in print, but I will expound on this more in the following days. Let me conclude with this final statement by Calvin on page 509:
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the church (2Cor 5:18,19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death, i.e., ablution, satisfaction expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul says not that the beginning of salvation is of grace, “but by grace are ye saved,” “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8,9).
This is New Calvinism’s sanctification by justification to a “T,” complete with justification verses being applied to a sanctification context. New Calvinists got it from Calvin, Luther, and Augustine. And Augustine got it from Plato.
The journey continues.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment