Dear Guests of IDOTG: Today, I welcome back Kevin Lane with his new article for your consideration. Kevin will be available to interact with you in the discussion thread.
We are especially subject to believing we can become like God through effort and religion so as to be acceptable in His sight. It was exactly this that the Serpent tempted Adam and Eve with in the Garden and so also the very delusion man’s fallen sinful nature tries sell each of us even to this day. Our pride has a mantra that progresses from false hope to true destruction: You can be like God; you are like God; you don’t need God to save you.
The Serpent cloaks his diabolic plot to use our effort and religion against us with partial truths and logical arguments built on false premises. The plot is truly terrifying because while it strokes our deluded egos it sets us up against God’s true goodness and justice. Do not be deceived, the plot is so complex and pervasive that God spends most of the Bible exposing it, and showing how He alone has defeated it. Even in defeat though, we have a faithful enemy; he is always on the prowl for who he can share his defeat with. He is much too cunning to try to drag us to Hell, instead he baits us to walk along with him to destruction.
When Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness they covered themselves, like the Seraphim do. (Isaiah 6) One might think they were doing well because they covered themselves out of humility. Yet God showed them that He Himself must cover them if it is to be meaningful. The Jews found that they could achieve the appearance of godliness through obeying the 613 rules, regulations and commands found in the Law & the Prophets. Yet God called them white washed tombs. They looked clean on the outside but inwardly they were desperately wicked (Matt. 23:27). A Tax Collector and a Pharisee each went to the Temple to pray. The Tax Collector saw his desperate need of God to have mercy on him, but the Pharisee had confidence in how good he was, and even thanked God for this goodness. The Tax Collector went home justified, but the Pharisee remained in his sin (Luke 18:9-14). The Church at Galatia began to feel that the righteousness received by faith was not enough. They thought they had to add effort to ensure God’s acceptance. They were warned to account any who teach this foolish false gospel as deserving severe judgment, as if any such wretched preacher is cursed. The Church at Laodicea believed they were rich and needed nothing. Yet the Lord wrote to them explaining their great need of the riches only He can provide. The Lord told them that He stands at the door knocking (even knocking Beloved do you hear?) desiring to come in to that assembly to dine with those who would receive from Him (Rev 3:14-22).
In each recorded instance the people were trying to honor God through effort and while they had an appearance of godliness they actually ended up worldly in ways they may not have even been aware of. Instead of experiencing God’s acceptance they suffered rebuke and correction. Please let this sink in; all of these people were trying to do the right thing toward God. They all feared Him, loved Him and wanted to honor Him. They all thought their religion and effort would mean they could be like God, some of them thought they were like God, and some of them didn’t think they needed His mercy anymore.
Calvinism, as expressed by the acrostic TULIP* and as espoused by modern preachers such as Dr. John Piper is born out of these same good things: a fear of God, a love of God and the desire to honor God. Even so, it fails as miserably as all the efforts we read about in the Bible did. It actually builds a system of religion and effort that ultimately leads away from godliness instead of toward it.
Let’s consider that Calvinism, in its practical sense, is fundamentally concerned with how people bring God glory. God is said to be orchestrating every instance of history to bring Himself glory and we have no actual say in our part of His sovereign plan. It is explained that any choice made by a person to serve God would violate His sovereignty, because all things are by His decree alone. Decree is actually a very accurate rendering for the word grace in the Calvinistic understanding that salvation is “by grace.” It is said the sinner is used to bring God glory through his/her judgment and subsequent eternal punishment while the saint is used through obedience and good works. Logically, since God is orchestrating every instance of history, it is said that one can evaluate which part of God’s program one is on through evaluating how one is bringing glory to God. Are you characterized by sin that will be judged and punished, or are you characterized by righteousness? This is how Calvinism is practically applied in the lives of those who are taught it: look at yourself and evaluate.
Space here, and time to write fail to give me opportunity to demonstrate fully the worldliness that this leads to but I can point to three things immediately. These ought inform our understanding, and demonstrate the fact of Calvinism leading to worldliness:
1. The un-Christ-like dialogue from Calvinists. Instead of discussion leading to edification, Calvinists seem most concerned with how everyone “misrepresents” Calvinism. Google returns about 225,000 results for searching the terms “Calvinism/Misrepresent” at the time of this writing;The fact established (as much as space allows), we are left with the question: “Why?” Why did all these people who desired to honor God in the Bible only end up more worldly through practicing a religion designed to honor God? Why does Calvinism, a theological system most concerned with God’s glory, actually tend to make so many who follow it more worldly?
2. The overt, and uncorrected worldly nature of the so-called Young Restless and Reformed; 1and
3. The continued examples of lacking desire to be absolutely sure of what the Scriptures truly say, vss. what one’s current theology says.
Because, the eyes of the follower are turned toward his or her own self in religious exercises. Even though the person is honestly seeking to honor God, they are looking at their own self in a continuous practice.
Consider that the Gospel, as presented in the Scriptures, has us look at and examine Christ’s work on the Cross on our behalf (1 Cor. 15:1-11). The Lord explained this truth in detail to Nicodemus. The Lord told him that one must look toward the Cross, our sin judged and paid for, just like Israel in the wilderness had to look at the serpent raised up in order for them to be saved. As we will see, this is to be the Christian’s continuous practice; not inward looking but looking toward the Cross.
In Fail-Safe for Fallacy2 I used the example of how learning to perform a challenging figure-8 maneuver on a motorcycle by looking over my shoulder to where I wanted the bike to go as an illustration to help explain the Christian walk. So long as I tried to steer through the maneuver I would fail every time, just like everyone else on the same safety course did. When I was taught to simply look where I needed to go, then it just worked without effort. The truth of what I was taught is played out in accident avoidance, and sadly non-avoidance every day. Those who stare at pot-holes and light poles end up hitting them… while those who look toward safety do not.
Various teachings from Calvinists will have the believer look for signs of or tendencies toward goodness in his or her self. This goodness is then used to give assurance of salvation. It is commonly explained that this goodness does not earn one’s salvation, but it does give assurance that we are on God’s program for saints, not his program for sinners. We are told if it can’t be seen the salvation does not exist.
Yet if we look for goodness in ourselves we will find what we think is goodness. Not only is this how man’s pride works (Prov. 20:6) it is also a symptom of Confirmation Bias.3 We will take confidence in our false view of ourselves, and such will become the foundation of our faith – see I’m on God’s good plan! Anytime the reality of who we are sneaks into view and we fear, we look again to see if we can see any sign of “God working in our lives,” and when we think we do our fears are quelled again, at least for a little while. All the time we will spend looking at our selves and each time we find the goodness we are looking for we will thank God for that goodness and feel confident.
Does this sound familiar? Does this sound like the Tax Collector or the Pharisee to you?
When we focus on our performance we get dull in our sight and thinking through studying the counterfeit instead of the Original. We lose proper perspective and so lower our standards from perfection that is Christ to some “tendency towards goodness” or “desire for goodness.” I’ve heard it preached many times “People, it’s not about perfection it’s about direction! Are you going in the right direction?” Are you kidding me? Beloved, it IS about perfection. We are without hope except we have the perfect righteousness of Christ, no matter how good we think we perform and that perfection is only attainable by faith alone. (Philippians 3)
This is the root of why religious systems like Calvinism do not lead people toward godliness. A person believes that Christ’s provision can save them, but the actual foundation for their life is how they perceive God working in their lives. This is where they get their assurance. Not that He faithfully will accept all who depend on His provision on the Cross, but that He will only accept those who persevere to the end of their life.
“There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.... What God will require at the judgment is not our perfection, but sufficient fruit to show that the tree had life-in our case, divine life.” (John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, pp. 160, 221.)It would seem that this would inspire a godly life, but what it does is force a person to continuously re-define what righteousness is, and how it is manifest in order that one can find a spurious assurance. Calvinism becomes the person’s identity, and hope and then they are trapped and the true downward spiral begins. Effort spent in endless arguments with anyone who dares to question Calvinism is only matched by deeper and deeper studying of the theology and refusal to consider any attempted correction. Instead of becoming more Christ-like, the person becomes combative, harsh, and often resorts to hero worship of various popular Calvinist preachers.
“Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity.” R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, p. 198.)
The fallen nature’s mantra resounds as they find confidence in things other than the Cross alone: You can be like God, you are like God, you don’t need God’s mercy.
However, when we instead of looking at ourselves look upon the Christ crucified for our sins we behold absolute pure perfection. There is no level of performance that can offer assurance when compared with His perfect standard, leaving us to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that we need His mercy and grace. When the Apostle Paul went to the most worldly assembly of truly saved people noted in the Bible, the Church at Corinth, he set out to know NOTHING among them except Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2). It was his solution to get them to look again at the Cross, not themselves. Their doubts about a future hope, their worldliness, their religion - all of it, was to be solved by looking at the Cross. Their only instruction to look at themselves was in defense of Paul’s apostleship, not their salvation and growth.
Beloved the whole of Scripture tells us to surrender the struggle to become good enough for God to accept us and to instead be still and know that He is God (Psalm 46). We are told not to be like the work animal that must be bridled and bound but instead willingly come sit and learn from God (Psalm 32). We are told to have assurance because God said it, not because we have responded in a particular way (Gen. 15:6). We are told that we ungodly sinners are justified through faith apart from any works (Romans 4, Eph 2:8-9).
Calvinism would have you find assurance in your submission to the Lordship of Christ and by seeing that you have continued in good works. An entire religious system of outward performance and effort is laid on the believer’s shoulders. (Of course the performance is said to be God’s work, so any who tire of keeping up with expectations feel shame for it.) We are however warned that on the day of Judgment many will approach God confidently, assured of their salvation, because they have emphatically called Him “Lord, Lord” and done wondrous works in His name.
The Lord sends such people away to the Lake of Fire. They didn’t have assurance in His finished work alone, they found it in their continued works; their religion, their efforts to please Him. He will call their religion the practice of lawlessness. I wonder how worldly these people will have been, having found confidence by looking at their performance? Can one look at himself, see that he is going the right direction, and not be satisfied that at least to some extent he is “good enough”?
Beloved, look toward the splendor of the Cross where God demonstrated His love for us. It is through the Cross we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. If you must look at yourself; judge yourself guilty and trust that guilt is paid for at the Cross, then get on with it. Any other practice leads to religion that leads to worldliness and judgment.
Kevin Lane
On My Walk
*TULIP: T- Total Inability; U- Unconditional Election; L- Limited Atonement; I- Irresistible Grace; P- Perseverance of the Saints
FOOTNOTES:
1) Young, Restless and Reformed
2) Fail-Safe for Fallacy (Kindle edition for $0.99)
3) Confirmation Bias
I'm looking forward to the comments and discussion.
ReplyDeleteKev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteIt is certain that men of the Calvinism persuasion will not agree with your position. In fact, it will cause some to boil over, others will ignore it. I wanted you to post it here so that a wide cross section of believers would have an opportunity to consider what you've presented.
In any event, I will read with interest any interactions you have in this thread.
Lou
Oh dear. There are so many things here to comment on! I will go with this:
ReplyDeleteKev, I think what you have here is something that will resonate with those who feel that easy yolk to be not so easy after all. I think you have introduced a way of thinking about and explaining the consequences of Puritan TULIP/LS Calvinism that exposes how and why those who live under the burden of self effort have the hard time they do with their walk, and where that sense of burden comes from. I hope many get to read this and find solace that they are not crazy and it is not them.
I'm interested to read the comments your article will generate.
JanH
Lou,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect he is misrepresenting the Reformed position. For you to be credible you have to see that. His depiction does not represent historic Reformed theology. Perhaps he is speaking out of ignorance. For your blog to be credible you have got to see that.
KD
As I read the comments I realize that this is just a total misrepresentation. It is false and misleading - Come on Lou you cannot allow this
ReplyDeleteKD:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your concerns. A few days ago Kev posted a brief comment along the lines of this article. I was curious about his position and asked him to expand on that thread comment for an article here. . This article is that expanded comment.
You feel there are misrepresentations. Kev is very gracious and open to correction. Engage him, point out some areas you feel are misrepresentations. Feel free to correct those and make your case.
Thanks,
Lou
FWIW, I rarely open my blog for debates over Calvinism. IMO, the centuries long debate will never be settled this side of Heaven.
Lou,
ReplyDeleteYour own credibility is at stake with this because it is so off the mark. Please do publish my first comment and feel free to leave off my last sentence. I do feel however it was no more pointed than the misrepresentations here.
KD
KD:
ReplyDeleteYour initial comment is gone and blogger is not set up to edit submitted comments. I think I can email it back to you so that you can edit and resubmit.
Credibility issue: I simply gave a man with an opinion about chance to put it up for consideration and discussion. That does not necessarily mean I agree with every sentiment expressed. The same is true with every guest contributors article.
I would encourage you once again to engage Kev on the points you believe are wrong.
We're all teachable; right?
Lou
I engaged him on his own words in my initial post: "Calvinism would have you find assurance in your submission to the Lordship of Christ and by seeing that you have continued in good works. An entire religious system of outward performance and effort is laid on the believer’s shoulders. This is the antithesis of Reformed theology! Reformed theology is all about Christ and His work and His imputed righteousness. It is not even about cooperation with God because dead men cannot cooperate. I am afraid this is the stuff used to poison the minds of Fundamentalists toward Calvinism or the Pauline gospel. Your site is better than this.
ReplyDeleteKD
OK, so we'll let Kev respond. BTW I do appreciate the concerns you are expressing for my blog.
ReplyDeleteLou
Someone please acknowledge that I John and James teach us that some of the evidences of our unearned salvation are works.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Kevin's three "supporting points" are ludicrous. One could use the same line of reasoning to assert that Fundamentalism or Islam leads to worldliness and un-Christlike dialogue.
Truly in-credible as KD pointed out.
This article is such a gross distortion of the doctrines of grace. Almost as though he had his conclusions already prepared and then needed to come up with something to say before giving his conclusions.
ReplyDeleteKevl,
ReplyDeleteI have some thoughts concerning your article so I'll quote some points that stood out to me. You said "Decree is actually a very accurate rendering for the word grace in the Calvinistic understanding that salvation is “by grace.” One does have to answer the question relating to election concerning if it is more related to foreknowledge or decree or some mix of the two. Some Calvinists say that God decrees who will be regenerated and that man can do nothing because he is dead.
Relating to your first point I say that misrepresentation can happen but it does indeed seem at times to be a common excuse for extreme Calvinists. On your second point, there may be something to be said about a group such as this (YYR), but people build cases against Fundamentalism due to what they perceive to be bad behavior by a collection of people that they think represent Fundamentalists. Point three could be true but this could also be pointed back at dispensationalists or any other group.
Calvinists do seem to emphasize experiences and evidences. I guess I would too if I took the view that God "may have" chosen me and I wanted to be certain.
I totally am dumb-founded by the quotes from Piper and Sproul. The condition should be Christ i.e. His shed blood, death, burial, and resurrection. Christ's shed blood better be the covering of your sin or there is no salvation regardless of how you lived. This can only be received by repentance and faith.
I'll have more in my second response.
Thanks
Jim F.
Kevl,
ReplyDeleteYou said "Effort spent in endless arguments with anyone who dares to question Calvinism is only by deeper and deeper studying of the theology and refusal to consider any attempted correction." This could be levied at people like some of the extreme KJVO types. There are many groups that are prone to hero worship.
You said "The Lord sends such people away to the Lake of Fire. They didn’t have assurance in His finished work alone, they found it in their continued works; their religion, their efforts to please Him." Some who claim to be Calvinists may fall into this category but others will too.
It is true that a self focus can lead to worldliness. I think that worldliness comes primarily from those who are unsaved or preach some truth mixed with even slight amounts of error. Error leads to worldliness, no matter if it is what some call Calvinistic error or any other error caused by a man made system of theology. It can also come from those who are saved but still spiritually immature. Especially when they are led by those who "appear" to be great examples, but lack something somewhere as far as sound doctrine.
Jim F.
d4v34x, There may be something to be said for your evidences but they are incomplete and not to conclusive without the completed work of Christ.
ReplyDeleteJim F.
All,
ReplyDeleteSorry for not commenting last night. I actually spent the night in the hospital after a much too ambitious mountain bike excursion.
I'm going to get some sleep and then check back in here later today.
Thanks,
Kev
KD,
ReplyDeleteHaving read your first visible comment I could not get to sleep; so I've read your remaining comments.
You wrote:
This is the antithesis of Reformed theology! Reformed theology is all about Christ and His work and His imputed righteousness.
Actually, it has been my experience that the Reformed theology, or new Calvinism of people like Piper - as referenced in the article - is that of "imparted" righteousness. Not mere imputation, but actual impartation. If one is not acting righteously they are not saved - according to Piper and similar Calvinist teachers.
You went on to write:
It is not even about cooperation with God because dead men cannot cooperate. I am afraid this is the stuff used to poison the minds of Fundamentalists toward Calvinism or the Pauline gospel. Your site is better than this.
KD I did not talk about or imply cooperation. If you read my article again you may see that one can see which part of God's sovereign plan one is on by seeing how he is being used to bring Glory to God.
Nothing about cooperation, or the person doing the works. I was very careful to express Calvinism as it is presented by modern preachers of TULIP.
You have made some big claims about my article being inaccurate and even damaging to Lou's credibility. As Lou pointed out I am very willing to consider your points - if you make them. Bold claims are not points.
Please clarify, at least a single point and I will be more than happy to discuss it with you.
Kev
Hello d4v34x, (Can you use your first name so I can address you properly? Thanks!)
ReplyDeleteThe three supporting points are demonstrate-able, and so are valid.
Islam does lead to worldliness.
The key difference between Fundamentalism and Calvinism (at least modern calvinism) is that only Calvinism teaches that if one is truly saved they'll be more and more like Christ in practice. It is Calvinism that conditions salvation on submission to the mastery of Christ over all aspects of one's life.
Therefore, the supporting points show that Calvinism does not stand up to it's own test - while if they were true of Fundamentalism (which I do not believe to be true) then they would merely confirm what the Bible teaches.
Kev
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I'll be able to get through all of your posts right now but I will try. I'm exceedingly tired.
I read your review of my supporting points, and I take that it is true that sometimes a whole people group can be painted with the brush of a few. What I can tell you is that I have no personal experience with Calvinists that goes against what I observe in these few examples. Honestly. I ONCE spoke to a Calvinist here at IDOTG who was actually graceful. I stopped the conversation to tell him so - and the very next post he made went to the same pattern that I observe time and again.
I have no personal experience with Calvinism that offers anything but support for what I have written. I'm sorry to say it, but it is true - at least to this point in my life.
Your point is well made of why evidences and experiences would be so heavily emphasized. If that was the only way one could have any idea if they were truly Elect then ya I get it! I'd be doing the same thing, with the same results no doubt.
Kev
Hi again Jim, looks like I"m going to make it through. I hope I'm typing in English. :)
ReplyDeleteYes that argument could be levied at KJVO types and sadly some Dispensationalists as well. Any "system" that becomes your focus can lead you into this behaviour.
I also agree that more than Calvinists will have said "Lord, Lord." You are absolutely correct.
Your final point about false teachers, is something we were discussing recently on the Free Grace Dispensationalism Facebook page. A bit of leven levens the whole loaf.
Kev
d4v34x,
ReplyDeleteAs for evidences in 1 Jn and James; 1st John is about assurance despite an accurate view of one's self. Not because one is getting better or does some good, but because of what Christ has done for us, and not only us but the whole world. It is written to those "who believe" so that they may know they have Eternal Life and continue believing. This really doesn't fit with how Calvinists teach the book these days.
James, we must be careful with. Mostly because of all the bad teaching that has been done with it over the ages. James calls his objector in James 2 a fool. Be careful not to make the same argument that James calls foolish.
James tells us about justification before men not before God. His audience was already justified before God. They needed to know that their faith could only be animated and perfected by adding works to it. The same message that we read in reverse, by way of warning, in 2Peter 1:5-11.
Works are things that I can see you doing, and your claim of faith can be justified to me. Works are never the object of our own assurance of Justification before God. Justification before God is wholly appart from works. Romans 4.
It is men who look at the outside. God sees our inward parts. He doesn't need us to use works to prove our faith to Him, and we don't need our works to prove His faithfulness to us.
I'm really really tired so this is more pointed than I would have preferred. I really need to hit the sack now. My wife is going to be very upset if she sees me on the computer. She doesn't like hospital rooms very much...
Kev
KD, Brad, Dave:
ReplyDeleteIn his article Kev wrote,
“This is the root of why religious systems like Calvinism do not lead people toward godliness. A person believes that Christ’s provision can save them, but the actual foundation for their life is how they perceive God working in their lives. This is where they get their assurance. Not that He faithfully will accept all who depend on His provision on the Cross, but that He will only accept those who persevere to the end of their life.”
He then cites Piper and Sproul.
John Piper wrote, “There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.... What God will require at the judgment is not our perfection, but sufficient fruit to show that the tree had life-in our case, divine life.”
R. C. Sproul wrote, “Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity.”
I see Kev citing two renown Calvinists affirming the point of his (Kev’s) statement above. Would each of you men (KD, Dave, Brad) share your personal take on those statements? Do you accept the message at face value?
Lou
BTW: I’ve produced several articles (5) on “final salvation” That is the link to all of them in order of most recent first.
Is the gift of God (Rom. 6:23)
ReplyDeleteeternal life, including glorification, through faith/believing in whom Jesus Christ is and what He did to provide salvation; or is faith in Christ, plus an upfront commitment to (Lordship Salvation) and the performance of obedience throughout one’s lifetime “necessary” to reach Heaven (“final salvation”)?
LM
Lou, I am wondering which portions of this article you are not in agreement on. Would you mind sharing?
ReplyDeleteTony
Tony:
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking. In a previous article here on the YRR Kev posted a comment suggesting a connection between Calvinism and worldliness. Dr. Peter Masters was quite blunt about the worldliness among the new/young Calvinists.
I had never thought through the issue the way Kev articulated it, was curious and asked him to expand. He has and I decided to make his position available to all readers.
There are a number of items in his article I had already come to agree with. I have a serious problem with the Piper and Sproul statements. Other elements I am still mulling over.
I encourage you to interact with Kev on any portions you may agree with or others you have concerns with.
Lou
You would have everyone to think that Calvinism places as you say it a "burden" on the shoulders of believers to perform so as to merit something from God. This is where you are distorting the Reformed position. If you look at the giants of scripture, David, Solomon, Samson etc, these men had huge sin problems. The beauty is that their sin had already been dealt with in Christ at Calvary. Their sin did not cause them to lose any of their salvation. Their performance was lousy, but Christ's performance at Calvary was intact. God still viewed them as righteous, even as righteous His own Son when they sinned. They sinned yet they found forgiveness and were still faithful to God and persevered to the end. This is because of the alien righteousness they had from Christ – not themselves. You are sadly mistaken if you think Calvinism is about "imparted" righteousness. If it is we all might as well give up now. It is the total opposite. I cannot count the number of Fundamentalist preachers who have said "God did His part now you must do yours" – what heresy! I would submit that the problem you describe with the burden for good works religion is rampant in Fundamentalist circles and sadly at times there is very little practical difference in Fundamentalist theology and Roman Catholic theology. The irony of you accusing Calvinists of this issue is just mind boggling. It is a charge that doesn't even make sense. As for Christ being Lord, do you not believe that Christ is sovereign and should be Lord of all you are in Him as a Christian? If not Christ then who? Do you not believe that a truly regenerate person will demonstrate some aspects of God's grace and persevere to the end? A person’s fruit and perseverance demonstrate God's grace. That person will never be perfect on earth, but the evidences of change will be apparent.
ReplyDeleteKD:
ReplyDeleteI am posting as much as I am until Kev recovers from his ER stay.
On your first sentence, isn't that almost exactly what Piper and Sproul have articulated?
Lou
You are missing the full context of what these men have preached for years. RC Sproul has been on the forefront of this and has published a great book entitled "Faith Alone" It addresses this as well as any work and does not place the onus for salvation on the back of the believer but on the work of Christ. I could take a verse out of the book of James without looking at any other areas of scripture and preach works salvation. When I look at the whole of scripture and realize that real faith produces good works, then James is just as relevant as Romans. This is what you and Kev are sadly failing to do. I don't know Kev but you are a smart guy which is why I am scratching my head on this.
ReplyDeleteLou, you asked for my response to the following quote: “This is the root of why religious systems like Calvinism do not lead people toward godliness. A person believes that Christ’s provision can save them, but the actual foundation for their life is how they perceive God working in their lives. This is where they get their assurance. Not that He faithfully will accept all who depend on His provision on the Cross, but that He will only accept those who persevere to the end of their life.”
ReplyDeleteKev presents a false dichotomy. What does a person look like who "depend[s] on His provision on the Cross"? Does his "dependence" manifest itself in the way he lives? Of course it does. When William Tyndale was on trial for his supposed blasphemous views he addressed this issue. He said that the fruit from a tree does not MAKE the tree a "good" tree or a "bad" tree. The fruit simply REVEALS what kind of tree it is.
I disagree with your conclusion that the Piper and Sproul quotes affirm Kev’s statement above. Assuming the quotes are accurate, I do not believe these men are saying "the ACTUAL FOUNDATION for their life is how they perceive God working in their lives." Rather, true salvation will result in a measure of fruit-bearing. Surely you and kEV agree with that? This fruit bearing is not the "actual foundation" as Kev says. The fruit simply REVEALS the root.
Lou and Kev,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this article and the comments.
As an 82 year old retired preacher, who was raised in and rejected Calvinism to become an atheist... I clearly see Kev's great point.. Piper and Sproul (among others) continue to propagate the lie I rejected 66 years ago at about age 16.
Thankfully at age 35 I heard a clear truthful Gospel message and made the decision to believe in Jesus Christ alone as my Savior.. Ever since then I have battled the lie of Calvinism and its more recent twin-brother iteration Lordship "salvation."
Tragically, I have family who are still blindly enmeshed in the insecure web of Sproul and Piper's brand of commitment salvation (and it IS tragic).
Thanks for the Sproul and Piper quotes. They epitomize the pro TULIP, anti-Free Grace message of Calvinists and LSers which, like a cancer, has spread the world over.
The theory that "true salvation will result a measure of fruit-bearing" is ludicrous and un-Biblical. Such theories make man the judge of another man's salvation. THAT IS the lie of Calvinism and Lordship "salvation." Now, if we use the Biblical words "should result" instead of "will result" it is certainly more accurate. (Ephesians 2:10 KJV)
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack Weaver
Jack, it sounds as if you believe it is possible for a person to live his entire life without bearing any spiritual fruit whatsoever and yet still have eternal life (e.g., you said fruit bearing "should" result; not "will" result from salvation). Have I misunderstood you? What's the Biblical basis for that? As an aside, you don't know me and I don't know you, but I am assuming we are fellow believers (i.e., brothers in Christ). As such, it would be better to direct your vitriol (i.e., "ludicrous", "un-Biblical", "cancer", etc.) at the real enemies; those insidious false teachers who believe and teach that salvation comes thru some means other than Christ's redemptive work at Calvary.
ReplyDeleteHello KD,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
It is not even about cooperation with God because dead men cannot cooperate. I am afraid this is the stuff used to poison the minds of Fundamentalists toward Calvinism or the Pauline gospel. Your site is better than this. This is where you are distorting the Reformed position.
KD nowhere in my article did I say any such thing. I'm not convinced you have given my meager work a fair reading, I would appreciate criticism of anything I actually wrote.
Kev
KD,
ReplyDeleteI am having trouble understanding the nuances of your posts, so I may very well be wrong. However, when I read you write this:
When I look at the whole of scripture and realize that real faith produces good works, then James is just as relevant as Romans. This is what you and Kev are sadly failing to do. I don't know Kev but you are a smart guy which is why I am scratching my head on this.
I have to wonder why you are claiming I have misrepresented Calvinism. If true faith produces good works then you can look at your works to evaluate your faith right?
I most certainly did not diminish the relevance of James. Perhaps you did not mean to imply that I did.
Kev
Hi Brad thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
Kev presents a false dichotomy. What does a person look like who "depend[s] on His provision on the Cross"? Does his "dependence" manifest itself in the way he lives? Of course it does. When William Tyndale was on trial for his supposed blasphemous views he addressed this issue. He said that the fruit from a tree does not MAKE the tree a "good" tree or a "bad" tree. The fruit simply REVEALS what kind of tree it is.
I did not at all say that the good works MAKE the person saved. I tried to be very careful to present Calvinism the way it is presented by Calvinists.
Consider this paragraph from the article above:
Various teachings from Calvinists will have the believer look for signs of or tendencies toward goodness in his or her self. This goodness is then used to give assurance of salvation. It is commonly explained that this goodness does not earn one’s salvation, but it does give assurance that we are on God’s program for saints, not his program for sinners. We are told if it can’t be seen the salvation does not exist.
You then went on to suggest the quotes of Sproul and Piper may not be accurate. Have you read any of their works?
What does a person look like who depends on something? How does "dependance" manifest? Do you depend on the fact that there are vitamines in your food? How does that dependance manifest? You eat the food right. You don't become a different person. You don't serve your food.
Further you stated "The fruit simply REVEALS what kind of tree it is."
This is something that Calvinists talk about often.
It is interesting that in each of the Gospels this has to do with Prophecy, not "true conversion." It is evaluating a prophet by what he says. Not if someone is saved. Luke 6:43-45, Mat 7:15-20, Mat 12:33-37.
However, this is not the actual reason why the Calvinist usage of the passage is so flawed. What is wrong with using this to test or evaluate the faith (and/or the salvation) of a person is because in each case the Lord explains a PERFECT standard. He who speaks truth is the good tree, he who speaks untruth is the bad tree. The good cannot speak falsely, and the bad cannot speak truth.
SO if Calvinism applies this as a test of salvation then it must be looking for sinless perfection in Christians or it is simply proof-texting half the words of the Lord.
Thus, "true salvation" cannot just result in a "measure of fruit-bearing" it must result in sinless perfection - if the usage of this passage is accurate.
More in my next.
Kev
Brad,
ReplyDeleteYes, I am a Bible believing Christian, depending completely and solely upon my faith and belief that God in the Flesh, Jesus Christ's death, burial and resurrection is sufficient and complete for me to have eternal life, sealed eternally by His Holy Spirit, totally apart from depending upon my works, behavior or "spiritual fruit" before, during or after I decided to believe in Jesus.
If you believe that, we are fellow believers in Jesus Christ.
But if you believe that "spiritual fruit" (aka good works) visible to men are necessary to be saved or stay saved, then I would consider you seriously and dreadfully mistaken.
Whether you have the eternal assurance of Heaven based upon your faith alone in Jesus Christ alone is not for me to say -- that is between you and the Lord and not for me to determine by being a fruit inspector.
Brad let me ask you.. do you seriously believe that in order to be saved or stay saved, you must show to men even a modicum of your good works or "spiritual fruit"? That is the un-Biblical implication of your argument. If I am wrong, I have misunderstood your premise.
Please show me in Scripture where the Lord mandates good works (or "spiritual fruit" as you call it) to be or stay saved. That seems to be the point of your argument when you say, "live his entire life without bearing any spiritual fruit whatsoever and yet still have eternal life.." Thus you seem to be pinning your eternal hope upon your "spiritual fruits," thereby a fruitless effort on your part.
Just FYI, my words you call "vitriol" are directed to anyone who would destroy and distort the true, free Grace of Christ as do Spruel, MacArthur and Piper, et al.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jac
Hi Brad,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
I do not believe these men are saying "the ACTUAL FOUNDATION for their life is how they perceive God working in their lives." Rather, true salvation will result in a measure of fruit-bearing. Surely you and kEV agree with that? This fruit bearing is not the "actual foundation" as Kev says. The fruit simply REVEALS the root.
Brad, if one is told to look at their works for confirmation of their salvation... then their works are the foundation of their lives. It is what they are told over and over to look for.
You should check any of their teachings on Assurance......
If however, one is told to look at the Cross and God's unfailing faithfulness then that is what becomes the foundation of one's faith, and thus one's life.
Kev
Jack, I very much appreciate your comment. You have a powerful testimony to the power of God to salvation for all who believe.
ReplyDeleteKev
Hi Brad,
ReplyDeleteI know you addressed this to Jack, but it is similar enough to what you wrote to me. Perhaps if I answer it will make our conversation more complete.
First, I take issue with your subtle change of Jack's words from a salvation that is not dependant on works to an assertion of never doing any works..
It is this type of word play that forces people to evaluate the logical arguments of Calvinism instead of the false premises it is based on. Any logical argument can be shown to be true, if it is logical and one is restricted (somehow) from evaluating the premises.
Logical does not equate to truth if the premises are wrong.
You asked for a biblical basis nonetheless.
1Cor 3:5-17 for context, 1Cor 3:15 for your answer.
This offers very reasonable support to the idea that some may have no good works to be rewarded for.
All of that being said the real issue is not IF works will occur, but if they are any good for what Calvinism uses them for.
How many good works? How consistent? All their life? Most of their life? Good works today but maybe not tomorrow? What if they don't do good works the last day they live... the last week.. the last month... the last year... the last decade?
What is your Biblical basis for saying that works reveal that one is saved?
As stated above James talks about justification before men, but not before God. In other words, I can surmise that you are saved by your good works - but I cannot know - but your own good works are useless for your own assurance. Mostly because if you are saved then your assurance is in the Cross not in how you have responded...
Kev
Jack,
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of comments getting posted quickly (by myself) and this will probably make it harder for some to read but I simply must thank you for these words.
Just FYI, my words you call "vitriol" are directed to anyone who would destroy and distort the true, free Grace of Christ as do Spruel, MacArthur and Piper, et al.
I second this.
Not that I intend to use "vitriol" or be ferocious, but that I will call out any who pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ - not just those who deny it.
Kev
All,
ReplyDeleteJust a reminder. I'm just home from the hospital and my wife is making sure I don't over do it. My posts will come in waves. I'm sorry if that is less fluid than ideal... but it is what I have to offer. I'm doing the best I can to keep up.
Kev
Thanks Kevl,
ReplyDeleteThe Apostle Paul refused to mince words when he observed those who would pervert the Gospel. I am certainly not a Paul, but I have been for many years and will be (as long as the Lord allows) ferocious In Defense of the Gospel. ;-)
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8-9
Words have meanings, don't they?
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Being that there's a lull in the action, I will take this opportunity to ask a question. All the talk of misrepresentation has led me to wonder about something that also bears on the Piper and Sproul issue. I was researching Federal Vision at one time when I came across a couple of Reformed Calvinist men, whom I trust are Calvinists with impeccable credentials, who have found due cause to call out men like Piper and Sproul—and MacArthur too, while we're at it—for teaching erroneously on justification. They see significant difference between Sproul, etc. vs. what the Reformers taught on justification. Here are some of their thoughts. I had to break this up into a series of posts.
ReplyDeleteJohn Robbins on R. C. Sproul in R. C. Sproul on Saving Faith-
Rather than defending, or even explaining, the Biblical and Reformational doctrine of justification by faith alone - Sproul does not describe it as "Biblical," or "correct," but merely as "Luther's position" and "Luther's view," as though the idea of justification by faith alone had originated with Luther - rather than defending justification by faith alone from the charge of antinomianism, as Paul does in Romans, Sproul denigrates justification by the pejorative label "easy-believism." In so doing he tries to make Rome's murderous opposition to the Reformation understandable. This is inexcusable in any theologian, especially one who claims to be Reformed.
Sproul (like all Elders in the PCA and OPC) has solemnly sworn that he believes the Westminster Confession of Faith. But the Westminster Confession does not define saving faith as Sproul defines it. This Latin trichotomy is neither confessional nor Biblical. Echoing Scripture, the Westminster Confession calls faith "the act of believing."
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=238
cont.
cont.
ReplyDeleteRobbins on Piper in Pied Piper-
[This article is written from a clearly Reformed, Calvinistic understanding of the covenants, from which Piper, led by his mentor Daniel Fuller, has apparently completely departed, only not for Dispensational waters. JH]
Who would have thought, 20 years ago, that Biblical Christianity would have virtually disappeared from many so-called Presbyterian and Reformed churches in the United States by the end of the millennium, and that in The Year of Our Lord 2002 the major theological battlefront in those churches would be the Gospel-the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Yet that is exactly what has happened.
This movement is, in principle, a redis-covery of the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation...
Piper tells us that future grace is conditional grace, but meeting these conditions is not meritorious: “It is possible to meet a condition for receiving grace and yet not earn the grace. Conditional grace does not mean earned grace” (79). Those acquainted with Romanist theology may recognize here in Piper’s conditions something akin to the Romanist doctrine of congruent merit. Meeting conditions is not an example of condign merit-that is, Real Merit, but it is an example of congruent “merit,” a “merit” that is not really merit....
To return to Piper’s various definitions of faith: “All these acts of the heart [the 11 conditions he has cited for receiving future grace] are overlapping realities with saving faith. Faith is not identical with any of them, nor they with faith. But elements of each are woven into what faith is” (252). Keep in mind that Romanism has only seven theological virtues; Piper has out-poped the papists.
But the worst is yet to come: There are still more conditions required for obtaining future grace: doing good deeds, not practicing the works of the flesh, and loving the brethren, to name three. Now here’s the catch: Unless Piper has provided a complete list of the conditions we must meet in order to “fulfill the covenant” and obtain “our final salvation,” the Piper Plan of Salvation is worthless. To be worth anything, a plan of salvation must be complete. But even with centuries to ponder the question, the Roman Church-State did not come up with a complete list of condi-tions the sinner must meet to obtain final salvation, and so it invented Purgatory, where all unfulfilled conditions for salvation may be met. The sinner may and usually does endure millions of years of torment in Purgatory, but at long last the persevering sinner fulfills the conditions required for final salvation. Perhaps one of Pastor Piper’s future publications will be Piper Proves Purgatory. Then we shall have a rediscovery of Romanist eschatology, as the Neolegalists continue to work out the implications of their false and Antichristian premises.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113
cont.
cont.
ReplyDeleteRobbins on MacArthur, Norman Shepherd, and the Pope in Justification and Judgment-
Many non-Catholics labor under the mistaken impression that the Roman Church-State teaches salvation by works apart from the grace of God and Christ. But it does not, and this paragraph reflects its teaching that the good works Christians do are done by the grace of God and Christ. This common misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Romanist doctrine has contri-buted to (or is caused by) a misunderstanding of Biblical doctrine. Our works, our doing, the Bible teaches, contribute nothing whatsoever to our salvation. They are neither an instrument for our justification nor a condition of our salvation. The difference between the Bible and Rome is not that Rome teaches salvation by faith and works-without-grace, while the Bible teaches salvation by faith and works-with-grace. The difference between the Bible and Rome is that the Bible teaches that our salvation does not depend on our works at all (whether allegedly done by the grace of God or not), while Rome asserts that our salvation depends in part on our works. The Bible affirms sola fide; Rome denies it.
Proponents of Lordship Salvation such as Shepherd and MacArthur appeal to this passage in Matthew 7 to support their view that belief alone in the Lord Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation, that we must also practice the Lordship of Christ by faithfully performing works in order to be saved. Yet this passage clearly teaches that some of those who confess Jesus as Lord and perform amazing works will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, one may acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, perform many wonderful works, and still go to Hell. Jesus himself here warns us that many who confess his Lordship and perform many works will go to Hell. Obviously the passage does not mean what the Pope, MacArthur, and Shepherd think it means. It is not a contrast between mere believers (who are lost) and workers (who are saved), for Jesus himself says that the workers are lost.
The Pope, Shepherd, and MacArthur all appeal to this verse [Matthew 7:21. JH] because they all believe that Jesus does in fact teach salvation by doing here-that he here denies the sufficiency of belief alone for salvation.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=117
cont.
cont.
ReplyDeleteMonty Collier on John Piper (video):
John Piper's Shocking Roman Catholic View of Saving Faith!:
“Piper's heretical view of saving faith is the standard view found among Lordship Salvation proponents.” (.19-.24 second marks)
“....He does this [clarify his metaphorical terms, JH] by claiming that our love is an essential part of saving faith. When he does this, then what he has done is to adopt the Roman Catholic definition of saving faith. For love is, by definition, obeying God's commandments.” To this Collier counters the Reformed position that it is never our faith that saved but the object of our faith that saves. (1.25-2.44 minute marks)
“This is exactly why the Lordship Salvation proponents are always appealing to verses that demand our obedience. You see, they truly believe the gospel is a set of commands to be obeyed.” (2.47-2.57 minute marks)
http://www.youtube.com/user/RedBeetle#p/u/36/C31kwq_o7zk
Collier (video): Lorship Salvation: A Quick Note
The heresy of Lordship Salvation is a form of antinomianism known as neonomianism. In this short video, I compare heretic John MacArthur's teaching on the Gospel with that of Martin Luther. Notes to the video
“John MacArthur gives us Lordship Salvation's heretical view of the gospel.” (.12)
“Lordship Salvation mixes Law and Gospel. It is a form of antinominanism called “neonomianism. Neonomianism teaches that the gospel is a new Law, but of milder requirements, in which faith, repentance, and sincere though imperfect obedience, are substituted in the room of the perfect and perpetual obedience required by the original Law.” (.48-1.03)
http://www.youtube.com/user/RedBeetle#p/u/38/v4E6z2PTwlc
cont.
cont.
ReplyDeleteCollier (video): The MacArthur/Sproul Connection
[Now, this video has a quote from Sproul which I had to go and find to hear it for myself in the full context. It is absolutely true that he does say this. JH]
MacArthur and Sproul are the leaders of the Lordship Salvation heresy. MacArthur is in charge of leading the Baptists back to Rome, while Sproul is taking care of the Presbyterians. Video notes.
“In this book [Faith Works, JH] John MacArthur quotes Presbyterian R.C. Sproul. The quote from Sproul does not teach Justification By Faith Alone (Sola Fide). It teaches the Roman Catholic view of justification. Here is the quote: 'Roman View: Faith + works = justification/ Protestant View: Faith = justification + works.'”
Collier goes on to quote John Robbins on this, which ends with:
“But the most interesting is not MacArthur's quotation of some erroneous statement about justification, but his apparently unwitting of Cardinal Newman's view of justification.” (.23-1.02 minute marks)
Collier includes a section of Sproul where Sproul paraphrasing Jesus says:
“Go. Your faith and your faithfulness has redeemed you.” (2.14-3.08 minute marks)
[That is the amazing quote. Sproul really does say “your faithfulness has redeemed you.” JH]
Collier then appeals to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. & A. 21 against Sproul:
“those who teach that we are partly redeemed by our faithfulness make Jesus but half a savior.”
http://www.youtube.com/user/RedBeetle#p/u/40/ycySJhbm63E
cont.
OK. Last one.
ReplyDeleteCollier on Piper again (video): John Piper's Book “God is the Gospel” exposed and refuted!
John Piper claims to be Reformed, but mixes Law and Gospel continuously.
John Piper claims to be a Calvinist, but he boldly contradicts Sola Fide. Video notes.
“John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church Minneapolis, Minnesota is not a Calvinist. He does not teach justification by faith alone. John Piper mixes law and gospel, confuses justification with sanctification, and teaches justification by faith and works. Piper does this while he pretends to believe the basic teachings of the Protestant Reformers: men like Martin Luther and John Calvin. Puritans like John Owen and Jonathan Edwards. However, Calvin, Owen, and Edwards would all condemn John Piper's false gospel, for unlike John Piper, they properly distinguished the law from the gospel.” (.06-.46 second marks)
At 6:50 minutes, Collier puts Piper in a Cardinal's uniform, pointy hat and all, clearly implying Piper's teaching is Catholic.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RedBeetle#p/u/68/eyGQALw2-74
Here are men with impeccable Reformed Calvinist credentials calling out Sproul, Piper, and MacArthur for teaching Catholic teaching and for betraying Calvinism. Needless to say, they are also vehemently opposed to Federal Vision. They feel the teachings of Sproul, Piper, and MacArthur are neither Reformed nor Calvinist and that these men betray the Calvinism they claim to espouse. The fascinating thing about this is, this seems to be Reformed against Reformed, Calvinist against Calvinist. So what I want to know is, which group represents the real Calvinism? And what about their assessment of these men? Especially Sproul saying “your faithfulness has redeemed you.” Does it bother anyone that he said this?
JanH
Jan, as much as I have opposed these false teachers I have never even witnessed them being so eviscerated as they are from members of their same system of theology.
ReplyDeleteThere is much to be considered in your comments. Truly shocking.
Kev
Jan, I love this quote from Collier found at 12:46 in this video http://www.youtube.com/user/RedBeetle#p/u/68/eyGQALw2-74
ReplyDeleteWe are saved only by the Object of our faith, not by our act of believing.
This of course is in exact accord with Romans 4:16.
I don't know about the rest of this guy's stuff, but he's right on this point.
Kev
Jan,
ReplyDeleteIt is kinda nice to see Reformed folks eating their own, so to speak.
Your question... Real Calvinism? In my many years of battling the problem and seeing various brands of Calvinism in a few of my family members, there is no "real" Calvinism. It seems to be the dictum of "follow the latest Calvinist author." Popish? Yes, I agree!!
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
There has been a good deal of discussion in which the Book of James has been the focus. I am linking to an article at IDOTG in which you will read one of the most egregious misuses of James to bolster Lordship’s promise to perform evangelistic appeal.
ReplyDeleteSummary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page
“One of the most comprehensive invitations to salvation in all the epistles comes in James 4:7-10... The invitation in 4:7-10 is directed at those who are not saved...”
Is James 4:7-10 an evangelistic appeal meant for the unsaved?
LM
Well, so much has been said already. I am not reformed. However, when a couple reformed guys get on here and can't believe that Kevl has presented reformed theology, I see their point.
ReplyDeleteKevl,
1. I do not believe you have presented reformed theology well. Part of the problem that even Jan highlighted is that despite their efforts, there is no single reformed view. However, your presentation is off enough that I don't think any would identify. I understand it is your perspective, but I think you are so far off that I had a hard time plowing through this.
2. Your threefold critism is not based in fact but your own subjective observation. I am not sure if it is your goal to win people to your viewpoint or to warn others of your perceptions.
a. calling something unChristlike may or may not be true. Even the NT has harsh words at times. As much as I hate this, it is a purely subjective viewpoint. If you are on their side, they would think your misrepresentations are unChristlike.
b. The YRR label was not made up by YRR people. It was given to them by someone who wrote an article about the young reformed movement. There is no proof that calvinism is the cause of worldliness there. If they are truly "restless", then I would argue it is because they are fighting discipleship within a biblical church. Again, this is just bad logic.
c. You seriously think that point 3 is proof that calvinism is linked to worldliness? As weak as I think your first 2 points were, this is the worst.
Here is your answer:
"Because, the eyes of the follower are turned toward his or her own self in religious exercises. Even though the person is honestly seeking to honor God, they are looking at their own self in a continuous practice."
Such an idea is not limited to some streams of calvinism. Anyone of any theological system can do this. Again, these connections are really weak.
"Various teachings from Calvinists will have the believer look for signs of or tendencies toward goodness in his or her self."
The NT itself calls us to examine ourselves. Prior to the Lord's supper we are to examine ourselves. I don't know a single calvinist that says you are to focus your life on yourself. I know many that do call you to examine your life though.
Tony
Hello Tony, thank you for your comment. I have the following questions which I will address to your numbered points instead of quoting in order to save space.
ReplyDelete1. Do you have some specific example or is your ascertain that I am in error enough to refute what I have written? *Some in this thread have said I'm in error, only to have the person correct me by making the same points I make in the article.
2. With exception of the article on my blog, these are not my "subjective observations" but observations you can make yourself. Likewise though, even the one on my blog - that of not wanting to study what the actual Scriptures say about repentance - can also be tested by yourself. Do you wish to review what Repentance actually means in the Scriptures Tony?
2.a - What I think is unChristlike and what IS unChristlike are two different things. What is demonstratably unChristlike is emulating the world, telling half-truths, and using Ad Hominen attacks instead of addressing the doctrine. These are not subjective, and demonstrate-able.
2.b Without observing how these people interact with their leaders one might surmise that you are correct. However, that is the same as using the Geological Column as proof of Evolution. You should look at how these people interact with their leaders, such as John MacArthur. They are not rejecting the "discipleship" that they are given - they are embracing it, and their leaders are embracing the results. Because true Christianity does not lead to worldliness, but these Calvinist leaders are embracing the results of their "discipleship" that leaves the cause fairly evident. Further research and discussion such as this article is part of confirming this observation - which I believe is confirmed.
2.c Thank you for your critique, it is however without much substance. I will restate for those reading here. If one is "sold out for Christ" and "wholly submitted" but yet are un-willing to spend 5 hours studying the Scriptures there is a serious disconnect between their "submission" and their actions. This is worldly. This double standard, self-righteousness, and pretending is exactly what the world practices.
You noted that the ideas are not limited to Calvinism. You are correct. One might say that addition is not limited to the equation 1+1=2, yet addition is still part of that equation is it not? I'm not discussing all the other false religious systems in the world - I am discussing Calvinism (as it is taught by modern leaders like Piper which was clearly stated in the Article)
The NT tells US to examine ourselves before the Lord's Table - not to determine if we are saved or not, but to determine if we are going to eat that meal in an honorable way. The Corinthians were eating in a dishonorable way. Read the chapter again, and this time instead of reading theology into it, let it tell you what the problem was which was being corrected.
The other instance of some being told to examine themselves where people examining Paul. Paul used their own salvation as a demonstration of his Apostleship - he was not instructing on a normative Christian procedure of ensuring one is in the faith. If you really need proof of this may I suggest you pick up a copy of my book. I spent a chapter on this one subject. I don't have space to reproduce it here.
Thanks for your comment. If you can provide examples of my error, including proof that it is in fact in error that would be most helpful for our discussion.
Thanks,
Kev
All,
ReplyDeleteIt should be pointed out that my article discusses the "Calvinism" of people like Piper. Not the "Calvinism" of John Calvin which was dramatically different.
Having read John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (not yet in whole, but a significant amount of the work) I find that I am in agreement with John Calvin on the topic of faith and assurance. However, I am convinced that he would call men like Piper heretics.
Tony, and others in this thread are absolutely correct there are many "flavors" of Calvinism today. I had not thought there were any who held to John Calvin's views any more, but Jan has pointed us to some videos. Particularly Monty Collier stands out as one who is very much like John Calvin in his doctrine. As much as I am in disagreement with Collier on some subjects - it is absolutely true that my characterization of "Calvinism" in this article would not be accurate to Collier's "Calvinism."
I am discussing the "Calvinism" of men like Piper. I thought that was clear before, but to save us all time and effort I want to re-emphasize the point.
Kev
I am discussing the "Calvinism" of men like Piper. I thought that was clear before, but to save us all time and effort I want to re-emphasize the point.
ReplyDeleteKev-
This is something I took fore granted as I was reading your article. I knew you were talking about the more "modern Calvinism" (I'm not sure what they would prefer to call it, but I trust they know what I mean) of Piper, Sproul, MacArthur, et al.
Among us non Calvinists, it is hard to say there is any such thing as "good Calvinism" per se. But what I want to know is not so much a value judgment of "good" vs. "bad" Calvinism. I want to know what "flavor" of Calvinism most closely adheres to the doctrine laid down by the Reformers (Calvin, Luther, Melancthon...) and whether or not the fact that men of clear Reformed Calvinist bent, who are clearly very much steeped in Calvin and Luther, the Westminster confession, etc. find the teaching of men like Piper, et al problematic even to the point of being heretical is of any value in the discussion.
Calvinists of all stripes can argue with Dispensationalists forever, and vice versa, as the areas of disagreement are clear and evident. But when Reformed/Calvinist men feel the desperate need to come against other Reformed/Calvinist men for not being genuine, I take note of that, particularly when they take it to such a degree as they have. These are very strong words they use. And they are clearly not playing games. They are serious, and they seem to have the documentation to back up their complaints.
I want to hear from the Calvinists about this. My question is an honest question: Which Calvinism is the real Calvinism?
Also, I would like to know what they think about Sproul's statement about "your faith and your faithfulness has redeemed you." Naturally they would understand from our position how that strikes us. Apparently it strikes other Reformed Calvinists the same way. How does it strike the Calvinist contributors here? What do they think of this?
JanH
Kevl, I will continue the points.
ReplyDelete1. This is the underlying problem with your whole article: calvinism creates or at least is fertile ground for worldliness. The first cause is incorrect. You build the argument from that perspective. Because of this, your whole article is flawed. To prove this, I could reproduce your entire article and sub in Fundamentalism or KJVO or Dispensationalism or Baptist or any other notion for Calvinism and not change a word. You would object that non of those things are the first cause for worldliness. I would agree, but that is my point.
2. I have made such observations myself and lament many things within Christianity. Know this though, EVERYONE in the world has worldliness in them. As we see it, we need to repent of it.
"that of not wanting to study what the actual Scriptures say about repentance"
What in the world are you talking about? Are you calling people worldly because they don't agree with your interpretation of repentance? I am trying to figure out what this means.
2a. I hate the subjectivity of it and I agree what one thinks versus what is are not always the same. However, your article is telling halftruths and by your own definition must be unchristlike. You made my point.
2b. What makes up the YRR is much bigger than the tiny circle you are trying to group them all in. This gets back to the first cause. Look, I think the movement is laughable. MacArthur does not approve of what they are. He has been explicit about that. So no, they are NOT all embracing their discipleship. By and large, the restless aspect of the group is that they are NOT willing to submit to discipleship. They are growing smarter.
2c. "If one is "sold out for Christ" and "wholly submitted" but yet are un-willing to spend 5 hours studying the Scriptures there is a serious disconnect between their "submission" and their actions."
Who is unwilling to spend 5 hours studying the Bible? If this is worldliness, then again, I could replace calvinism with any of the above mentions groups and declare them all worldly.
Regarding examination: show me one calvinist who teaching that self examination is for salvation. I want to see that quote. If there is no change in my life after I confess Christ, then there is something seriously wrong with me and I need to change something. The NT speaks of false professions. I am not sure why you are opposed to a person examining himself to see that he is in the faith. Maybe you aren't, but it seems like you are. Even Ryrie argues there will be fruit for the believer.
Overall, I can appreciate your attempts to get to the root of worldliness. However, you have not proven the first cause and have simply added subjective observations. So unless you can prove the first cause, I am content I have shown you your errors. May we both be willing to learn the truth.
Tony
Tony,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your participation, but I will make a suggestion. Please submit more concise bite sized questions and/comments. Six years of blogging has shown me that threads flow better and are much easier for readers to follow when we keep the give and take concise. Cover as many items as you like, but in stages. OK?
Lou
Hi Tony, again I will respond by number so that we can save some space. Please consider Lou's advice. I may not be able to get through all your points right now. If that is the case I will return later.
ReplyDelete1. If I argue that a white Ford tends to rust, and so Ford shouldn't paint their cars white you could make the same argument you are here. White Chevs rust too! So do Toyotas.... it does not change the validity of my argument. Just because other systems lead to error, does not mean that Calvinism does not. Your argument if ultimately flawed.
1 - Part 2. Unlike the other systems you refer to, only Calvinism says that the person's outward performance reveals their Eternity. Therefore, as I have argued in three other posts - only Calvinism falls victim to its own requirements.
If this argument comes up again I will simply ignore it.. it is foolishness.
2 - Did you read the article that you claimed was subjective at my blog? If you had then you would know what I'm talking about. Not MY interpretation, but a verse by verse study of the Hebrew and Greek covering how all the words translated as repentance or repent in the Bible are actually used - not how I or anyone else uses them.
2a you hate subjectivity? What "half truths" does my article say? You might try defining at least one of them....
2b You think the movement is laughable, I think it is tragic. If you looked at the reference material you would find that MacArthur does IN FACT approve what they are and how they behave. He participates with them. You can claim they don't want to submit to discipleship all you want... but I have proof that they are being discipled, and following that discipleship.
2c If you actually read the article you called "subjective" you would know who I am writing about.
You wrote:
Regarding examination: show me one calvinist who teaching that self examination is for salvation."
You may first check the same paragraph I have taken this quote from..... "If there is no change in my life after I confess Christ, then there is something seriously wrong with me and I need to change something. The NT speaks of false professions. I am not sure why you are opposed to a person examining himself to see that he is in the faith."
Are you a Calvinist? There you have your quote. If you want more please check Piper, MacArthur, Washer, Sproul.... any of them on assurance. They all teach the same message from some very specific portions of 1st John, and a few smatterings of verses elsewhere. If you were at all familiar with those you are defending you would likely not have to ask me this question.
You finished with the idea that you are "content you [I] have shown you your errors."
Tony, I say this with all sincerity; you have accused me of error but shown me none. Accusation in and of itself is meaningless. There is an accuser of the Brethren and he will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.
I understand that you disagree with my linking of Calvinism to worldliness, but your only defense is that by your estimation other systems do the same thing.... that doesn't help the cause of modering Calvinism... if your estimations are correct it only means that Calvinism isn't alone in this problem.
Kev
Tony, you asked one question that I did not answer. Frankly because it was answered in the comments above, but I will attempt another go.
ReplyDeleteYou asked I am not sure why you are opposed to a person examining himself to see that he is in the faith.
By what standard does one examine? Where is the test that if I fail I am not saved and if I pass I am saved?
I asked in another comment above. Good works show salvation? What if the person does no good works in the last day they live? The last week? The last month? The last year? The last decade?
What is your biblical authority to give this person assurance or the lack of assurance based on their works?
Why am I apposed to it? Because there is no example in Scripture of getting people to do it. When the Corinthians were worldly and doubting the Resurrection Paul did not lead them through a fruit inspection - he assured them that the Gospel they had believed and been saved through was still true! That they were going to be resurrected because Christ was resurrected.
Likewise in every instance, our assurance is because of the Gospel, because Christ has indeed been resurrected and will return for His Bride. Not in, or because we have been "transformed" into something somewhat less ugly and evil than we were before we were saved.. how less ugly? How less evil?
It is foolishness, that's why I oppose it. It leads to false assurance in religious people, and doubt in people who actually read the Bible literally and have a true conviction for their sin.
Kev
Tony/KD/All:
ReplyDeleteLet's post questions on one topic at a time. Allow Kev to reply, direct a follow up question back to you, and then, once every one has had their say, move to a new question.
Thank for the cooperation.
LM
Thanks Lou!
ReplyDeleteI would really like to read Tony, KD or Dave (preferably all) answer Jan's primary question - which is the "real" Calvinism, and her other questions with regard to the videos she linked us to.
Normally I would be against widening a discussion, but since her links speak to the very validity of the consistent remarks in rebuttal so far, I think it would be helpful.
Kev
KD/Tony/David:
ReplyDeleteIf you've been posting here much you probably know I encourage a two way street for comments. Ask a question, take a question.
Jan posted a short series of comments that speak to some very disconcerting issues with JMac, Piper and Sproul. The criticism comes from other Calvinists. Jan asked two questions, one on which Calvinism is right, but I would each of you to share your impression of the statement by Sproul?
So, what say you, gentlemen?
LM
Kev:
ReplyDeleteInteresting thesis.
Question:
Do you find God's plan of salvation anywhere in TULIP?
Thanks,
Jimmy
Hi Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteBefore I attempt to read into your question I'm going to answer it as it is plainly stated: no, I do not.
Do I see some truth in various portions of what each of those letters describe... yes. Do I see the logic behind them? Yes.
God who cannot lie, does not tempt, has not even the slightest shadow of sin, and has no fellowship with darkness. Because I can demonstrate falsehood in each of the points, as expressed by Calvinists, I cannot say that this is God's plan for Salvation, or History.
Testimony that is even 99.9% true is wholly unreliable. I would not suggest that TULIP is anywhere near 99.9% true.
I have a series called Tripping TULIP. Because of how long this comment thread is, if you want to discuss those points please do so at my blog.
Of course I'll answer briefly, as it relates to this article here - but probably for the best of the conversation any real deep discussion of them should be done over there.
If I haven't answered you clearly, please restate and I'll try to do better. :)
Kev
Lou, Kevl
ReplyDeleteI wanted to share a link here that a friend gave me on face-book.
Dr. Kim Riddlebarger is senior pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California, and co-host of the popular White Horse Inn, a radio-internet talk show.
He wrote the following in response to a message given by MacArthur.
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/
It is an eye opener and shows a fight that is going on between those who claim to be Calvinists. It shows how important good Bible hermeneutics are. This also shows why it is hard to nail down a "true Calvinism" or reason with someone who holds to these views. Especially if their view of Calvinism is entrenched in Reformed/Covenant theology.
I have a hard time taking J Mac (a leaky dispensationalist at best) much less this guy.
Thanks
Jim F.
Jan, there is not anyone who can definitively identify what is calvinism other than the words of Calvin.
ReplyDeleteThere are many things that self proclaimed calvinists hold to in common, but some calvinists would seek to define other calvinists out of the term. There is no simple answer. The various shades of meaning come into play. Sorry that isn't more help, but I am not really concerned about that label. I hope that helps.
Tony
Kev,
ReplyDeleteYou are trying to argue causality by arguing from association. You are only showing that according to you, there is worldliness from people who are calvinists. Therefore, calvinism creates or promotes worldliness. Everything else in my posts have been an extension from this. If we can't understand each on this, there is nothing else that needs to be said.
Tony
Kev, regarding a question about examining yourself, you answered:
ReplyDelete"Are you a Calvinist? There you have your quote."
I am not reformed or a calvinist by anyone's definition. You need to provide a quote please. You are the one making the case. I am seeking further clarity and understanding. Telling me to go do my own research defeats the purpose of you interacting, something you looked forward to doing.
By the way, I have made this point on Lou's site before in other threads, arminians require selfexamination too but for different reasons.
Tony
Lou, now that there has been alot of back and forth, where do you stand on all this?
ReplyDeleteTony
Tony:
ReplyDeletePresently I am "standing" in my office at work, writing from my new 4G phone.
Ok, funny stuff out of the way.
I stand in the same place I have for 20+ years. I reject all 5 points of Calvinism as I understand them.
Furthermore, I also believe this centuries old debate will never be settled, among opposing parties, this side of Heaven.
LM
Hi Tony,
ReplyDeleteWith regard to causality I cite three references that show the uniformity of worldliness across the board of the Calvinism of Piper and similar preachers. I then tried to explain this worldliness by the process of looking at one's self, and merely continuing to become more like one's idea of righteousness instead of actually like Jesus Christ the Righteous.
I do not think the widespread worldliness of modern Calvinists is in dispute - perhaps on an individual basis... but in the LS camp of Calvinism there is very little variance that I am aware of. This is almost subjective, in that I have a limited view.. but it is not subjective in interpretation - just in regard to the fullness of observation.
It is plainly obvious from nature, and Scripture that one goes in the direction one is looking.
Thank you for being more clear - it may be painful for you... but that's what communication over things like Blogger can be like. :)
Kev
Hi Tony,
ReplyDeleteI can provide you a detailed analysis of a sermon by a man I know personally who is a Calvinist Pastor of a Harvest Bible Chapel which comes under the Harvest Bible Chapel organization led by James MacDonald. I actually worked with him on a significant Evangelism project - until I found out he held to Lordship Salvation theology. I wrote a detailed rebuttal of his sermon on assurance based loosely on 1st John called 'But' Theology. I also wrote a rebuttal of John MacArthur's version of the same teaching called Testing the Test.
You will find ample evidence to support my claim at either or both of these links.
The reason why I didn't go look for a quote is two fold. First: Lou would not allow (to the best of my knowledge) linking to the material that I would have to link to. I would not allow it at my own blog for various reasons. Second: these teachings are so prevalent that I simply don't believe you are not well aware of what I'm talking about. You asked for "one Calvinist who teaching that self examination is for salvation." I have given you two.
I am still looking forward to the answers to my question.
Please provide a Biblical reference to an accurate examination that I can use to tell if I am saved or not by self examination.
I also asked: if works show salvation what if the person does not do works on their last day alive, their last week, there last month or their last decade - what does the Bible say about their assurance. Are they saved or are they not. Please provide book, chapter, verse that shows your answer.
I am not meaning to be short, but I have answered many questions now and have received precious little in the way of answers for my questions from any of those who have disagreed with my conclusions.
Thanks!
Kev
Kevin,
ReplyDelete"With regard to causality I cite three references that show the uniformity of worldliness across the board of the Calvinism of Piper and similar preachers."
This is NOT causality but association. This has been my point and you reinforced it. I am not sure how productive this will be at this point. We seem to be at an impasse on the fundamental point of your argument.
Tony
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteIn fairness to you though, I will try to provide some of my reaction and/or answers.
1. I understand what you are getting at. "I do not think the widespread worldliness of modern Calvinists is in dispute..."
Worldliness is found in everyone. As much as I despise so called Christian rock, I can understand a difference between those who want it because of worldly reasons and those who simply have not been discipled and still listen to it. There is no book, chapter, verse, for that issue. Don't misunderstand me, I am directly opposed to it. I believe your argument is selfdefeating as a whole since it can equally be applied to any group/movement.
2. "It is plainly obvious from nature, and Scripture that one goes in the direction one is looking."
Romans 8:14
14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
All Christians are led by the Spirit. No amount of introspection can change that, nor can it change that God is still working on and leading that person.
3. Regarding the request for a quote, I have seen some devoid of context. I won't bother commenting on a line taken here or there. I would want to know what was being argued.
4. "Please provide a Biblical reference to an accurate examination that I can use to tell if I am saved or not by self examination."
I have not argued for this.
5. "...what does the Bible say about their assurance."
I cannot being to know another person's assurance.
I have a question for you to ponder:
If a person believed in Jesus at a Billy Graham crusade, came to your church for a month, and after some gospel oriented sermons for a few weeks told you he wasn't sure he was saved or not, would your first response be to convince him he really was saved or something else? This is just a curiosity on my part and has no bearing on the discussion.
Tony
Tony,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"With regard to causality I cite three references that show the uniformity of worldliness across the board of the Calvinism of Piper and similar preachers."
This is NOT causality but association.
If you only quote half of what I say then of course you will miss the argument for causality.
Do I really need to break this down even further? Are you just intentionally being hard to get along with?
I state uniformity of worldliness across Calvinism, and then I explain how that most likely happens. That is my explanation of cause.
Unless you can show that teaching someone to look at themselves will have them become more righteous then your continual fussing about how detailed my explanation is will be ignored. I have laid out my thesis, claiming it is wrong.. or that it doesn't show cause is not a valid criticism unless you can show that my thesis does not actually explain the cause.
Kev
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteYour thesis summarized: Calvinism incites worldliness.
My rebuttal: that's why the Puritans (an entire historic community of Calvinists) are known to this day for their worldliness.
It really is too bad that so many people have read Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress", seeing that he was a Reformed Baptist (Calvinist). How many have been turned away to "Vanity Fair" by his Calvinism?
Nate
Nathan:
ReplyDeleteInteresting point, but what do you suppose the Puritan young people would think and have to say about today's YRR community of Calvinists at their gatherings such as MacArthur's totally worldly entertainment styles at the Resolved conference?
LM
To All:
ReplyDeleteFollowing Kev's reply to Nate above he will be posting a final summation. Thanks for participating and/or following this discussion.
LM
I believe its time to once more to refer readers to the article by Dr. Peter Masters, The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness. This is his stinging rebuke of the YRR and leadership of men like John MacArthur, John Piper and CJ Mahaney who have lead the YRR toward worldliness and aberrant Charismatic theology.
ReplyDeleteHi Nate,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I'm not sure that incites is the best choice, because that implies instigation and it is our sin nature that is the instigator in us, and the enemy of our souls that is the true instigator of the whole problem. Calvinism fosters worldliness, even while trying to diminish it.
If you ask the average American what they know about the Puritans they would probably tell you two things: They followed a lot of rules, and they killed people they thought were witches.
Sure there is "context" to them killing those women. This idea was planted - but it doesn't change the fact that this is what the Puritans did. Their inner sin nature, and self-righteousness came out in force, and people died because of it.
This being so, they are remembered as being a quiet yet powerful people. These are both flattering and speak well of them.
I am no expert on the Puritans, but what I am aware of (rightly or wrongly) is that they were very about self examination. However calling them a historic group of Calvinists may not be specific enough. They did not follow the Calvinism of John Piper - and not just because Piper wasn't born yet. :)
As I understand - which may be incorrect - their self-examination was to expose their sin to the Light and judge it; something I'll talk about in my closing. They were not looking for confirmation of their Salvation, or to determine if they were saved. They were looking for evil in themselves so they could crucify it.
This practice is much more Biblical. Did they have other similar issues to modern Calvinism - yes... the Salem Witch Trials is all the demonstration I need.
Before I close off, I want to address Tony briefly.
Tony,
I had produced a long response to your last, but the conversation has reached its end. I have just a quick note or two.
You're applying Romans in the reverse that is is written. All who are led are sons, not all who are sons are led. Gal 5:16 amplifies and confirms. These saved people had the choice of walking in the Spirit to godliness, or in the flesh to worldliness.
You did argue for self examination with regard to Salvation. See your comment at 8/17/2011 9:52 AM
We could continue but I don't think it would be helpful. I will discuss your challenge on the subject of causality more than I have already when I close this thread.
Thanks Nate!
Kev
All,
ReplyDeleteLou would like me to wrap this up. So here goes!
There have only been a couple of consistant points used in rebuttal of my argument. I have to admit I am more than a little disappointed that there were not more. It is too bad that Dave decided not to interact in the thread. I had hoped the discussion would develop into topics that are deeper and more meaningful.
The first is of course "misrepresentation." In my article I cited that Google reports 225,000 (approx) returns for the search calvinism+misrepresent. I have had Calvinists (of the Piper falvour) tell me I'm misrepresenting them when I am quoting them word for word, and not even selectively. Once again in this thread we see charges of misrepresentation with no actual correction or clear indication of what I got wrong. In the few instances where what I am accused of being wrong about was even identified the people went on to assert the same as being valid in their own words. This is confusing behavior but it is exactly what I cited as one of my proofs.
The second most popular argument was that if we simply look at the progression toward worldliness that we can write similar articles about very many other systems.
My response to this has been along the lines of lying is still wrong if everyone is doing it. Further only Calvinism (out of it and the suggested alternatives) teaches that worldliness invalidates one's salvation. Since Calvinism either leads to worldliness as I suggest, or does not lead the masses who follow it away from worldliness it is a self-refuting system.
Tony suggests that I have not shown causality because I have not shown exclusivity. If everyone is worldly and everyone is not Calvinists then Calvinism is not the problem.
Everyone has the same evil sin nature that wants to work towards being acceptable, or even just at being acceptable. I demonstrated this from the Bible in the opening of the article. Any system can become an idol and lead people to worldliness.
I am not alone in being hesitant of saying I'm "Free Grace" or even that I'm a "Dispenstationalist" or a "Fundamentalist." Why? Because I don't actually follow those systems.... I don't own them.. .nor do I identify myself by them. I just use the Historial Gramatical Hermeneutic from cover to cover of the Bible. Because I do this I agree with the better Free Grace, Dispensational and Fundamentalist teachings. I do not agree with everyone in these "camps" because I don't follow men. I follow the Bible which points me to Christ.
That being said, I have never in all the years of my life, either prior to being saved or after, heard a Dispensationalist accuse anyone of "misrepresenting" Dispensationalism..... the idea of that happening is actually funny to me.
Are there proud worldly Dispensationalists... yes.. is this the character of the "camp"? No. I don't think even the greatest critics of Dispensationalism could say that it is with a straight face. I know many many more Calvinists, so my observations are not equal - but every Calvinist I know is proud of his theology, and I have yet to meet a Dispensationalist who is so. I have interacted briefly online with some Dispensationalists whom are unpleasant... but I have never met one in person.
I have to submit this and will finish in my next.
Thanks for reading!
Kev
Continuing from where I left off.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that there is some amount worldliness in every system, it is that Calvinism is known for how it's followers behave.
We are all subject to our sin nature to whatever extent we allow it to drive our decisions - but Calvinism is unique in that it forces us to look at our sin nature all the time. What's worse is that while Calvinism claims that God supernaturally changes the behavior of Believers, Calvinism in practice tires people out because they don't feel like God is doing all the work.
Why? because their salvation depends on them being good people, and in very few cases does God actually deliver people from all their normal evils. God uses people in weakness, and draws them out of there old habits of sin. So they wrestle with what is left because if anyone sees that they are still doing this or that, well then.... maybe they aren't really saved.
The causality works like this. I look at myself, instead of looking solely at the Christ, so I actually tend to become more like what I am instead of more like what Christ is. Peter learned that he should never take his eyes off the Christ when he sank in the water. Calvinists ought to take a cue from this. The person standing above the waves of sin ought never look at anything eles but the One who saves.
Do we really need confirmation that He saves all who believe? Is His Word not enough confirmation? If you look at your own stance to make sure you are secure, instead of looking at the one who has been tasked with not loosing you.... well you're putting your faith in yourself or at least in the results of something you're not really sure happened, not in the One who faithfully saves. That is not the definition of saving faith.
Not only do we tend to go in the direction we look. When our eternity is on the line we have a vested interest in seeing what we want to see, and ensuring that others see it too. This is a breading ground for worldliness...
Systems that expose our worldliness to judgment, such as what 1st John really tells us to do with our sin, actually do the opposite.
The only time we look at ourselves is to expose what we are guilty of. To allow it to be judged as evil. To carry our cross, to crucify the old man - which is to walk and die as a guilty man. Not to run around doing works of obedience. It is to show that we do not make void the Law that declares our guilt but that we establish it as so.
We do not look for signs of life in ourselves to give us comfort. We get comfort from the Comforter. We don't look for signs of life in ourselves to get assurance, we get assurance from the faithfulness of the One who saves all who believe. We do not get, or offer righteousness through performance or even BEING anything - we get, and offer the perfect righteousness of Christ by faith alone.
Anything else will lead to a religious system that fosters worldliness - and that's what the Calvinism of Piper and those of likemindedness with him does.
Thank you all for reading and commenting! I hope this has helped, and that God will use it to continue to help.
Kev