Caryl Productions with Cult & Occult Expert Caryl Matrisciana - Calvinism: Spiritual Fusion

Calvinism: Spiritual Fusion - Article 3 of 11

We continue our series The Subtle Dangers of Spiritual Fusion with Brenda, a former follower of the teachings of John Calvin for 14 years. In addition to the information in the weekly eblasts click here for additional diagrams, timelines and charts.

Calvinism and Reformed Theology

The renowned reformer, John Calvin, is remembered for his seminal work, "The Institutes of the Christian Religion," and also for systematizing Augustinian theology (discussed later) into what is essentially known today as Calvinism. Calvinism is the shortened expression used to describe the 'five points of Calvinism' which are usually seen in the acrostic TULIP: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. These five points came into existence through the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) where those who opposed parts of John Calvin's theology, the Remonstrants, compiled and presented five points of objection before the Synod. The Synod evaluated these five objections over the course of 18 months, ruling in favor of the Calvinists and prompting the beheading of the Remonstrants' protector; John van Oldenbarnevelt.

While the terms Calvinism and Reformed theology are sometimes used interchangeably, they actually refer to two different aspects of reformed Catholicism. Calvinism is the gospel of Reformation theology. Calvinism (Teaching Tool, pg. 55) describes the way in which a person is saved while Reformed theology (Teaching Tool, pg. 49) describes the overall framework of the Bible interpreted through the lens of TULIP. While Calvinism is often misunderstood and commonly modified by individuals within Christendom, it is meant to be understood and defined in a particular way by the reformed. Reformed theology depends upon TULIP as its gospel. If one holds to Reformed theology, Calvinism is under girding it. Without Calvinism's TULIP, Reformed theology cannot easily be defended.

Quick Overview of Calvinism

Total Depravity (Teaching Tool, pg. 73) - Total depravity claims that man is too dead in sin to consider the things of God or believe the gospel unaided by God's grace. He is said to be so completely dead in sin that He cannot come to faith through his own reasoning. It is thought that spiritual death because of Adam's sin prevents mankind from thinking through the claims of the gospel. Therefore, total depravity is interpreted to mean total inability to believe.

Unconditional Election (Teaching Tool, pg. 82) - Since man is said to be totally unable to believe the gospel, God must intervene by electing some for salvation. Otherwise, no man could be saved. According to His mysterious and unknowable purposes, God purportedly chooses and enables only the elect to be saved while others, not enabled, are left to chose against God and be condemned. Election is unconditional, meaning God's election is not conditioned on faith. He indiscriminately chooses some to be saved according to His sovereign will for undisclosed reasons. Those whom God unconditionally elects are guaranteed to be saved.

Limited Atonement (Teaching Tool, pg. 98) - Since God has unconditionally elected some for salvation, Jesus' death was intended to procure only their salvation. The Calvinist reasons that all for whom Christ died will be saved because the blood of Christ is applied to the elect apart from and before believing faith. Therefore, the five point Calvinist will say the elect are regenerated (born again) before belief.

Irresistible Grace (Teaching Tool, pg. 112) - Irresistible grace does several things to enable the elect's salvation. First it applies the atoning blood of Christ to the elect before hearing the gospel, causing the elect to be born again before belief. It also bestows the gift of faith so the elect, who have been born again before belief, can place gifted faith in the gospel when it is heard. Personal faith from the human heart is considered a human work. Since the elect are born again before belief, the placing of gifted faith in the gospel doesn't bring regeneration. The purpose of gifted faith is to enable a response to the gospel for acquiring the righteousness of Christ for justification. At this point, the elect are said to be totally saved. Salvation is kind of a two step process. Regeneration occurs before belief (at conception or baptism) and separated, perhaps by many years, from justification occurring after belief. The nature of righteousness, received for justification, is said to be Christ's law-keeping righteousness which enables the elect to obey the moral vestiges of the Mosaic Law, which the Reformed claim is still in effect for the church today.

Perseverance of the Saints (Teaching Tool, pg. 123) - While many think perseverance means persevering in lifelong faith and trust in Jesus, the Calvinist eventually understands perseverance to mean persevering in faithful obedience. The elect, upon believing the gospel through gifted faith, receive the law-keeping righteousness of Christ which enables their perseverance in moral law-keeping and service. Obedience proves one's election because only they receive the grace to truly obey. If one can't obey, then salvation is called into question and may easily be judged as false faith. Hence, the Calvinist begins to fear he's not truly elected and therefore not saved if he sins grievously.

Quick Overview of Reformed Theology

While Calvinism explains how a person is saved, Reformed theology explains the overall plan of the Bible.    Reformed theology (RT), which emerged from the 16th century reformation of Catholicism, has undergone refinements since the time of John Calvin, so that in our day we have a sophisticated version of it more properly known as "Covenant theology" (Teaching Tool, pg. 52). Hearing the term "Covenant theology" causes most Christians to say they believe in this system of theology because they know the Bible contains covenants. However, the Reformed mean something very different when they use the term "Covenant theology."

Scripturally speaking, God interacts with mankind through covenants. Covenants are solemn binding agreements that measure the faithfulness of the parties involved. Biblical covenants are ‘cut,’ meaning blood is shed when they are made. Covenants in the bible are often accompanied by several features such as stipulated terms, oaths and promises, witnesses, feast or meals, exchange of identity or possessions, memorial stones or altars, and always the shedding of blood. For instance, a typical wedding covenant includes oaths, witnesses, feasting, name changes, sharing possessions, altars, and rings. Biblically speaking, one could look at the Noahic or Mosaic covenants to see how these various components are incorporated in the making of a true biblical covenant. Covenants of the Bible are easily identified in the Bible by the presence of these characteristics. They are literally present on the pages of scripture and can be located by chapter and verse.

Reformed "Covenant theology" (RCT) is called so because it claims three extra covenants are part of the Bible, though not explicitly (literally) found in scripture with chapter and verse. These three extra covenants are implicitly inferred from the Bible, meaning that certain scant verses are interpreted to carry inferences to these extra covenants. The scriptures teach six major covenants that can be literally and explicitly identified on the pages of scripture. The six major explicit covenants are the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Land, Davidic and New Covenants. The three inferred covenants of RCT are called the Covenant of Redemption (before time began), the Covenant of Works (pre-fall) and the Covenant of Grace (at the fall).

The most important of these three extra covenants is the Covenant of Redemption which is said to be an inter-Trinitarian covenant within the Godhead where God the Father chose the elect, Jesus the Son agreed to die for the elect, and the Holy Spirit agreed to enable the elect for salvation. The Covenant of Works was said to be made with Adam when God promised him life for obedience and death for disobedience. The moral part of the Mosaic Law is considered to be a vestige of this pre-fall covenant today. The Covenant of Grace teaches that Christ became the obedience for the elect. His obedience is divided into His passive obedience on the cross and His active obedience in keeping the Law. Eternal blessings are promised to those who believe that the succession of both the implicit and explicit covenants is God’s grace toward mankind.

Once RCT, with its three additional covenants is understood, it is easy to see that it rests solidly upon Calvinism. Calvinism explains how "the elect" come to Reformed "salvation". This gospel of "unconditional election" then influences how the Bible is reformationally interpreted. RCT reasons that God’s sovereignly elected people have lived throughout all of human history and all comprise the church. RCT reasons the church began with Adam, instead of with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, as described in Acts 2. They say the church (the Adamic Church) has existed throughout the whole of human history and therefore was present in the OT. This elect church was supposedly populated by different people groups throughout the ages; the pre-Israel church, the Jewish church and the Gentile church. In the OT, God sovereignly filled His "church" primarily with the Jews, while in the NT God is sovereignly filling His "church" primarily with the Gentiles. Therefore, it is deduced, the elect OT Jewish "church" acted representatively for this "elect Adamic church" in receiving the promises and Law of God. The Gentile church of the NT supposedly superseded the Jewish "church" and continues in the previous covenants with God made with the Jewish "church." However, the Bible makes a clear distinction between Israel and the church which began with Pentecost. The Bible teaches that the nation of Israel and the Jews have experienced a hardening in part that will last until Jesus' second coming, but will then be restored (Ro 11:23) as a nation and given the inheritance of the kingdom that God promised to Abraham. God entered into all the covenants and promises with the nation of Israel (Ro 9:4) and the church partakes of Israel's blessings, promised to Abraham and his Seed, by entering into Christ through the New Covenant (Gal 3:16), being grafted into Israel (Ro 11:11-12) and being adopted into the family of God (Eph 1:5). The Bible warns the church not to become arrogant against the Jews (Ro 11:18-21). So RCT interprets and understands that it was "the church" who received the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, it was "the church" who received the Mosaic Law and it was "the church" that Jesus offered the kingdom to.

Once "the church" and the promises to Israel have been redefined in this manner, it is a short walk to other errors such as the Jews have lost the Abrahamic promises because the church is said to have replaced Israel (Replacement theology, Teaching Tool, pg. 230). If the "church" received the Mosaic Law, then the church is under law-keeping today (Teaching Tool, pg. 160). RCT proposes that the tribulation happened in 70 A.D. (Preterism, Teaching Tool, pg. 235) rather than in the future as Daniel 9 and Rev 6-19 clearly teach (Teaching Tool, pg. 209). And if the tribulation happened in the past, then the second coming of Christ had to have occurred spiritually and we’re living in the kingdom now (Postmillennialism or Amillennialism, Teaching Tool, pg. 252). RCT believes we've been in this "kingdom age" since at least 325 A. D. with the inception of the Roman Catholic Church, if not before then. Rather than looking for a literal future millennial kingdom (the 1000 year reign of Christ, Teaching Tool, pg. 214) to begin at the literal second coming of Christ (Rev 20), some reformed men strive to make this present world into the promised kingdom of God on earth now.

Many of RCT's doctrines are fueled by an allegorical or spiritualized approach in interpreting scripture (Teaching Tool, pg. 225). Allegorizing the Bible allows alternative definitions and meanings to be assigned to biblical words which not only change definitions behind words, but convey a different message as if from God.   The words have been interpreted according to RCT's implied theological covenants and Calvinism's gospel of unconditional election. Other doctrines of RCT include the practice of infant baptism (Teaching Tool, pg. 178), receiving grace through communion (Teaching Tool, pg. 188), claiming the believer does not have the sin or carnal nature (Teaching Tool, pg. 168), evangelizing for the sake of revealing the elect rather than for inviting all to believe (Teaching Tool, pg. 145), claiming that true faith is gifted to the elect rather than faith originating with the heart of the sinner (Teaching Tool, pg. 135), believing that Christ’s Law keeping life purchased part of the elect's salvation (Teaching Tool, pg. 151), and the denial of the rapture (Pg. 200).

The Character of God

One might ask how such vastly different conclusions can be drawn from reading the scriptures. It can all be traced back to how one understands (interprets) the character of God (Teaching Tool, pg. 25). RCT rests on the gospel of Calvinism. Calvinism in turn rests on the teaching of God's sovereign election of some whom He chooses for salvation. The question to be asked is, "Does God unconditionally elect some for salvation or has God given man the free will to accept the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ?" Another question to be asked is, "Has God provided a sin payment for all of mankind on the cross or only for those He's elected?" The answers to these questions reflect something about the character of the God one believes in. Biblically speaking, God sovereignly determines the gospel that will save mankind, hence, the character of God is reflected in the gospel. Determining the true gospel reflects the true character of God. Is it God's good pleasure to save those who believe? Or is it God's pleasure to save only the elect whom He has chosen?

Once the character of God is explained by the gospel one holds, then it is naturally backed up by theology. A spread sheet of theology is constructed around the gospel one believes in and around the character one ascribes to God. RCT’s God, who sovereignly elects, is said to have entered into a ‘Covenant of Redemption’ where this selective election took place. RCT backs up the Calvinistic gospel which reflects the character of a God who indiscriminately elects. Once this unconditional election is adopted, then one adjusts more theology to say the church is made up of only the elect, which leads to placing the birth of the church with Adam rather than with Pentecost. Once the church is placed in the OT, then it could be occupied by the Jews, who then received the Law, which then justifies claiming the church is under the Law today.

Adjusting doctrine to accommodate the "elect Adamic church" rearranges prophecy as well. If "the church" received the Law, then it rationally follows that "the church" received the Abrahamic promises too. Hence, at Jesus' first coming, He didn't offer the promised Abrahamic kingdom to the Jews, He offered it to "the church." Therefore, those who claim an "elect Adamic church" usually claim we're in the kingdom now. Since God promised the future kingdom to Israel, RCT makes another doctrinal adjustment by claiming "the church" replaced the Jews. Obviously we're not living in the promised paradise-like kingdom literally, so RCT claims we're in a spiritualized kingdom now. This allows for various interpretations of the kingdom, the tribulation, the second coming, the resurrection and so on.

One has to wonder what God would think of all this? RCT undermines His faithfulness to His promises to the Jews, deconstructs His Word to mean something totally different than He intended, and impugns His character. All of these adjustments can be easily traced back from "kingdom now" eschatology (end times views) to RC theology, then back to the gospel of Calvinism and finally to the character of God. Hence, changing the Word is ultimately changing the character of God. One can conversely say that the character of God drives the gospel which defines theology and results in eschatology. The elaborate construct of RCT is a cloak to protect their view that God sovereignly wills to unconditionally elect some for salvation while the rest of mankind has no choice than to decide against God and be condemned.

This dynamic, where the character of God defines the gospel, theology and eschatology, is demonstrated in how tenaciously the RCT cling to their definitions of spiritualized doctrines. It is interesting to consider that when scholars debate over eschatology, they are really debating over the character of God and the definition of the ‘true gospel.’   RCT's doctrinal and end times conclusions are often contrasted against the Bible's theology and eschatology (Dispensational theology, Teaching Tool, pg. 39). Notice how this dynamic is demonstrated in the following quote by Calvinist John Gerstner below;

"What is indisputably, absolutely, and uncompromisingly essential to the Christian religion is its doctrine of salvation... If Dispensationalism has actually departed from the only way of salvation which the Christian religion teaches, then we must say it has departed from Christianity. No matter how many other important truths it proclaims, it cannot be called Christian if it empties Christianity of its essential message. We define a cult as a religion which claims to be Christian while emptying Christianity of that which is essential to it. If Dispensationalism does this, then Dispensationalism is a cult and not a branch of the Christian church. It is as serious as that. It is impossible to exaggerate the gravity of the situation.1"

While many in the church debate about which gospel, which theology and which eschatology is correct, they fail to recognize they are debating over which is the true "God." How one defines the character of God resolves these issues. How one interprets verses in the Bible reflects the character of God one believes in. The true God is reflected in His true character. Jesus said the Father is looking for worshipers who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth (John 4:23). Has God enabled only some for salvation or equipped all men to choose? Has God chosen some and reprobated others? Has the cross of Christ reconciled God to the whole world or only to those God has supposedly elected? Did Jesus pay the sin penalty for all men or only for some? Does God save through obedience to the Law or by faith? Is the nature of faith a special gift from God given only to the elect or is faith a personal choice that each man is responsible to make in order to be saved? Will God keep His promises to the nation of Israel or only to the elect individuals whom He has specifically chosen?

As I asked these questions of myself and delved for answers in comparing these theologies, light was shed on how I had severely misunderstood the character of God. I realized there was another spirit at work redefining His character, adding to His Words, to His gospel, theology and prophecy. It's now apparent how the character of God ultimately determines the answers to interpreting the difficult verses and passages in the Bible that one might be tempted to interpret Calvinistically. Keeping God's character as the lens to reading scripture, rather than the presupposition of election, brings freedom and joy as well as true worship to God. The stumbling over God’s character is not new. The questions Jesus posed to His disciples in Caesarea nearly 2000 years ago are the same ones being asked of us today, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" and “But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:13b, 15b) We must give serious consideration to these questions, since the consequence of their answers brings deception to the world and the Church.

Next Week The Subtle Dangers of Spiritual Fusion will look at John Calvin's early life

References
[1] Source: http://www.scrid.com/doc/11559510/What-is-Dispensationalism, Citing: John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), 150.