In Regard to the Newest Neo-Calvinist Controversy: This Post is for Christians Who Don’t Want to be Confused
“Here is why these guys want to have a debate in order to keep people confused: the dirty little secret is; the Reformed false gospel is a matter of simple theological math.”
The Neo-Calvinist movement that has taken over this country has also created a hobby- like subculture via the blogosphere. This theological Entertainment Tonight subculture drifts from one controversy to the next with the WadeWatch blog leading the way.
It’s pretty obvious at this point that none of this is about truth and solutions, but rather a wallowing in confusion for the sake of drama. Neo-Calvinist leaders are all but deliberately keeping people confused, and to a great degree, that’s what Christians want. The Scriptures state plainly that in the latter days people will heap to themselves teachers with itching ears. And this is nothing new; Paul exhorted Timothy to avoid endless controversies. Come now, let’s be honest; “endless controversies” describes our church culture to a “T.”
The newest recycled “controversy” is more wrangling over the first, second, and third use of the law, or the law/gospel discussion. As a new Christian in the early 80’s I was perplexed by the fact that pastors don’t teach theology in the local churches, but of course now I understand exactly why that is and have written on the subject extensively. Knowledge empowers the individual, and Protestantism came out of the same power politics that dominated the Dark Ages.
One of the greatest misnomers of contemporary history is the idea that the Reformers wanted to make the word of God available to the masses. Personally, I believe the mass printing of Bibles was an unintended consequence of the Reformation. But regardless of where you stand on that, the Reformers rendered the Bible useless by making it a commentary on two things and two things only: the total depravity of mankind, including Christians, as set against the holiness of God.
This dualist interpretation of reality is the very foundation of Protestantism. In the same way that light defines darkness and darkness defines light, man and God are more and more defined by a deeper and deeper knowledge of each. This is the same old regurgitated metaphysics that has driven state as god from the cradle of civilization, founded all of Eastern religion, defined and given dignity by Plato, and integrated into the Bible by the big three of the Reformation; Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Luther laid the foundation in the Heidelberg Disputation, and Calvin expanded it into a full-orbed philosophical statement in his Institutes. Therefore, ALL of the Institutes flow from 1.1.1and the first sentence thereof:
Our wisdom, insofar as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and ourselves.
Of course, it is no secret how Calvin and Luther defined “ourselves.” This is not the least bit complicated, below is the most widely distributed illustration of the Reformed gospel in our day (click on to enlarge if needed):
Look, as a Segway into the latest controversy, let me point out that Tullian Tchividjian did NOT create that illustration. But yet, the same people who criticize him have used this illustration themselves to teach the Reformed gospel. And well they should, it is a concise and astute depiction of Calvinism.
Sigh. This is NOT complicated.
If we have any goodness in us at all, what gets smaller? “The cross.” Very good class. If we have any goodness in us at all, is knowledge of God’s holiness increased or diminished? “Diminished.” Very good class. If we have a less and less realization of how wicked we are, is our appreciation for the cross increased or diminished? “Diminished” Is that goody-woody? “No.”
Oh my, we are on a roll!
What in the Sam Hell is complicated about this? Yet, another clueless Christian starts the newest controversy by writing the following post:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2014/05/02/failure-is-not-a-virtue/
Tullian Tchividjian then rebuked her in a follow-up post using his usual red herrings: stuff about people believing that the power for change is in the written word; viz, law. The argument concerning power being in the paper, ink, and leather of a Bible is soooooo worn out that when I hear it, again, I just want to cry from utter disgust.
Now, the controversy plot thickens because some thirty something YRR comes riding in on a white horse of confusion to save the poor little Reformed damsel who doesn’t have a clue to begin with. Sure, it seems like she gets it to a point until you find out she sits under Matt Chandler who no whit, in principle, has any gospel disagreements with Tchividjian. He (Mark Jones) has challenged Tchividjian to a debate which will only serve to further confuse because that’s the goal. Apparently, the debate centers on the first, second, and third use of the law. This is the same old Reformed red herring that is one of the primary mainstays (other than the election debate) used to deliberately keep God’s people confused and dependent on these narcissistic Reformed hacks.
Confusion is the goal, and they know it. It’s deliberate for purposes of control. I stand behind that statement 200%.
But let me clear up the confusion on law because that is easy also. Here is why these guys want to have a debate in order to keep people confused: the dirty little secret is; the Reformed false gospel is a matter of simple theological math. Calvin believed that the law is the standard for justification as opposed to justification being APART from the law. According to RC Sproul, the third use of the law reveals the righteousness of God. That sounds completely reasonable, but is the very problem itself with Calvin’s false gospel.
“But Paul, what then is the standard for justification? ‘God’s righteousness.’” “Right, the law reveals God’s righteousness. ‘For justification or sanctification?’” “For justification. ‘No.’” “Then what is the standard for justification? ‘God’s righteousness imputed to us apart from the law.’”
See, the problem is, if the law is the standard for justification, a perfect fulfilling and maintaining of it must be sustained in order to keep God’s people saved; viz, justified. Justification is then not a finished work, a perfect keeping of the law must be maintained to keep us saved. And of course, we can’t do that, so we must live our Christian lives by faith alone so that the perfect obedience of Christ is perpetually applied to the law in our stead. The law is the standard and that not apart from justification. The apostle Paul made this point in several different ways throughout his epistles: there is NO law in justification. “Apart” means a-p-a-r-t. (Read the Brinsmead excerpt on pp. 10, 11 of It’s Not About Election http://www.7questions.org/its-not-about-election-read-here.html ).
And Tullian Tchividjian gets that. A perfect keeping of the law must be maintained in the Christian’s stead by a perpetual reapplication of the cross. Being interpreted: living by the cross via faith alone in sanctification. If we obey by “jumping from the imperative to our own effort,” we circumvent the ongoing works of the cross. Is justification finished or not finished? Read the title of chapter 14 in book 3 of the Calvin Institutes; that should answer your question.
I have a better idea. I hereby challenge Tchividjian and Jones to a debate at a place of their choosing even though I am just a dumb hillbilly from Portsmouth, Ohio. I don’t need to be smart—this is simple theological math. Calvin was fundamentally wrong on law; throw around all of your ganky Reformed phraseology all you want to—I will bring you right back to the difference between what Paul said and what the heretic John Calvin plainly said. I am sure that if one or both agree to the debate and will not come to Xenia, Ohio, PPT readers would be more than happy to donate to the cause.
Hide behind the whole idea that I am not worthy of your platform because of my lack of education if you will—that’s what James White did, and that’s all you have. And frankly, there are many Arminians strewn about who know this simple theological math is the issue, but like you, if they reveal that, they will no longer be needed as well.
Confusion and ignorance is what puts bread on your table: you are all a disgrace to the gospel of God.
paul
The Problem with Wartburg
“Deb and Dee” author one of the more popular discernment blogs in our day. They have always seemed fairly cognizant to me and I have always found their newsreel informative. They report and comment on Christian trends, primarily in regard to the Neo-Calvinist movement.
I began having problems with Wartburg when they selected Wade Burleson as the pastor of their online Echurch. Burleson, as I have often documented on PPT, is a rabid follower of Jon Zens who is a forefather of the Neo-Calvinist movement. While referring to the leaders of said movement as the Calvinistas, they embrace and give credence to the most rabid advocates of the movement. This has also resulted in the ignoring of the very victim-blaming by Burleson that they claim to disdain.
Hence, they have been called “hypocrites” by some. But don’t forget merciful either as they continue to give Burleson a stage when he is arguably the Barney Fife of pastors. PPT has documented his embarrassing teaching snafus such as drawing biblical principles from word analysis using words with 17th and 19th century etymology.
This post is about the definitive problem with Wartburg. I didn’t really know what it was until someone brought it to my attention a week ago. And that problem is their gospel. And that gospel is the same EXACT gospel that drives New Calvinism. It is antinomian, Platonist, and a doctrine of control. The first step of controlling a culture anyway you want to is gun confiscation. The first step of controlling people in the church is self-esteem confiscation. What I mean by self-esteem is biblical self-esteem which is simply a truthful assessment of oneself.
And total depravity is not a biblical assessment of man. Even a child can see this from Romans 2:14 ff.
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.
Even unbelievers at times clearly do what the law requires, a fact that Calvin denied. Calvin insisted that no man, lost or saved, has ever done any deed that was acceptable to God (CI 3.14.10,11). Augustine, Luther and Calvin were avowed Platonists, and total depravity finds its philosophical foundation there. It later became Gnosticism which was the primary ideology that wreaked havoc on the first century church.
Before I address the source of my conclusion in regard to Deb and Dee, let me first state what they are in league with while priding themselves as victim advocates: Burleson often brags about his admiration for the Puritans; some of their activities included executing people who reduced the pain of those bearing children. The Puritans were also the framers of the genocidal attempt to eradicate the American Indians from the face of the earth. International Religious Freedom Day was founded on the remembrance of three Quakers executed in Boston by the Puritans for believing in the new birth. Indeed, the ignorant hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Now the source of my conclusion. In the midst of the present-day tyranny tsunami in the church, Dee chose to criticize a virtually extinct rendition of biblical obedience. The post can be read here and is one of the best posts I have ever read since the conception of my blogstration. The piece practically shell-shocked me. This slice of steroidal sanity also came from a teacher of women which is also extremely rare in our day. I think the author is a member of The Village Church. Isn’t that Matt Chandler’s gig? Well, if it is, she needs to get out of there with what she has in her cranium case.
I find Dee’s commentary on this piece most telling. First of all, it would take a book to unravel Dee’s fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel as revealed by her commentary, so I am only going to hit the points that make her nothing less than a pure authentic New Calvinist. I will begin by using a slight criticism of the aforementioned post. In it, the author states:
The gospel sets us free from sin, but it does more than that. It sets us free to obey (Rom 6:16).
She uses Romans 6:16 to make her point and her point is a good one among MANY in the post, but that verse doesn’t say that we have been freed to obey, it in fact states that we are enslaved to obedience.
As TANC has been discussing lately, there must be three exchanges in true salvation:
1. An exchange of the old us for the new us.
2. An exchange of law.
3. An exchange of slavery.
Shockingly, the author actually touched on one and two, but gets three slightly wrong. ALL people on the earth are slaves. They are either slaves to unrighteousness or slaves to righteousness. AND, all people upon the earth are also free, and the freedom corresponds to the slavery. The unregenerate are enslaved to disobedience and free to obey (Romans 6:20)—the regenerate are enslaved to obedience and free to sin. No unbeliever sins perfectly, and no believer obeys perfectly. The author got it right: it’s not the perfection—it’s the direction.
That brings us to the necessary exchange of law which the author also gets right via other words. It is the exchange of the law of condemnation for the law of love, or the motives issue that the author spoke of. Before salvation when we are “under law,” yes, perfection is the standard that we would be judged by and it determines eternal destiny. But those “under grace” love the law, and therefore perfection is not the standard, but it is the goal. Yes, when Christ stated, “be ye perfect,” He was stating the goal of the Christian life, not a standard for salvation.
Also, this could be a play on words in regard to “be ye saved” as demonstrated by a change of life direction. Why? Because the saved are NOT “under law” and “where there is no law there is no sin” and “we know that the law has nothing to say to us” etc. The Deeian New Calvinist gospel will not even get a contractor hired if he states, “Well, no job is ever perfect,” and it will not impress the world either unless they want to be saved with their sin. Like all New Calvinists, Dee uses the following well-traveled argument:
She is correct when she says that we should not live a life of ecstatic disobedience. But, she also failed to discuss Paul who viewed his sins in this way in Romans 7:19 (NIV-Gateway)
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing.
Paul got it. We will continue to sin and we will continue to seek forgiveness. I do not believe that most Christians are ecstatic over their sin and disobedience. They are ecstatic over the great grace which has resulted in the forgiveness of sins. We do not need to live like many people in certain ministries loved by Calvinistas. Such people live in constant condemnation. Their sins are dissected and pointed out by both pastors and sin hounds who relish “making observations.”
In context, the passage that Dee uses makes the original point of the aforementioned author. In Romans 7:13-25, Paul addresses all three exchanges and states that he is persevering against his old nature that was under the law. The way that law formally provoked him to sin is still free to do so (Rom 7:5, 9). But the word for “wretched” in verse 24 is a Greek word that carries the idea of persevering or overcoming affliction. Paul is crying out to God to be saved from his mortal body so that he will no longer have to fight against sin that is presently part of his being. Unfortunately, until Christ comes for us, we have to carry the old us that is dead. We carry around with us the “death of Christ”; ie., those things imputed to Christ that He put to death. The old us died with Christ, but we were also resurrected with Him to new life. So, there is still a salvation left for the believer—salvation from our mortality and its sin. This is not to be confused with the salvation that is a finished work. New Calvinists make the finished salvation and progressive sanctification, and glorification the same thing.
And so does Dee; albeit, perhaps unwittingly.
In her misguided and out-of-school argument against the truthful post, she states:
We will continue to sin and we will continue to seek forgiveness. I do not believe that most Christians are ecstatic over their sin and disobedience. They are ecstatic over the great grace which has resulted in the forgiveness of sins.
That is the very doctrine that is a hallmark of New Calvinism known as mortification and vivification. Dee’s argument is classic Neo-Calvinism: we don’t rejoice over the sin, only the forgiveness that we experience when we are forgiven. Conspicuously missing is any kind of joy that we receive through obedience because there isn’t any—the New Calvinist’s life is a “lifestyle of repentance” and exemplified by being “repenters.” My point is made by adding Dee’s statements to the following well-traveled New Calvinist illustration.
To further the point, consider this statement by New Calvinist Paul Washer:
At conversion, a person begins to see God and himself as never before. This greater revelation of God’s holiness and righteousness leads to a greater revelation of self, which, in return, results in a repentance or brokenness over sin. Nevertheless, the believer is not left in despair, for he is also afforded a greater revelation of the grace of God in the face of Christ, which leads to joy unspeakable. This cycle simply repeats itself throughout the Christian life. As the years pass, the Christian sees more of God and more of self, resulting in a greater and deeper brokenness. Yet, all the while, the Christian’s joy grows in equal measure because he is privy to greater and greater revelations of the love, grace, and mercy of God in the person and work of Christ. Not only this, but a greater interchange occurs in that the Christian learns to rest less and less in his own performance and more and more in the perfect work of Christ. Thus, his joy is not only increased, but it also becomes more consistent and stable. He has left off putting confidence in the flesh, which is idolatry, and is resting in the virtue and merits of Christ, which is true Christian piety” (Paul Washer: The Gospel Call and True Conversion; Part 1, Chapter 1, heading – The Essential Characteristics Of Genuine Repentance, subheading – Continuing and Deepening Work of Repentance).
Moreover, Dee’s confusion regarding the fact she is a New Calvinist and doesn’t know it is reflected in this statement:
We do not need to live like many people in certain ministries loved by Calvinistas. Such people live in constant condemnation. Their sins are dissected and pointed out by both pastors and sin hounds who relish “making observations.”
Her argument regards the idea that “grace” makes all of that unnecessary, but where is her argument for untruthful assessment; viz, biblical self-esteem which circumvents tyranny and control? In Calvinism, the root of all sin is the refusal to recognize our sin ONLY. The express purpose of sin sniffing is to bring more joy to people through “deep repentance.” Dee is criticizing a method that enhances the very construct she endorses.
“Calvinistas” my…uh, foot Dee—look in the mirror.
paul
WadeWatch Continues to Foster Burleson Nonsense
“Deb and Dee, that cold one is for you. That’s what you promote when you give credence to the likes of Wade Burleson.”
I believe Deb and Dee over at WadeWatch are Southern Baptists. As a Southern Baptist myself, I take great comfort in knowing that we are too doctrinally dumbed down to be completely take over by the New Calvinist movement. Wade Burleson, a kinder, gentler New Calvinist like Joseph Prince, may not be as much of a threat as I once feared in that venue.
The thing that drives me batty about Burleson is his make it up as you go theology. This ministry has already called him out on forming a theology based on a post-biblical Greek word. He shortly thereafter changed the subtitle on his blog that was the focus of our criticism. His former subtitle was a lame attempt to make a case for Redemptive Historical hermeneutics which is not just a mode of biblical interpretation, but Martin Luther’s epistemology for interpreting reality itself. Luther rejected the idea that reality is interpreted grammatically, but rather through redemption. This leads to a Gnostic indifference to human suffering and a devaluing of a sense of justice. Though Burleson’s behavior is un-Neo-Calvinist like, he shares their ideology.
Apparently, to the orgasmic delight of WadeWatch, Burleson actually posts comments on that blog from time to time and I was sent a particular one the other day. In regard to the usual burloney, it did not disappoint:
God makes His love for us so captivating, so alluring, so charming, so dazzling, so enthralling, so mesmerizing, so spellbinding (gospel comes from “good spell”), so magnetizing, so enrapturing, so gripping, so compelling, so hypnotizing, and so absolutely “sweep me off my feet” enamoring that I cannot, I must not, and I will not refuse, though I have the power to do so.
Where to start? Burleson makes salvation some road to Damascus event instead of a belief in the simple facts of the gospel. His kinship to the despicable John Piper is seen here in that Piper teaches that one is not saved unless he/she experiences Christ as an immense “treasure chest of joy.” I once knew a young man that I witnessed to who was being counseled by a certified NANC counselor who held to this view. This young man was living in the very bottom of human depravity. I later heard that he prayed on his knees for hours, begging God to save him while waiting on some ultra-joy experience. Deb and Dee, that cold one is for you. That’s what you promote when you give credence to the likes of Wade Burleson.
Much could be discussed in regard to this excerpt, the excellent points made by the reader notwithstanding, but I tend to have a special hankering for Burleson in regard to his make it up as you go theology. In this case, the idea that the “gospel” carries the idea of being put under a spell. Really? Am I here right now? Somebody google, “Gospel, Burleson, Cupid” and see if we get lucky.
The fact that Burleson would assign “gospel” a meaning from the spelling of the word long after the Bible was written, and on top of that not even the meaning of it at the time it was spelled that way to make a point speaks for itself. This is the same type of shenanigans that we have called him out on before. Here is the citation from Online Etymology Dictionary:
gospel (n.)
Old English godspel “gospel, glad tidings announced by Jesus; one of the four gospels,” from god “good” (see good) + spel “story, message” (see spell (n.)); translation of Latin bona adnuntiatio, itself a translation of Greek euangelion “reward for bringing good news.”
The first element of the Old English word had a long “o,” but it shifted under mistaken association with God. The word passed early from English to continental Germanic languages in forms that clearly indicate the first element had shifted to “God,” e.g. Old Saxon godspell, Old High German gotspell, Old Norse goðspiall. Used of anything as true as the Gospel from mid-13c. Gospel-gossip was Addison’s word (“Spectator,” 1711) for “one who is always talking of sermons, texts, etc.”
The first element of the Old English word had a long “o,” but it shifted under mistaken association with God. The word passed early from English to continental Germanic languages in forms that clearly indicate the first element had shifted to “God,” e.g. Old Saxon godspell, Old High German gotspell, Old Norse goðspiall. Used of anything as true as the Gospel from mid-13c. Gospel-gossip was Addison’s word (“Spectator,” 1711) for “one who is always talking of sermons, texts, etc.”
“Spel,” even when it was spelled that way long after the Bible was written, meant “story” or a “message,” not like a magic spell of some sort. Good grief. Now, true, I allow the Burlesons of the world to comment on PPT, but that’s for comparison and contrast, not endorsement.
And this is a great Segway into my idea for Deb and Dee. They could get rid of Burleson over time and not lose credibility. See, I don’t dislike them at all, just trying to help here. All they have to do is start disagreeing with him here and there when he comments on WadeWatch. Everybody disagrees with each other from time to time, right? So, they could ratchet this up slowly over time. They could eventually start treating him like Alex Guggenheim.
paul
The Jared Mellinger Tweet: I Don’t Think We Get It Yet; They Think All Healing is Christocentric
Rush Limbaugh says he knows liberals like every inch of his glorious naked body. I am not ready to claim such in regard to Calvinists, but there are some things that have become evident to me.
First, as we have learned from John Immel here at TANC, all behavior is driven by logic.
All people act logically from their assumptions. It does not matter how inconsistent the idea is or insane the rationale. They will act until that logic is fulfilled. Therefore, when you see masses of people taking the same destructive actions, find the assumptions and you will find the cause. We’re here in this specific session discussing – we are going to ultimately discuss the issue of Calvinism, New Calvinism, and the question is why within this emergent movement do we see such consistent actions, such consistent outcomes, such consistent stories of oppression and domination and coercion? Why from one congregation to the next do you see the exact same outcomes? This is it. But first to find the assumptions, we’re going to have to do this: We’re going to have to take on our ideas. Ideas, it takes enormous effort to dissect one’s thinking (John Immel: TANC 2012; session one, lines 180-195).
As far as the SGM sex scandal and SGM in general, are any bells ringing? Once again, Christians are scratching their heads in regard to the cold blooded statements made New Calvinists regarding the SGM victims. Julie Anne Smith, the blogosphere diva who continually makes the lives of New Calvinists miserable, has once again called out a Calvinist Brown Shirt for some outrageous statement that demeans the victims of SGM’s house of horrors. You can read the post here. Smith’s new target, Jared Mellinger, is just another little snot-nosed mindless follower of the New Calvinist philosopher kings. This is a cult following that rivals none.
But what is the logic that drives the tweet? What is the logic that drives the insanity seeking a vindicating result? Pure and simple: Calvinism. The logic doesn’t produce a massive group that is equally evil from the leaders to the hanger-on; it doesn’t exclude followers who misunderstand the logic and function on the soundbites, but the basic logic drives the movement and its direction.
Calvinism gets a pass because it has followers who disagree with people ovens; by the same logic, we should allow the marketing of Pepsi-Cola with just a pinch of arsenic. The product will be defended because only some die, and there are some nice people who work at the Pepsi plant. It’s the same sublogic that drives the cozy relationship between the Wartburg Watch and Wade Burleson. The Pepsi doesn’t kill everybody, and it tastes really, really good. But our calling is to rage against those who are indifferent to the victims of Pepsi. For those who take their Bible seriously: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”
Why is the little Brown Shirt’s tweet pure Calvinism? Let’s discuss that. Calvin got his theology from Augustine, Gregory, and Luther. However, Luther best defines Calvin’s philosophy. Luther interpreted all reality through the gospel. Every event in human history is preordained to show forth the cross story. Reality is divided into two categories: our evil and God’s holiness. Historic events preordained by God help us to see both, and a deeper and deeper understanding of our evil and a deeper and deeper understanding of God’s holiness results in the cross being uplifted before the world.
Misery and deprivation only serves to reveal our true standing before God. Comfort and happiness only serves to jade the true reality of the vast gulf (reality) between our depravity and God’s holiness. Self must be emptied and eradicated; anything associated with an inward consideration is the glory story. Happiness is a gift from God as we partake in meditating on, “our sinfulness as set against God’s holiness” (the theological term is: mortification and vivification).
Therefore, according to Luther, people only live by the cross story or the glory story, and each yields its own results. Hence, John Piper’s commentary on the Oklahoma tornadoes should not perplex anybody, but unfortunately such is not the case. He meant well, he only wanted the victims to see the tragedy through the cross. He is sincere—so was Hitler.
So, justice isn’t the answer for victims, but only the seeking of a Christocentric contemplation that heals. A meditation on our deserved misery lifts up the cross of Christ and shows forth His holiness as opposed to our wretched existence. Those who seek justice are destructive to the cross’ glory because it presupposes that man deserves justice instead of eternity in hell. Justice implies that man’s life has merit. Hence, the tweet:
Wisdom discerns between the cries of the innocent victim seeking help and hope and the cries of the vindictive spirit seeking destruction.
You can replace “help and hope” with the cross story and anything else but that is “destruction.”
It’s high time that Christians stop focusing on the metaphysical disconnects and focus instead on the logic that drives the behavior. Immel is right; these people will never deal with their ideology in the face of results while insisting that the ideology has never been done right by the right people. It is my understanding, if I was properly informed, that Wartburg Watch stated this same idea, in essence; Calvinism in and of itself is not all bad, it’s those damn Calvinists that are to blame. But the dirty little secret is that these people have been running the show in the American church for the past twenty years.
Are we better off?
paul
A Wartburg Watch Repost: Appalling Documentation on the Calvinist Use of Church Discipline to Control People
Wartburg Watch does a very good job of reporting on trends in the New Calvinist movement. Hence, I stroll over there from time to time. This post caught my eye because it reinforces what I have witnessed in these churches for a number of years now. Like all cults, these churches strive to gain control of people through indoctrination, fostering dependence through benevolence, and fear. When you go into these churches you can cut the aurora of fear with a knife. While still a member of Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio members were afraid to be seen talking to me because I asked questions in Sunday school that the leaders were unable to answer. We presently know of members in some of these churches that are being held hostage through fear. Once you are invested there, they can put a social hurtin’ on you, and maybe even financial ruin. In both cases, I have the T-shirt.
I continue to insist that these church policies are in violation of most state laws. It is illegal to restrict the lawful movements of any person through threats of personal loss; specifically, loss of reputation. TANC has a very long list of future endeavors, but on that list is to contact our local congressman to see if anything can be done about this type of covert kidnapping. Sometime after the conference I will be treating law enforcement officials to lunch in order to get their input on this issue.
And as usual, I would encourage the gang at Wartburg to realize that this behavior isn’t happenstance; it flows from an ideology called “Calvinism.” Their report describes Calvin’s mentality to a “T.” Wartburg continues to associate with those who hold to the ideology without the bad behavior. That’s a bad idea.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments