As they say, “If the shoe fits wear it.”

How many readers… do harm to themselves?

By Philipp Jacob Spener

1635-1705

 “If… they read the Scriptures without sincere prayer and the purpose to obey God, but only to get knowledge, to make a show, and to exercise their curiosity upon them…

If they do not observe what is useful for their edification, but only what they can use for their glory and against others…

If they despise what the Scriptures simply stated and what is easy to comprehend.

If, on the contrary, they take up only difficult passages, about which, about which there is much dispute, in order to discover in them something unusual and to make a show before others.

If they use what they have learned with pride and for their own glory…

If they think they alone are wise, obstinately refuse better instruction, love to quarrel, and receive nothing from others with modesty.”

Taken from…

“The Life You’ve Always Wanted”

John Ortberg

 

ZONDERVAN

A bondage of another kind

Intellectual Legalism

“Walking in the light of men rather than the light of God.”

Strong doctrinal opinion can be as seductive and dangerous  as heresy. When we think of legalism, what comes to mind are certain extra-biblical restrictions concerning dress, form or behavior. There is, however, another less identifiable but perhaps more acceptable form of legalism. Many people have been promised liberty (a special truth or experience) only to find that they have been brought into the bondage of men.

There are certain doctrinal persuasions that are so strongly held that though they are not cultic they have managed to essentially accomplish the same thing – mind control.

Cults restrict exposure and association. Cults must separate and isolate their adherents from materials and all others who think differently. The fact is, there are some Christian groups which operate in a similar way.

This is one of my present concerns. There is a term which describes this sort of isolationism. This is called “theological provincialism.” The idea of “provincialism” concerns itself with a lack of perspective. The cultural application has to do with those who might live on an island or inhabit a region in a remote area of the world. These people are cut off from everyone but their own kind. Geographic circumstances forces everyone to think the same. People in these situations are forced to inbreed. In very real terms this is what happened to groups like the Quakers, Shakers and Amish. They moved onto their islands, destroyed their bridges and boats then established religious enclaves of a solitary nature. These groups, as well as others, have separated themselves but one does not have to become a monk, move into a monastery or take a vow of silence. One need not move to a rural area, grow beards, dress in black and dispense with motorized vehicles to accomplish the same purpose.

There are many identifiable groups which already do this. They are restricted from association and exposure from all theological perspectives but one. Let me name a few so the reader can see more clearly what I mean, The Church of Christ, certain Plymouth Brethren, Independent Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, United Pentecostals. All of these groups, and I could name more, are elitists in their theological ideologies.

“The problem with seduction is it seduces.”

This statement may sound rather trite until one thinks about it. The entire point of seduction is that one does not know they have been seduced. In saying this, I doubt if those readers who need to hear this the most will even hear it. They will suppose that this must be about someone else. They might take offence at the suggestion that they have tacitly surrendered their minds and souls to the safe keeping of others.  They will say, “Well, certainly this is not me. I am free to read, consider and think as I want. I am not involved in a mind control group! I can leave anytime that I like!” A seduced person – a person who has misplaced their security -cannot leave anytime they like. Let me correct myself, they can, but they won’t. Like cultists they are not free as they have given themselves to others as their prophets and priests. They no longer rely on the Holy Spirit and Scripture but upon others as interpreters of truth.

Cults formally describe for their adherents what they can and cannot read, should and should not believe. Cultists are emphatically told that views contrary to or oppose their doctrinal interpretations are devil inspired and are heretical. Every cult separates itself from all other groups by claiming orthodoxy.  They assure their followers that they have come into a deeper light through the promise of a greater truth or experience. In fact, while being in complete error, Jehovah’s Witnesses  refer to faithfulness as, “walking in the truth.” Within a cult there is not the subtlety one might find in Christian groups.

With this in mind, I am seeing many others, even Christians that should know better by now, unwittingly overcome by the same spirit of seduction. In their desperation for spiritual reality some have gone after almost anything that glitters. For some it has been outrageous Pentecostalism, prophets that kick, giggle or jerk and for others they have been seduced by clever words and lofty intellectualism, but it is all the same.

Years ago, a Christian friend went off to Ohio to visit the “Glory Barn” in Ohio. It only took him one weekend to be seduced by the teaching of Hobart Freeman. He was so convinced that he bought three-hundred sixty audio tapes and brought them back to Canada. Weekend after weekend he drove off with his family to Ohio. He soon disassociated himself from other believers, pulled together a little group from a variety of area churches and in a short time would only hear Hobart Freeman and his associate teachers. Most interestingly, while Hobart Freeman was a cult leader himself, he had written one of the standard books on cults entitled, “Every Wind of Doctrine.” “The problem with seduction is, it seduces.”

This, to the reader might seem extreme. They might even say, “I would never fall for that!” Yet, everyday, many have and are. Though, unlike the cults which limit exposure and thereby determine what one can read or hear, other mind control groups accomplish the same thing in more sophisticated ways. They slowly, but just as effectively, move their adherents onto the island through endorsements. Once a person becomes convinced that certain preachers, academics, writers of books and blogs have a theological edge on truth – once they give themselves over to certain philosophical perspectives - they begin to clear their book shelves of all other views which might conflict with this or that particular theology.  There are certain writers and thinkers that are acceptable and others that are not. Ask any one of these folks for a list of books they might recommend and one can predict the titles and authors. When I read these authors (and I do), I know who they will quote. They will quote one another and thus we are shipped off to the theological provincialism of “circular reasoning.” The eye does say to the hand I have no need of thee. I can be almost certain and have rarely been disappointed in my expectations. They will only reference those in their own stream of thought. This is legalism and theological provincialism.

While my friends have been promised greater truth and liberty they are in reality brought into a smaller world where their thoughts are controlled and it is no wonder that they cannot (will not) leave as their prophets have spoken. Every opinion is constantly and emphatically supported by everything they come into contact with.

This is seduction and those who have succumbed to it have no means by which to see it. They have slipped into a prophetic movement whereby the prophet(s) speaks the only truth there is. Making it even more convincing are the amassed degrees, the media exposure, books they have authored, the conferences where-in they were keynote speakers, the smoothness of speech, the flawless grammar, spelling and punctuation. In spite of these handsome credentials it amounts to nothing more than mind-control and theological legalism. Every thought has been taken captive by men rather than Christ.

In this sense, people can depart from the faith and not even be aware of it.

Take time to read this small book on detecting spiritual imbalance in Christian groups. Read ”A Larger Place” by Jeanne Hedrick by clicking the link below…    http://alargerplace.wordpress.com/

Is Calvin’s God Desirable?

When one reads books or blogs by Calvinists, the authors will almost always argue that we should not trust our hearts but go with our heads instead. In spite of the fact that Christianity is a “hearty” religion we are told to prefer a scientific, analytical approach.  We should remain detached, dispassionate, forensic as we consider the nature and character of God.

Okay, then… let’s go with our heads.  

There are many “heady” non-Calvinists books and blogs but Calvinists have their collective minds made up already (compartmentalism) and will pay no attention to anything non-Calvinists will say. Non-Calvinists are the devil’s instruments and heretics at best. Calvinists are as intellectually isolated and head strong as are Jehovah’s Witnesses and in many respects very similar in their approach to theological reasoning. Jehovah’s Witnesses start with their conclusion. They begin with preconceived assumptions about God and all of the exegesis is opinionated based upon that conclusion.

The ultra-sectarian Calvinist conclusion is simply this, God’s sovereignty and man’s free-will can be only viewed in one way and it’s their way. They view sovereignty as a scale with man (free-will) on one side and God (sovereignty) on the other. With this priory assumption, it stands to reason that if man has any authentic will then it tips the scale and God is not 100%%, completely sovereign and therefore not sovereign at all.

Non-Calvinist sovereignty and yes, there is one…

The non-Calvinist views sovereignty much differently. He or she sees sovereignty as an all encompassing circle (God and sovereignty) with men as dots within that circle, free to make real decisions. Man’s decisions will in no way alter God’s sovereignty or the outcome of history. God is big enough to handle real individual freedom. The decisions that we read about in scripture were real struggles of faith in real time. They were not simply pre-scripted (robotic) incidents.

Because of these totally different views, non-Calvinists and Calvinists fail to communicate. If we can’t agree on the nature of big things then it is doubtful that we should come to agreement on the small. There is no point then of arguing minutia. *There is no point in examining each usage of the words predestination, ordination, election, calling and their various forms.

*(I encourage the reader to do this as you will find that most of the time the words in their contexts have nothing to do with fore-ordination.)

One only need to type into their Google search engine, “Calvinism Refuted,” and they will have plenty of chemistry to read, if this is what one is  interested in. Every verse, parable and context has been exegeted using every “heady” resource available.  Literally thousands of pages have been devoted to academically opposing T-U-L-I-P. If any are interested in these sites then I am happy to supply the reader with more than they will care about. They will find verse by verse exegetes where context and Greek are relied upon for specific textual analysis. (Here is your opportunity to observe people going mad as they attempt to invent the perpetual motion machine,  “Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom“ by David Basinger and Randall Basinger from Amazon).

This book (above) is just more of five hundred years of hair splitting division with no resolution. Why? Because there is no resolution to be had. For me, this is nauseating enough without every Tom, Dick and Harry adding their two cents worth. This is why I have chosen to write in the chatty, quippy way as I do. If you are like me, you tire of reading complicated, and I must say, boring intellectual contortions that one must endure in order to get to the bottom of this issue if it were ever possible, which, by the way, it is not.

Speculative philosophies that include such hard to pronounce (let alone keep straight in one’s mind) terminology and definitions like  supralapsanarianism and infralapsanarianism are probably not worth a pedestrian’s time and effort. Because of this, I do with ultra-sectarianism the same as I do with the cultist. I ignore the specific details and ask the big over-arching questions that need to be asked.

I will confess that I do not like Calvinism because it makes God so undesirable.

There is a popular website entitled, “Desiring God” which serves to tout the message and person of John Piper and the Gnostic mysteries of Calvinism. When I have thought deeply about the implications of Calvinism I come to the conclusion that Calvin’s God is not desirable and sad to say, neither have been his adherents. The axiom, “Whatever a man attaches himself to is what he ultimately becomes,” in this case seems to pan out.

Okay, you do not have to be smart in order to understand the implications of Calvin’s sovereignty. 

Perhaps you have read the earlier entry entitled “Calvinism is Theological Determinism (Fatalism),” October 10, 2009 where I made it clear that everything is caused and there is only one cause in the universe. There are no chances, no choices and no changes. In other words, God does not nor cannot allow anything.

Think with me here.

What does this mean? Though I do not necessarily support every point of Arminius’ theology, it is on the following position that we most agree. If there is absolutely no free-will in the universe – no will which can rival the will of God - then God is the cause of every evil. 

Human kind will be held responsible for what they had no part (willful volition) in doing. Men are told not to kill and then caused to kill and then personally held accountable for murder. This does not only apply to individual wickedness but God becomes the cause of every pestilence, disease, natural disaster – every earthquake, tornado, hurricane and tsunami. There are absolutely no accidents, everything that happens is ultimately an “act of God.” Let your imagination run as wild as you like. I wish that I could make this philosophically work out some other way but I would have to manipulate logic in order to do what cannot be done.

 The devil and the angels did not rebel of his or their own willfulness. Adam and Eve were disobedient and sinned because God caused them to disobey an instruction that meant virtually nothing in the real sense. Every good and evil act is initiated by God. Get this, the slaughter of the innocents, the holocaust, abortion, mass murder, every despot  - Ghenghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Aldolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the September 11^th terrorists – are all automated by God for some ultimate, noble purpose. 

Apparently, the Calvinist God is more than willing to do what He advises us never to do, use the ignoble in order to accomplish the noble.  God can do this if He likes. After all, He is God but I just don’t see this in the revelation of His overall character. God can neither lie nor perpetuate a lie. He is not both good and evil at one and the same time.  To make God out to be like this, is to make Him the author of good and evil. God becomes two-faced (See: Hindu Dualism). A manipulative, untrustworthy and unpredictible God is not desirable.

All evil in the universe is ultimately the work of God. 

Some Calvinists will lay claim to this while others try to wiggle out of it. They will claim that man is still culpable even though a man has no means in which to prevent his own actions. Some men are hard wired by God for evil purposes while others for noble. Now let’s don’t think about this. Once we have arrived at this point, darkness becomes light, sour and sweet are alike, evil for good, vice for virtue and justice has lost it’s definition. Let’s then, just all agree that God has no problem with looking upon evil regardless of what the scripture says,

“Thou that art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and that canst not look on perverseness, wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he…”  Habakkuk 1:13

The truth is, the Calvinist God is not only comfortable with sin, he turns out to be responsible for it. Jehovah becomes a God of contradiction.

I invite the reader to take a fresh look at Matthew 17:14-21 where they will see the desirable Jesus in battle with the demonic world. Jesus, here in this passage, does not say, “Oh well, tough luck, this evil that has come upon you is the will of my Father.” Nope, he apparently thinks that this incident is not God’s will and explains to the boy’s father that the disciples were ineffective because this deliverence requires more than a word casually spoken. Change is possible. Circumstances can change. This situation required the application of prayer and fasting to be successful. It seems, from this passage, that there is some part men should play (prayer and fasting) in altering the spiritual climate. This story doesn’t appear to be fatalistic to me. How about you? 

________________________

At this point the author expects the Calvinist to play his Judas and the crucifixion of Christ trump card.

Jesus offered himself as a sin offering and Judas, “the son of perdition” was predestined to a task . The non-Calvinists accepts election to task and has equally challenging “trump card” scriptures which appear to support the non-Calvinist view. All of this was foreknown before the foundation of the world by God but this author does not accept, on the basis of Scripture, that God caused the death of His own Son. Jesus struggled in Gethsemane. He was tested in all ways as we are but did not surrender to sin. “Father, if it be Thy will, deliver me from this cup,” but in the end, “not my will but thine be done.” ”He offered Himself up for us all” – “for the joy set before him.”

 

Calvinism is Theological Determinism (Fatalism)

How hard is this to understand?

Muslim’s, Buddhists, first year philosophy students, my twelve year-old grandson – they all get it. Still there remain some who do not take clear definitions for what they are. Fatalism means ALL is caused. There is no choice, no chance and no change in the universe. Once more, let me give you the textbook definitions of determinism and fatalism.

Determinism

“From the Latin de plus terminus, “end.”  In philosophy, the idea that all that happens is casually fixed and cannot happen any other way; the belief that all events in the universe, including human actions, are controlled by previous conditions.  Many forms of Calvinism are variations of theological determinism.”

Fatalism

“From the Latin fatim, meaning ‘that which the god’s ordain to happen.’  The belief that God, because He is all knowing and all-powerful, foresees and causes according to His divine foreknowledge every event in a person’s life and in the universe.  These events must occur; they cannot happen.  When God’s sovereignty is taken to be so wooden, the resulting fatalism is devastating to evangelism, missions, and ultimately to the nature of God and human beings created in His image.”

High Sovereignty (Calvinism) is theological determinism and theological determinism is fatalism. They all are the same thing by different names.

The raw facts of the matter… 

If you have been praying for your parents, your children or your next door neighbor you can stop right now as their eternity is pre-determined. Any and all excercise whereby you beseech God on behalf of another for any reason is a waste of one’s time. God’s pre-determined will has decided everything in advance.

Anyone who attempts to cajole you by offering some twisted explanation about God working through the means of prayer (or preaching) has not been honest. What is decided in the pre-determined will of God is decided and nothing we do by vain effort and futile works of the flesh will make one iota of difference in the ultimate outcome.

I invite the reader(s) to refer to the entry,  ”An Oxymoron – Calvinist Evangelism.”

More evidence of sectarian (Should I say, “Calvinist”?) mind control

Suddenly, I’m having a run of readership on this article!

Come on. This is just an opinion, for something really challenging, try “Is Calvin’s God Desireable?”

John Calvin was not called the “Pope of Geneva” for no reason…

Last week, on our way up to Canada, my wife, Jeanne and I rode along singing the great hymns of the church. When I say “great hymns of the church” I don’t mean Gregorian chants, Bach, Mendelssohn or Handle. I mean the kind of songs you can find in almost any hymnal of any denomination or independent church in the  Christian world. Even though a majority of churches have shifted to contemporary chorouses for common worship there still remains a living memory of hymns and gospel songs that have served the worldwide Church for as much as five centuries or more. I am thinking of composers like Charles Wesley, Issac Watts, Francis Havergal, P.P. Bliss, Fanny Crosby and songs like, “He Hideth My Soul,” Be Still, My Soul,” “Amazing Grace,” Blessed Assurance,” “Have Thine Own Way, Lord,” “O, For a Thousand Tongues” and so forth.

It suddenly occured to me that those going over to ”Reformed / Calvinist” churches, for the most part, stop singing the songs and choruses that the rest of us have sung and continue sing. They suddenly start singing the Psalms without accompaniment. I wondered why.

Now, I suppose if you were to ask them they will offer some rather noble reason like, “Singing scripture is more scriptural,” or perhaps “Singing the Psalms glorifies God.” I hope that this is an honest answer but down deep I just don’t think it is.

Another similar sectarian  mind-control scenario… 

When we were first converted we were exposed to the Plymouth Brethren or Christian Brethren as they are otherwise called. They didn’t sing the Southern Baptist songs that I grew up on either. Regrettably, they and we sang out of the “Little Flock Hymnbook.” A quick run through the authors of the songs contained therein and one realizes that, unless he or she has been a lifetime PB’er, they have never heard of a single one of these people or the hymns they have written. No matter how unsingable and unedifying these melodies were, we plodded through them week after week.  These weren’t necessarily bad hymnologically or poorly composed songs, it’s just that well, no one new to the PB’s knew any of them and this meant an incredible learning curve until we caught on. I’m not sure that we ever did like those hymns at all. To this day, I am not able to recall a single one of the tunes or lyrics and for me, none turned out to be particularly endearing. Fortunately for us, our group was eventually oustracized from the tight fellowship circle and our little Open Brethren group switched to singing the old favorites and the then more current stuff from the likes of Keith Green and Honeytree, YEAH!!! Once the door was slightly ajar, in came those pesky guitars and banjo’s along with a good amount of toe tapping and joy filled, even rather rowdy singing.

Getting it Right. Nomenclature and almost everything else…

Truth is, we had to learn a lot of other things like how to talk right. In most evangelical churches folks can simply ask questions like,”Are you saved?” or  ’When did you get saved” or “Are you born-again?” But this is not true in the Plymouth Brethren. No sir, you show yourself to be a novice if you didn’t ask the question in this way, “Are you the Lord’s? or “When did you become the Lord’s?”  This is just but one example of how our first experiences into the Christian world were slightly skewed. Almost over night we seemed to have had to learn special handshakes. Looking back, it all projected a rather Masonic Lodge sort of mystery about it. This was mystery that made us special and separated us from those other half-hearted, half-witted believers that just didn’t understand what New Testament Christianity was really all about.

Of course, we didn’t have a seminary trained pastor. We shunned seminaries as the spawn of the devil himself. While other groups (those nasty denominations) did it the worldly way we did it according to the Scriptures and “examined those who served among us.”  We never used any title for anyone, not Reverend (certainly not Reverend since only God was to be revered), nor did we call anyone Pastor or even Elder So in So. Terminology like Dr. This and That was from the pit of hell. Oh, we never actually said this outloud for anyone to hear, but this is what we were taught and sub-consciously believed.

We were trained in other separationists “new speak” nomenclature as well. We learned never to refer to ourselves as “going to church”.  No one ever went to church. We went to “meeting” or “assembly.” You couldn’t possibly go to church because you were The Church. Through distinctions of this nature we could detect the “Us’s” from the “Them’s” and  ”Innie’s” from the “Outie’s.”

Then there was this business whereby we again set ourselves further apart by not being a denomination. We didn’t have some sign over our door announcing ourselves as Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or any non-biblical, man made, institutional name. No sir! “We gather to the Name of The Lord Jesus Christ each Lord’s Day at 10 A.M.. Lord Willing“  We always had to add the “Lord Willing” part. This is what OUR sign (even though a sign is less than New Testament, we had one) said and to us, at that time, it made all of the sense in the world. In many ways, this still makes sense to me. Yet, once I came off of the theologically provincial PB island I discovered that we weren’t really “Gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ” at all and were just as sectarian, and perhaps even more so, than everyone else. I still wonder how I ever got to these hard-headed convictions. It was a slow process and it took ten years to free myself from three years of PB indoctrination.

It didn’t stop there. We were persuaded to only consider PB interpretations of Scripture. After all, our commentarialists were not in it for themselves. They weren’t writing to obtain large book contracts or to advance a denomination, but were writing their little books for the sake of truth and the ”glory of God.” They were humble servants of God and did not even sign their names but rather used initials to indicate who the authors of various publications were. We insiders all knew what C.M. stood for (Charles McIntosh)  but he was a secret to everyone else. All of this was most likely false humility, but at the time this struck me as incredibly GODLY.  Though we weren’t told what to read we found ourselves clearing our shelves of both secular and what appeared to be,  unacceptable teaching from those of other doctrinal persuasions.  Many opted to read only the Schofield Reference Bible and often spent more time with Mr. Schofield’s ponderings and wanderings than with the scriptures themselves.

In the interest of time and your attention span, I will just list the ways in which the Plymouth Brethren turn out to be more Christian than the rest of you. I copy these directly from Wikipedia so you can look them up for yourselves if you happen to be more intrigued by this subject than you should be.

3.1 Avoidance of traditional symbols

3.2 Fellowship, not membership

3.3 No clergy

3.4 Weekly “Remembrance” meeting

3.5 Other Sunday meetings

3.6 Low-key offerings taken

3.7 No salaried ministry

3.8 Separate roles of men and women

3.9 Cessationist

I have said all of this to say the following…

Were the Plymouth Brethren right? Well, yes, I think in many ways they were and are. Was all of this biblical? No doubt and in some ways I still prefer PB elements to that of the contemporary “Big Box” churches.

Plymouth Brethren eccesiology is something but it is not everything.  

After more than thirty five years of ministry I can still see the many ways in which the Plymouth Brethren have recaptured New Testament patterns of ecclesiology and worship. Yet, there remains a problem. I have come to believe that, like other ultra secrtarian, separationists, isolationists groups one of the real motivations for all of this indoctrination is the control of their adherents and the proselytism of new ones. I think exactly the same of Calvinism. It is about theological manipulation, power and domination. 

We, as Plymouth Brethren, were advised to “…come outside of the camp, bearing His reproach,” to “…come out from among them and be ye separate,” and on and on it went. After all, this sounds right doesn’t it? Some Plymouth Brethren will go so far as to not even have a sandwich with a person outside of their fellowship group. It’s in the Bible, isn’t it? Yet, in my mind the real reason for separation was theological domination, ie: “mind control.” This isn’t exactly cultic. You are free to go anytime you like but unknown to you, your security has been misplaced and in some sort of way you have wandered into a kind of intellectual legalism. You can but you cannot go anytime you like. You have moved on to a very small island and have destroyed both your boats and your bridges. One has been promised freedom and liberty but in fact, he or she have become the merchandise of men and fallen into a bondage that they may never or have a great deal of difficulty recovering from.

Now back to Calvinist mind-control isolationism…

This is how I see the doctrines of many sectarian groups. This is how regard the Calvinist  / Reform churches. This is why I think they take away the hymnbook and sing the Psalms. They know full-well that ninety percent of the songs in most hymnals found in the pew racks of most churches in the world could not, in good conscience, be sung by a Five-Point Calvinist because the inherent hymnology offers free grace to free men. They certainly wouldn’t want  anyone thinking about anything other than T-U-L-I-P.

Generally, you will not see TULIP Calvinists, or for that matter, Seventh Adventists, United Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Independent Baptists and other fundamentalist congregations supporting city-wide, multi-church events. They will be involved in some events but only if they can be the head and not the tail. Shouldn’t this raise a red flag? Likely not, if one has already been dominated and under the spell of mind-control theologies and/or practices. Ultra-secretarianism is not exactly a cult but it is toxic-Christianity and dangerous to the kingdom of God.

All of this mind-control is accomplished through the guise of honoring God through right belief, doctrine, behavior or practice.

For more on this subject see… “A Mind Control Reality Check”