Indicative of What Ails the SBC: Johnny Hunt Denies the New Birth at Ohio Men’s Summit
“Hunt’s confusion concerning the new birth was further exemplified when he stated, ‘Christ died for all of your past, present, and future sins.’ This also unwittingly denies the new birth. Christ did not die for sins we committed after we were born again. This makes sin in justification the same thing as family sin in sanctification. Christ did not die to save us from sin that does not condemn us; this denies that the old us actually died with Christ and was ‘under law,’ and where there is no law there is no sin.”
Not that I get paid for it, but I will inform any SBC pastor who cares to know why the SBC is a dying unregenerate cesspool. You can hide the fact by squeezing out the smaller churches and pointing to the emotional orgies at the megachurches, but the numbers do not lie. And listen, the praise and worship format that is presently redistributing the sheep will eventually get old—this ministry is already seeing sharp declines in megachurch attendance.
The present-day SBC Neo-Calvinist surge is the same movement that has come and gone exactly five times since the Protestant Reformation. My guess is that it will die again. Susan and I recently visited churches that were on the cutting edge of this movement back in the 80’s, and the deadness that we experienced was explained this way by our teenage son: “That place is just creepy.” The energy once associated with the format is waning because there is no underlying substance and the novelty is passing. Yet, the format continues without the energy which projects an almost surreal creepiness experienced by those who visit. For the longtime members it’s a slow leak going unnoticed, for visitors it’s a blowout.
Aside: Was all of the recent Mark Driscoll drama just cover for the fact that the Mars Hill campuses were in decline? I wonder.
Another aside: The Catholic Church has bought the defunct Crystal Cathedral. It would seem that the Catholic Church is the only institution with the money to buy defunct Protestant campuses. Why does the Catholic Church have so much money? Answer: because it has always been upfront about its salvation by institution gospel. Will the Neo-Calvinist movement begin to be more out-of-the-closet about that approach in order to save the movement? It already is. People will pay big bucks to be saved by merely giving at the office (see, “Roman Catholic Church”).
Johnny Hunt would deny that he is a Neo-Calvinist and that is probably fair, but what I heard him say at last night’s Men’s Summit at Urbancrest Baptist church in Lebanon, OH is indicative of the problem. If there is confusion among Southern Baptists regarding the role of the Holy Spirt in Christian living, and there clearly is, that should explain everything, and it does.
Look, I don’t have the mp3 yet, but a slight paraphrase of a particular sentence spoken at the summit by Hunt goes like this: “The righteousness of Christ is the only thing that gets us into heaven.” Here we have a former president of the SBC, and a premier SBC pastor for something like thirty years, and that statement is just really bad theology if not an outright false gospel.
I keep saying it and will continue to do so: the Bible never states that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us. Though you can take a leap from one logical point to another on a few verses, why the steroidal emphasis on Christ’s righteousness when the Bible clearly states that it is the righteousness of God the Father that we possess? Is this emphasis important? It is if the Bible emphasizes the righteousness of the Father, and it does. Why not emphasize what the Scriptures emphasize?
But the concern goes way beyond semantics. In his Friday sessions, Hunt peppered that concept with the often heard idea that we don’t possess a righteousness of our own. Come now, would any of us still be working if we had a dollar for every time we heard that in SBC circles? But what is it saying?
First, if we ONLY possess the righteousness of Christ, fire insurance is the only gift and not righteousness. Follow? When you receive a gift, you take possession of it…no? Is the idea that we possess no righteousness of “our own” a backdoor way of saying we have not been made righteous and possess no personal holiness? Yes, I think it is. And by the way, forget all of the fuss about election—that idea is Calvinism in a nutshell.
Secondly, while one properly concurs that our sins were imputed to Christ because the Bible states that specifically, is it correct to say that righteousness has been “imputed” to us? I contend that this is NOT correct, and in fact is a denial of the new birth. Why? Because righteousness is not imputed to us, we are MADE righteous through the new birth. The whole “our own” business is a red herring deliciously favored at the table of demons. We don’t tell people we have no life of our own because we were born of parents. That’s just plain silly. “I have no life of my own; it was imputed to me by my parents.” No, you are alive just like your parents because they gave birth to you. In the same way, we ARE righteous because we were given life by a righteous Father through the Holy Spirit.
Hunt’s confusion concerning the new birth was further exemplified when he stated, “Christ died for all of your past, present, and future sins.” This also unwittingly denies the new birth. Christ did not die for sins we committed after we were born again. This makes sin in justification the same thing as family sin in sanctification. Christ did not die to save us from sin that does not condemn us; this denies that the old us actually died with Christ and was “under law,” and where there is no law there is no sin.
The idea that Christ died for our sin post salvation, at the very least denies the death part of the Spirit’s baptism and keeps the “believer” under law (see Romans 7:1ff). In not sparing any confusion in his lame presentation of the gospel, Hunt concurred that God chastises us for sins we commit as Christians which means God chastises us for sins Christ already died for. Hence, why wouldn’t God also chastise us for sins committed before we were Christians?
Therefore, Hunt, like most SBC pastors, flirts with John Calvin’s double imputation. This is the idea that Christ died for our justification, and lived a perfect life to fulfil the law so that His perfect righteousness can also be imputed to our sanctification. This is exactly why the “righteousness of Christ” is so strongly emphasized. The Bible is clear: this is a justification by the law that leads to antinomian living (see “a typical life in the SBC”). Why? Because we only have the righteousness of Christ and no righteousness of our own which is nearly a verbatim quote by Calvin from his Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.14.11).
This is an outright denial of the new birth and keeps the “Christian” under law. It doesn’t matter who keeps the law, even if the law was kept by Christ in our stead, it is not another seed that can give life (Galatians 3:15-21). We are like Christ because He is our brother by birth, righteousness was not imputed to us—we are MADE righteous by the new birth. We are literally new creatures, and ALL things are new.
But, if we have no ownership of righteousness through the new birth, if only our standing is exchanged and not our lives, Christ’s righteousness must be perpetually imputed to our “Christian” lives because we are still under law and not under grace. This would require a return to the same gospel that saved us in order to receive perpetual forgiveness for sins committed under the law, and this is exactly what is behind the viral mantra of “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” running amuck in the SBC. Forbid that we would lose our gratitude for salvation and only limit its remembrance to the Lord’s Table for we still supposedly need that forgiveness.
And this is exactly what John Calvin believed; that new sins committed as saints removes us from grace and perpetual forgiveness must be sought which can only be found in the institutional church where we continually “revisit the gospel afresh.” Yet, the who’s who of the SBC continually affirms that the issue with Calvinism in the SBC is a secondary issue unworthy of parting fellowship. It’s cluelessness on steroids. Calvin advocated the belief that necessarily goes hand in glove with progressive justification; and, sanctification is the Old Testament Sabbath rest. If we do any works on our sanctification Sabbath, it’s the eternal death penalty. As a result, Christ’s perfect obedience to the law must be imputed to us. This is where antinomianism and justification by law are the same thing; a perfect keeping of the law, which we of course can’t obtain so we must let Jesus obey for us lest we have a “righteousness of our own” becomes another seed other than Christ.
At the end of one session Hunt suggested that those who made a profession of faith follow up with the elders at Urbancrest concerning their “new relationship” with Christ. New relationship? Really? It’s not just a new relationship—it’s literal death and rebirth. We don’t just add Jesus to our still under the law lives for fire insurance or as Hunt put it, in essence, daily rescue. It’s not a daily rescue because we long for the one future rescue by Christ from this mortal body where sin still resides, but our inward man has been literally raised with Christ and free to love God and others through obedience to the same law that once condemned us.
It has been suggested to me that institutional religion and the new birth mix like oil and water: “Paul, if believers are truly born again and endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit, why would they need an evangelical industrial complex?” Indeed, that may well be the money question. I have been at two institutional church gatherings this week, and in both cases pastors were held up as upper strata of spiritual caste. At Urbancrest, the emphasis was totally over the top and downright shameful. Other than handing out freebies to the pastors who attended, the senior pastor at Urbancrest talked of a program of sorts through which parishioners could show their pastor that, “I have your back.”
So, is the new birth a threat to religious institutions? Can Holy Spirit empowered ministries thrive in an institutional setting? We will not know until pastors stop denying the new birth. But nevertheless, this is a gut check for every SBC pastor and Hunt in particular. What would be the result of a poll in most churches where the following question is asked?
“Are you only positionally holy in Christ, or are you a holy person?” I fear most would answer, “I am only positionally holy because I still sin.” Yet, pastors who continually wax eloquent about Christians not having any righteousness of their own somehow expect decent behavior from their parishioners.
To his credit, Hunt did advocate obedience, but anyone who was listening closely would have found that confusing. Hunt also emphasized “finishing strong.” He even said that all of his accomplishments in ministry would be worthless if he didn’t finish well. Here is what pastors need to understand: finishing well may mean you end up pastoring a church of 25 people because you stood for the truth. It is high time that pastors draw a line in the sand and definitively define the new birth in no uncertain terms. Please tell your parishioners who they are—are they positionally holy, or are they personally holy?
Did they exchange one “standing before God” for another one, or did they exchange their old life for a new one through the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
paul
How Calvinism is in League with the Accuser of the Brethren
The born again Christian is no longer under law but under grace. In regard to justification, the Christian is sinless because Christ died on the cross to end the law, and where there is no law there is no sin.
So, the believer dies with Christ as one born under the slavery of sin, law, and death. The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. That is why it is the “law of sin and death” to the unbeliever. The one who is also resurrected with Christ is no longer under any condemnation whatsoever. The law now guides the believer in love, but in no way condemns.
Those whom Satan cannot keep out of the kingdom he seeks to neutralize by keeping them under condemnation. The power of sin is the law’s ability to condemn. Therefore, by a variety of means, he seeks to keep Christians under law and away from love. Not being under law enables the Christian to aggressively obey without fear of condemnation. Fear has to do with judgment and condemnation; those who fear are not mature in love.
Calvinism keeps the “Christian” under law via a particular view of double imputation. Instead of the biblical imputation being OUR sins imputed to Christ and God’s righteousness imputed to us APART from the law, Calvinism teaches that Christ lived a perfect life to fulfill the law so that His obedience to the law, in addition to Him dying for our sins, is imputed to our Christian life in order to keep us saved. This not only keeps Christians under the law, and is not justification apart from the law, but requires the “Christian” to live by faith alone in the Christian life in order for the obedience of Christ to perpetually fulfill the law for justification in order to keep us saved.
It is a satisfaction/fulfillment of the law of sin and death rather than the law of the Spirit of life.
Hence, supposedly, the Christian life must be lived by faith alone so that the law may be continually satisfied by Christ’s obedience and not ours until the final judgment. At the final judgment, if we lived by faith alone well enough, our sins are covered by Christ’s righteousness. This removes the Christian from actual acts of obedience for purposes of loving God and others, and replaces them with faith only in Christ’s loving acts that replace anything we would do lest it be works salvation. So, when Christ says, “well done faithful servant,” He is not going to be talking about anything that we really did, but what we didn’t do by faith alone.
All in all, this keeps Christians under law and condemnation. They must live in constant fear that they are not “trusting” in the works of Christ well enough for the law to be satisfied; or, in Calvin’s words, resting enough. In this construct, sin is empowered because the law’s ability to condemn is still operational. To the contrary, Christ died to end the law (Rom 10:5) for justification, and we are quickened by the Holy Spirit so that the law might be fulfilled by us in our loving acts towards God and others:
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Calvinism keeps Christians under the law of sin and death via its double imputation view of law. By faith alone in the obedience of Christ while in the flesh, the law is actually doing something that Scripture clearly says it can’t do: give life in justification. It doesn’t matter who keeps it; there is not a law that can give life for justification (Gal 3:21).
Listen: Christ came to set us free from the law of sin and death, not to fulfill it for us so that His obedience can replace our loving acts in sanctification. He came to end the law of sin and death, not fulfill it. Our sin is not covered, it is ended. Because it is ended, we are free to serve the law of the Spirit of life without fear of condemnation. We fulfill the law of liberty and are blessed in the doing of it (James 1:25), and are not under the condemnation of the law of sin and death. The fulfillment of that law cannot bring forth life—only condemnation.
In the Calvinist double imputation approach, we continually seek to see our own condemnation in order to achieve a deeper and deeper gratitude for our original salvation. If we do so, the law of sin and death continues to be satisfied by Christ’s obedience to it and we remain justified by the blood. Instead of there being no condemnation in the Christian life, we are exhorted by the Calvinists to seek a deeper and deeper understanding of our condemnation to make the cross bigger (deeper gratitude for our original salvation).
This is a satanic objective dressed up in Christian garb. We are helping the accuser of the brethren by continually seeking to accuse ourselves. Instead of seeking to love through obedience, we are told to partake in “deep repentance,” “repentance from good works,” and “revealing the sin under the sin.” They tell us that the Christian life is a sin onion, and that the gospel is made bigger by continually peeling back the layers of sin.
There is NO sin onion. The law is ended, and there is no onion to peel. Sinning as God’s children and the grieving of the Holy Spirit is another issue that has nothing to do with justification. Well, sort of.
Obviously, Calvinism also seeks to grieve the Holy Spirit through us by empowering sin in our lives because sin is empowered by condemnation. And it also denies the primary reason Christ went to the cross…
…to end the law of sin and death, and to set us free to love Him through obedience to the law of the Spirit of life.
paul
Are Babies Totally Depraved? Follow the Protestant Money
No, because man is not totally depraved. This is simple theological math. Man is not totally depraved by virtue of how God creates us. Every human being born into the world is born with the works of God written on their hearts. They are also born with a conscience that either excuses them or accuses them of wrongdoing.
Romans 2:14 – For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Those who have the law, that is, the written word of God plus the works of the law written on their hearts, are under the law’s judgment. This is why religious people will be judged more harshly than the nonreligious—they are responsible for two laws, not just one.
Christ came to die on the cross to end the law’s condemnation for those under it, or those under law, and was resurrected so that the same can find life in the law apart from any condemnation. Under grace means that we are now under the “law of the Spirit of life” (Rom 8:2). What does that mean? It means the Spirit now imparts life to us through the same law that condemned us prior to our salvation (Jn 17:17, Eph 6:1-3). The old us that was under law literally dies with Christ, and is resurrected by the Spirit as a new creature who finds life in the law (see Psalms 119).
Andy Young and I were having this discussion this morning. In the garden, there was only one law: you may eat of any tree in the garden except the one. As long as they obeyed, there was life in that law; when they disobeyed, death came into the world.
But, back to babies. Babies are not totally depraved, and in fact go to heaven because they are not yet under law; where there is no law there is no sin (Rom 5:13). Don’t confuse this with the pre-fall of man where there was only one unbroken law. Babies do NOT have a developed conscience; therefore, they cannot negotiate right and wrong as administered by conscience according to the written law or the law written on their hearts. So, babies are born under law like all people, but are not accountable to it, and therefore NOT condemned by it until they have a developed conscience that can ascertain right from wrong. I believe mentally handicapped people would fall under this category as well.
Where there is no law, there is no sin. So if babies cannot know law, they have no sin. And if they have no sin—they are going to heaven:
Roman 7:7 – What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
Babies have no concept of law. People are accountable to the law when their consciences are developed to the point of knowing right from wrong.
Follow The Protestant Money
Early in the Protestant Reformation the subject of total depravity was a big deal. This also included the total depravity of the saints. Simply stated, the Reformers believed little different than Rome in regard to salvation via church membership. The biggest draw for the Protestant Reformation was no fault salvation through church membership. The Reformers clearly stated that new sins committed by “believers” removed them from grace, and continued forgiveness of sins through the perpetual reappropriation of Christ’s death was needed to keep oneself saved (for example: The Calvin Institutes, 3.14.9-11). This reapplication of Christ’s death was only valid when administered by the institutional church through baptism, the Lord’s Table, and the grace-infusion of preaching by ordained Reformed elders, in today’s Neo-Calvinist vernacular, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Why? Because we need the same gospel that saved us initially to keep us saved daily because the new sins we commit remove us from grace. This would seem fairly evident.
The Reformers believed that baptism initiated church membership, and as long as the baptized remained in good standing as church members, their baptism retained its saving efficacy (Calvin Inst. 4.15.1ff). Salvation is maintained within the institutional church, so baptism doesn’t save you per se, but is necessary for church membership which keeps you saved through faithful attendance to “gospel preaching” by ordained elders and the Lord’s Table. This ministry has compiled a mass of citations by “New” Calvinists who state this in no uncertain terms.
And this is the crux of the infant baptism debate. Protestants were big on baby baptism because it made the babies church members and therefore guaranteed them salvation as long as they remained faithful to the institutional church as they grow up. This led to the birth of Baptists who became half pregnant Protestants over the baby baptism issue. Unfortunately, this boiled down to when a child was old enough to be a church member which was also synonymous with being saved among the Baptists. This closer approximation to truth created the whole never ending “Do babies go to heaven?” debate.
No, Babies are not totally depraved, and yes, they go to heaven. The Baptists only focused on the baby baptism issue without further investigating what was driving the belief to begin with; i.e., salvation by institution.
This began a long deep-seated tradition by Baptists to focus on symptoms and not causes. This is why Presbyterians and Lutherans are far less confused than Baptists—Baptists are both confused and wrong, while the Protestants and Lutherans are just merely wrong…about the gospel.
paul
The Utter Folly and Anti-Gospel of Bible as Story/Narrative: Christian Academia is Making Fools of the Laity
Originally posted February 3, 2013
All of the rage in our day is Bible as redemptive narrative. Yes, the story, or narrative that gives us the “big picture” of God’s redemptive story. This concept is packaged in feel-good truisms like “History is ‘His story.’” The Bible is about a person, Jesus Christ; so, would you make an instruction manual out of a person’s life story? Would you systematize a person’s life story? The idea is to be wowed by who God is personally, and He invites you into His story. “It’s a person—not a precept.”
This is all disingenuous because we are still dealing with hermeneutics. We are still dealing with exegesis verses eisegesis. The question of the day is still epistemology: how we know what we know. For you who want to romanticize our faith—it doesn’t work.
If the Bible is God’s revelation to man, and it is, be sure that he will also reveal how he wants his word to be interpreted. Fact is, the Bible has built-in rules for interpretation throughout. ANY rules of interpretation for a text must be validated by the Bible itself. So, what about Bible as story or narrative? After an exhaustive study on what the Bible would state about this interpretive model, it begs the question: where is it?
On that note, let’s start with a blog named “Istoria Ministries” by Reformed teacher/pastor Wade Burleson. The subtitle reads as follows:
Istoria is a Greek word that can be translated as both story and history. Istoria Ministries, led by Wade and Rachelle Burleson, helps people experience the life transforming power of Jesus Christ so that their story may become part of His story.
Burleson is right, it is a Greek word, but is it in the Greek New Testament? After hours of research, I cannot find it anywhere. In fact, Hebrew or Greek canon words that project the English idea of history, narrative, or story are either extremely scarce or nonexistent. The closest idea is the word “parable” which is a story that helps define truth. It’s a teaching tool. But in every case where a parable is implemented as a teaching method, the Bible plainly introduces it as such beforehand. It doesn’t appear that parables in the Bible are meant to be stories that explain the story.
The Greek word historia came about around 500 BC and means, “Inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation.” Prior to that, mythology ruled the day. Mythology is “Ideology in narrative form.” The word, “historia” was introduced into the English language as “story” in 1390 AD and had the same meaning as its Greek origin. But prior to that between 180 AD and 553 AD, particularly among European theologians, the concept of mythology as sacred narrative/novel was integrated into the concept of historia for the purposes of interpreting the Bible:
Melitios of Sardis who died in 180AD read the Old Testament as a typology – it is a preparation for the Messiah in a similar way that a sketch or a model is the preparation that an artist, sculpture or architect does before making the reality represented in the preliminary sketch or work. Theodore of Mopsuestia who died in 428AD gives us some sense about how Christians in the 5th Century approached the Scriptures. For though Theodore was condemned for his teachings long after his death by the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553, his methods in interpreting Scriptures were shared by St. John Chrysostom and others in the Antiochian tradition of interpretation.
“In this work (Commentary on the Psalms) it is evident, first, that Theodore is almost entirely concerned with the istoria of the biblical text rather than its theoria. By istoria I mean the narrative meaning of the text, not its literal or historical meaning. On the other hand, theoria refers to the spiritual meaning of the Scripture in Antiochene theological circles. Thus the istoria of any given text may also provide the theoria, since the narrative meaning on occasion can and does supply the spiritual sense.” (Harry Pappas in SACRED TEXT AND INTERPRETATION, Ed. Theodore Stylianopoulos, p 59-60).
Later in history, istoria became a term that referred to story painting or history painting:
History paintings usually depict a moment in a narrative story, rather than a specific and static subject, such as a portrait. The term is derived from the wider senses of the word historia in Latin and Italian, and essentially means “story painting”, rather than the painting of scenes from history in its narrower sense in modern English, for which the term historical painting may be used, especially for 19th century art. Paintings almost always contain a number of figures, often a large number. The genre includes depictions of moments in religious narratives, above all the Life of Christ, as well as narrative scenes from mythology, and also allegorical scenes. These groups were for long the most frequently painted; works such as Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling are therefore history paintings, as are most very large paintings before the 19th century. The term covers large paintings in oil on canvas or fresco produced between the Renaissance and the late 19th century, after which the term is generally not used even for the many works that still meet the basic definition.
All in all, istoria is the integration of mythology and history as a way to interpret and communicate truth.
At the very least, to accept istoria in our day, one must assert that a Greek hermeneutic was accepted into an interpretive method grounded in Hebraic roots: this is extremely unlikely. But beyond that, the notion that the Bible should be interpreted in narrative form, even partially, eradicates the significance of the gospel. Throughout Scripture, the Bible is presented as LAW, and this is critical to the gospel. “Law,” “gospel,” “word,” “law and the prophets,” “Scripture,” “holy writ,” etc. are all used interchangeably to refer to the full counsel of God; ie., His full philosophical statement to man including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.
The objective law of God is intrinsic to gospel and eternal life. This is because eternal life and death are defined by being under the law or under grace. The linchpin of this is obedience. In an Old Testament passage that Peter alludes to (1Peter1:1, 2 → Exodus 24:7, 8) we read the following:
Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Based on a commitment to understand and obey God’s law, they were sprinkled (splattered) with blood. The apostle Paul then explains what the results of that are:
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Throughout the book of Romans, Paul describes two relationships to the law: under the law in regard to those who are hostile to it, but while under it see their need for Christ constantly. They see objectively where they fall short of the law. On the other hand, those who are under grace delight in the law and are able to please God by obeying it.
To take away from this construct by making the Bible a narrative rather than objective law is to drive a stake through the essence of the gospel. To put ourselves into a narrative rather than a seeking to understand God’s word for life application, and to beckon the lost to enter into a narrative rather than to repent and obey the gospel is antithetical to the true gospel.
paul
Calvinist Catholicism, Denial of Sanctification, Denial of the New Birth, and Distortion of the Trinity Through “Emphasis”
Originally published January 3, 2013
“Those of Reformed theology are not under grace. How do we know that? Because they say Christians are still under the dominion of sin. And plainly, according to the Bible, that equals being under the law and not under grace.”
The mystery of why sanctification is so anemic today is no longer a mystery. Traditionally, this has been the case for a long time in the Western church because the fathers of the Reformation discounted sanctification all together. Sure, they used the term, but it was disingenuous then, and continues to be such with those who use the term today. Weak sanctification leads to very unexciting lives which are no incentive to share the “new life” with others. We share what we are excited about, and being no better than what we were before our “conversion” is neither good news nor worth sharing. It seems the only thing we have to share is, “We are more humble than you because we know that we are empty vessels waiting to be filled and maybe the Lord will fill us and maybe he won’t.” Such a message just doesn’t set the world on fire.
The more I learn, the more I am convinced that there is really no difference between Catholicism and Protestantism: both are “under the law.” One is Jesus plus ritual to complete your justification and the other is Jesus plus making sure you do nothing in your sanctification to complete your justification (because the “just” shall live by faith [ALONE]). And in both cases, being faithful to the authority of the church secures your salvation. Calvin believed that we stay saved through daily repentance for daily salvation, and that forgiveness can only be found in Reformed churches:
Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 45: Catholic Epistles).
And, Calvin’s homeboy, Luther, believed that Reformed elders have the authority to forgive sins:
Confession consists of two parts. One is that we confess our sins. The other is that we receive the absolution, that is, forgiveness, from the pastor as from God himself and by no means doubt but firmly believe that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven (Timothy J. Wengert: A Contemporary Translation of Luther’s Small Catechism; Augsburg Fortress PUB 1994, p.49).
And on page 35….
Daily in this Christian church the Holy Spirit abundantly forgives all sins—mine and those of all believers. On the last day the Holy Spirit will raise me and all the dead and will give me and all believers in Christ eternal life.
The granting of eternal life is future, and is based on faithfulness to the established church. Look, I have been a pastor long enough to know that many Baptists associate their salvation with church membership. I have suggested cleaning up the roles in a few churches, and the response is always one that hints of this being synonymous with taking away one’s salvation. Where did they get that idea? Whether Catholic or Protestant, you can get your absolution in a booth or an alter call—there is no difference.
Calvinism, and the Reformed gospel in general, is “under the law.” In the Scriptures, being under the law equals being under the dominion of sin:
Romans 6:14—For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Romans 2:12—For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Romans 2:15—For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Those of Reformed theology are not under grace. How do we know that? Because they say Christians are still under the dominion of sin. And plainly, according to the Bible, that equals being under the law and not under grace. Quotes from the Reformed that establish this are myriad, I will note one:
We are enemies of God. We are God ignoring. We are God defying. We hate God. (CJ Mahaney: Resolved Conference 2008).
Comments by Reformed pastor Matt Chandler speaking of Christians as being “wicked sinners” have apparently been scrubbed from the internet (see here, and here), but nonetheless are indicative of the Reformed position.
This simply equals nothing less than, from the biblical perspective, Christians remaining in an unregenerate state though they call it regeneration. And this, they in fact do:
Bavinck too, wrote in connection with the regenerating work of the Spirit: “The regenerate man is no whit different in substance from what He was before his regeneration” (G. C. Berkouwer: Faith and Sanctification, p. 87).
Unchanging regeneration: such oxymorons are not few in Reformed writings. And though they would deny it, sanctification and the new birth are rejected as a matter logical conclusion. There can be no sanctification or new creaturehood where we are still under the bondage and dominion of sin. This is antithetical to being under grace. The Reformed think tank that launched the present-day New Calvinist movement which is a resurgence of authentic Calvinism, wrote an article in their theological journal entitled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” The article can be read here.
The argument that is used is one of emphasis which is Gnostic epistemology: sure, stars are true, but they only shine because of the Sun. Sure, shadows are true, but they wouldn’t exist without the Sun either. Sure, flowers are true, but they wouldn’t be able to grow without the Sun as well. What we want to do is focus on what really gives life: the Sun. To emphasize stars, shadows, or flowers over the thing that actually supplies the life will diminish life to whatever degree that the “good thing” is emphasized over the “best thing.”
Beginning to get the picture? It enables them to acknowledge the truth of sanctification and the new birth while deemphasizing them into oblivion. Out of sight; out of mind. To say that the new birth and our ability in sanctification are deemphasized in today’s church is certainly an understatement.
Said think tank, The Australian Forum, used the same argument to emphasize Christ over the Father and the Holy Spirit as well. Christocentricity is very important to Reformed theology. The core four of this think tank was Geoffrey Paxton, Jon Zens, Graeme Goldsworthy, and Robert Brinsmead. In a book where Paxton documents the Reformed heritage of Seventh-Day Adventism, he stated the following:
Luther and Calvin did not simply stress Christ alone over against the Roman Catholic emphasis on works-righteousness. The Reformers also stressed Christ alone over against all—be they Roman Catholics or Protestants (29) — who would point to the inside of the believer as the place where justifying righteousness dwells. Christ alone means literally Christ alone, and not the believer. And for that matter, it does not even mean any other member of the Trinity! (The Shaking of Adventism: p. 41).
Likewise, the same argument is made in regard to sanctification:
The distinction between the two types of righteousness will make the final emphasis of the Reformation easier to understand. The Reformers contended that the believer is righteous in this life only by faith. In saying this, they were not denying either the necessity or the reality of sanctification in all true believers. Rather, they were asserting that in this life sanctification is never good enough to stand in the judgment. The believer must look only to the righteousness of faith (the righteousness of the God-man) for his acceptance with God.
The inadequacy of sanctificational renewal was an integral part of Reformation teaching. Its corollary was the Reformers’ steadfast gaze at the righteousness of faith—namely, the doing and dying of the God-man, Jesus of Nazareth. Though the believer fights against sin and seeks to be a faithful law-keeper, sin nevertheless remains until his dying day Luther put it forcefully:
Paul, good man that he was, longed to be without sin, but to it he was chained. I too, in common with many others, long to stand outside it, but this cannot be. We belch forth the vapours of sin; we fall into it, rise up again, buffet and torment ourselves night and day; but, since we are confined in this flesh, since we have to bear about with us everywhere this stinking sack, we cannot rid ourselves completely of it, or even knock it senseless. We make vigorous attempts to do so, but the old Adam retains his power until he is deposited in the grave. The Kingdom of God is a foreign country, so foreign that even the saints must pray: ‘Almighty God, I acknowledge my sin unto thee. Reckon not unto me my guiltiness, O Lord.’ There is no sinless Christian. If thou chancest upon such a man, he is no Christian, but an anti-Christ. Sin stands in the midst of the Kingdom of Christ, and wherever the Kingdom is, there is sin; for Christ has set sin in the House of David.
(Ibid pp. 46,47).
Hence, at least Reformed theology is consistent in regard to Christians being under the law and also still under sin’s dominion. We must live by faith alone because we will supposedly stand in a future judgment that will determine righteousness by a perfect keeping of the law. And it’s true, those under the law will stand in such a judgment. But will we? The heart of the Reformation posited the idea that if we live by faith alone in sanctification, Christ will stand in the judgment for us.
But we know well what James thought of sanctification by faith alone.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
16 comments