MacArthur; 2012 Resolved Conference; Feminism; John Huss; and Mac’s Continued New Calvinesque Demise
“But again, this is a prime example of how New Calvinists put dead men between us and our Bibles, and then distort history to make their case for progressive justification.”
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; if Huss is an authority for promoting Christocentrisity in all reality, then he also ought to be an authority for ordaining women in the church.”
As I learn more and more about the New Calvinist movement, and Reformed history in general, I have to believe that the blogosphere drives New Calvinists blogkers. More on that later. New Calvinism is a return to hardcore Reformed philosophy. In 1970, the real Reformation gospel was rediscovered and systematized by the Australian Forum. The Forum was one of several recovery movements that rediscovered the Reformation gospel since the 17th century. Why does this gospel tend to disappear from time to time? Because it’s not the truth (it’s progressive justification), and it is always accompanied by spiritual tyranny. In fact, the Pilgrims fled to the New World to escape the Augustinian Church of England. You see, among many other issues, the Pilgrims disagreed with it being against the law to not attend C of E “worship” services. However, the Church of England was a little more merciful than New Calvinist Mark Dever—they would merely have the government fine you for not going to church; Mark Dever excommunicated 256 of his church members for nonattendance, an act that launched him into New Calvinist folklore and his present thriving popularity among New Calvinists.
The movement has continued to build on the original foundations of Reformed tradition, even persecuting Old Calvinists that have been sanctified over time by spiritual common sense. New Calvinists continue to promote their neo-reformation by pointing to all things old: creeds; counsels; confessions; catechisms (shorter and longer); and especially dead men of legendary status. Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc., and the subject of this year’s 2012 Resolved Conference, John Huss, who will be promoted into New Calvinist iconic canonism by John MacArthur at this year’s Resolved Conference (sponsored by MacArthur’s church). From here, it just gets too rich.
I watched the promotional video clip on Resolved.org ( http://vimeo.com/iamresolved/re12theme ). Four years ago, I would have taken what MacArthur says in the clip at face value because of my former respect/trust for him. But he is a New Calvinist now, and this clip will be used to demonstrate how New Calvinism is making a fool of John MacArthur in the eyes of what used to be a stalwart of the faith. If not for the internet and the blogosphere, God’s people would helpless against the New Calvinist propaganda machine. Back in the day, if you were reading the Calvin Institutes and wanted more information on Augustine because Calvin quotes him in what seems like every other sentence, you were pretty much out of luck. But not in our day. Trust me, Al Gore didn’t invent the internet—God did.
So, since I no longer trust MacArthur, I simply googled “John Huss,” and what Robert Brinsmead said to me the other day in an email immediately came to mind; this is a paraphrase: “I wrote a treatise on Ellen White’s theology that only highlighted the positive points, but that’s what everybody else does with Luther’s writings.” Amen, and this is what the New Calvinists do to build their Reformation motif (at least Brinsmead is honest about it) that drives their propaganda machine; except in this case with Huss, it’s fodder for good humor.
In the clip, MacArthur claims that Huss was burned at the stake for preaching “three things”: every believer is part of the church; the Bible as sole authority; but primarily, Huss’ contention that Christ was the head of his church, and not the pope. Oh really? Of course, the third “thing” is to make the case for New Calvinism’s belief that only Christ is significant in regard to redemptive history. But again, this is a prime example of how New Calvinists put dead men between us and our Bibles, and then distort history to make their case for progressive justification.
Huss was burned at the stake for many other “things” other than the three that MacArthur mentioned in the clip, and one of them is greatly illumined by the lamp of hypocrisy if you consider this year’s Shepherd’s Conference (also sponsored by MacArthur’s church). One of the featured speakers was Voddie Baucham who is a high profile figure in the Patriarchy movement. Baucham was all the rage at the conference which produced endless Twitter posts singing his praises. New Calvinists are also responsible for the Danvers Statement sponsored by The Counsel on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. MacArthur himself has said: “God cannot be on display in a church where a woman is preaching.” This quote is from his series that contended against speaking in tongues. Oh, did I mention that the “Reformed Charismatic” CJ Mahaney will be featured at the Resolved Conference this year?
This brings us back to all of the much ado about Huss at this year’s Resolved Conference. Other than the “three things” MacArthur mentions, Huss was tricked into attending a counsel at Prague to discuss his many “radical” teachings:
He became a proponent of the ideas of the English reformer and theologian John Wycliffe. Huss like Wycliffe denounced the immorality of clergy, the sale of indulgences, accumulation of wealth by the clergy and the church and saw the Bible as the final authority in ecclesiastical matters. He was a proponent of the laity taking communion in both kinds, that is to say the bread and the wine, at a time when only the clergy received communion in both kinds. He translated the Bible into the language of the people and said “Women were made in the image of God and should fear no man” setting the stage for women to preach at Hussite services and participate in governing councils, not to mention fight beside their men in battle. It was the teaching and writing about his radical ideas that brought the attention of the Pope to Jan Hus [emphasis mine (Online source: http://historyreconsidered.net/The_Hussites.html)%5D.
Oh my. Huss was an advocate of feminism. On the one hand, Huss was executed for the crux of the Reformation (supposedly), but on the other hand, God was not on display in the churches of his followers because women were preaching there. Which is it Mac? I’m sorry, you can’t have it both ways—the blogosphere will not allow it. Let me add some additional references to this point:
Hus was influenced by Wyclif, but he went further than the Englishman ever did. Like Wyclif, much of what Hus wanted was a kind of return to basics: an end to abuses in the clergy, an emphasis on simple Christianity of the sort practiced by the Apostles. He went further in advocating unfettered preaching, and he explicitly refused to recognize a special status for the clergy. He came close to the Donatist heresy in claiming that Christians should listen only to priests who lived virtuous lives. He condemned the upper clergy as corrupt parasites and denied the pope any special powers in the secular world. He acknowledged the apostolic succession, but said only virtuous men were true popes and in any case their authority was strictly spiritual. Like Wyclif, when the Church appeared unwilling to reform itself, Hus argued that it was the duty of the Christian prince to undertake the reform and to use the coercive powers of the state if necessary. The reformed Church should be placed under the dominion of the prince.
Hus advocated both a Czech and a German Bible. He believed the common man could read the word of God without priestly intervention. He published a New Testament and Psalms in 1406 in Czech, followed by a complete Bible in 1413-1414.
It’s interesting to note that in 1412 Hus published a tract entitled “Recognizing the true way to salvation” in which he chose a woman to represent humanity in general. He told women they were made in the image of God and that they should act with dignity and courage and should fear no man. Among the Hussites, women preached and wrote. But after 1421, men again dominated the movement. I do not know the details of why this change occurred [emphasis added (Dr. E.L. Skip Knox, Boise State University; online source: http://europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/latemiddleages/heresy/13.shtml)%5D.
This can also be verified by the fact that Huss was primarily influenced by Wycliffe, and the Lollard Movement spawned by him was populated with women preachers. Why is it ok to prop the Reformers up as authorities by picking and choosing from their teachings only that which helps one’s agenda? Why not leave dead men out of the equation and do what MacArthur used to do: point to the Scriptures as our authority—not dead Reformers. Why can’t the Resolved Conference Have a Scriptural theme instead of a man theme? This is the credibility problem you run into when men are your primary authority. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; if Huss is an authority for promoting Christocentrisity in all reality, then he also ought to be an authority for ordaining women in the church. But of course, the fruit of such hypocrisy does not fall far from the tree of those he associates with: http://solasisters.blogspot.com/2012/02/john-piper-comments-about-reverend.html .
Something else about this promotional clip makes me wonder. MacArthur presents Huss as a gospel preacher turning the World upside down with the whole the pen is mightier than the sword scenario. I wonder if Mac is going to mention that Huss had a standing military army? Huss set the pace for the following Reformation mentality:
Like Wyclif, when the Church appeared unwilling to reform itself, Hus argued that it was the duty of the Christian prince to undertake the reform and to use the coercive powers of the state if necessary. The reformed Church should be placed under the dominion of the prince (Ibid).
The Hussite army had one of the most feared military leaders in all of human history, Johann Ziska, and he invented one of the most effective military weapons of all time which was named after Huss. A picture of it follows. After Huss was executed, The Hussites kicked some serious Catholic butt and took names.
Say, that picture will look awesome on those high-tech screens at the Resolved Conference, don’t you think? In general, the Reformers followed the philosophy of Plato that government powers are needed to keep the totally depraved (and their uncontrollable instincts) contained. And if you read the email I get, you would know that present-day New Calvinists use everything but a Hussite wagon to keep their totally depraved zombies in line.
MacArthur needs to bail from this movement, ask the church for forgiveness, and salvage what’s left of his legacy. That is, if it’s not already too late. Meanwhile, the more bloggers the better. Let the earth be full of them. Let them be ever fruitful and multiply. Let every word that comes from the mouths of New Calvinists be googled. But, of course, all truth is God’s truth unless it comes from the internet—the other internet—not the Geneva internet.
paul
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 
8 comments