Modern evangelicals accuse Reformed Christians of following men.  Ask any modern evangelical and they will tell you that their Christianity is built on nothing but the Bible alone.  It is, however, their ignorance of the history of American evangelicalism that creates this false sense of independence.  It can be easily pointed out that their faith stands on the invisible foundation of America’s 19th century sectarians.  While they do read their Bible, they do not read it alone.  They read through the hidden lens of men like Darby, Scofield, Finney, Wesley and others who have in recent days come up with novel ideas in their interpretation of scriptures, eschatology, soteriology, pneumatology and more.  These views, passed down via oral tradition and modern Christian culture serve as an invisible filter to every Christian who thinks they stand alone.

The Christian who holds to the historic faith recognizes that he stands on the shoulders of giants.  He boasts that God is sovereign over history, and that history has helped to shape the church.  He does not claim that he or his church have arrived at their own interpretation of scripture without the aid of those in the past.  Instead he rejoices that his rich faith is the result of the doctrinal battles fought by men throughout history.  He can identify with men such as Augustine, Luther, John Calvin, Francis Turretin, John Owens, Charles Spurgeon, Johnathan Edwards, the puritans and more…  It is the faith that is aware of its historic context and unstated assumptions that is better equipped to distinguish between truth and error.

Find me a Church or Christian that boasts in her non-denominational status and I will show you a Church and a Christian who is ignorant of her invisible foundation!

The doctrine of Christian Liberty (Inst. 111, 19) forms the appendix to justification, and without it there cannot be the “right knowledge of Christ, or of evangelical truth, or of internal peace of mind.” But when this doctrine is mentioned there are two violent reactions: some, “under the pretext of liberty, cast off all obedience to God, and precipitate themselves into the most unbridled licentiousness; and some despise it, supposing it to be subversive of all moderation, order and moral distinctions” (par. 1). These are the reactions of the worldling and the ascetic. Calvin is equally opposed to these two evils, worldliness and world-flight. This, however, does not make him a middle-of-the-roader in the sense of one who wants his cake while he eats it. Calvin did not straddle issues, but his balance is scriptural, and he goes as far as the Word goes.

In its essence, of course, Christian liberty is spiritual. It consists of freedom from the bondage of the law and restoration to voluntary obedience to the will of God. Since we are free from the law as an instrument unto salvation, we respond as children to the service of God with joy and alacrity. Liberty is enjoyed in the way of faith and it ought to animate us to virtue, but slavish minds, who would use it to fulfill the lusts of the flesh, have no part in it.

Since Paul makes all external things subject to our liberty (Rom. 14:14), there is nothing unclean in itself, provided we use our freedom before God and not before men. God’s good gifts are abused if they are too ardently coveted, too proudly boasted, and too luxuriously lavished. However, unto the pure all things are pure, but all that is not out of faith is sin, and “unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure: but even their mind and conscience
is defiled” (Titus 1: 15) .

The Christian, who is God’s freeman, uses this world in faith, that is, in obedience to the commandments of God unto his glory. He must observe moderation lest he abuse God’s good gifts; he must be patient and submissive when deprived of earthly blessings. He is called to exercise love and forbearance in the use of his liberty, so that his neighbor may be edified. But since the things of this world are not sinful in themselves he may possess them, but must guard
against being possessed in the process. The pursuit of cultural achievement and the attainment of wealth are not evil in themselves; the enjoyment of food, drink and luxury are not to be despised or condemned, but God’s curses fall upon the rich because they are immersed in sensual delights and their hearts are inebriated with present pleasures while perpetually grasping for new ones (Inst. 111, 19, 9 & 111, 6-10). In his meditation upon the future life Calvin says we must learn to despise this present world because it draws us away from our calling. In that sense the things good in themselves become evil to us; hence we must learn to look upon all things in the light of eternity.

Here is the crux of the matter. This is the decisive issue! For Calvin one’s cultural striving is good or bad, depending upon one’s faith. All that is not out of faith is sin. All apostate culture is selfseeking in which man saves himself by his works and exalts his own glory. But the doctrine of justification by faith with its appendix of Christian liberty sets man free to serve God in his cultural calling. Abraham Kuyper, in his Stone Lectures, signalizes this point when he reminds us that it was this liberation of the medieval man from the burden of gaining salvation by works that set free the energy and interest which produced our modern world of science, industry, and invention. For, by Calvin’s emphasis on the proper use of this world, the gaze of the believer was directed to this beautiful cosmos in which God calls us to be his cultural agents, and to have dominion over the earth, to replenish it, and to cultivate the ground.

(The Calvinistic Concept of Culture, Henry Van Til)

Here is an example of the heir (Chuck Smith’s son in law) of Calvary Chapel misquoting the bible in order to support his Arminian doctrine of man’s sovereignty.  Broderson quotes Matthew 11:23 as a proof text that God’s desire for Chorazin and Bethsaida to repent “failed”. Yet he misses the context of Matthew 11:25 that it was purposely hidden from them for God’s good pleasure. A perfect example of proof texting and failing to read the context that follows. Oops!

The entire audio commentary of Calvary Chapel’s “Pastor’s” Perspective.

Listen to the Dividing Line and ministry of Doctor James White: http://www.aomin.org

Late Great Planet Church.

It is certainly folly for God’s people to think that they can live in two separate worlds, one for their religious life and devotional exercises, and the other usurping all other time, energy, money — an area in which the priests of Secularism are calling the numbers. One can not keep on evangelizing the world without interfering with the world’s culture. It devolves upon God’s people, therefore, to contend for such a “condition of society which will give the maximum of opportunity for us to lead wholly Christian lives [italics added] and the maximum of opportunity for others to become Christians”.  To divide life into areas of sacred and secular, letting our devotions take care of the former while becoming secular reformers during the week, is to fail to understand the true end of man.

<snip>

To conclude, religion and culture are inseparable.  Every culture is animated by religion.  A religion that is restricted to the prayer-cell is, in light of the above definition, a monstrosity and historically has proved unfruitful.  True religion covers the whole range of man’s existence. The basic covenantal relationship in which man stands to God comes to expression both in his cultus and his culture. Hence culture is never something adventitious, the color added as in the case of oranges and oleomargarine, to satisfy the eye. Kroner’s suggestion that the story of the fall belongs in a category with that of Prometheus, who stole the divine fire and thus began man’s cultural achievements, for which he was punished, is wrong.  This would make man’s cultural striving a doubtful addition to the divine intention.  This is surely an egregious misinterpretation of the biblical narrative, which presents man as both creature and of co-worker with God to fulfill his creative will from the beginning. The first sin of man consisted of an act of disloyalty in accepting Satan’s interpretation concerning the cosmos and man’s place in it, instead of living by the word of God’s revelation. Kroner is right in holding that man never regains paradise by his own efforts, but he is most certainly wrong in holding that culture as such is to be blamed for man’s tragic fiasco.  In the final analysis Kroner cannot reach an integration of culture and faith because he sees the antithesis between God and Satan as a tension immanent in “creation” from the outset.  This is not only theologically reprehensible, since reconciliation is changed from an ethical transaction centering in the vicarious atonement of Christ on Calvary to an ontological (that which pertains to being) one, thereby shifting the central message of the Gospel to the “incarnation.” but on this basis, no Christian culture is possible, since then all of man’s works are under the judgment of God on the basis of their creatureliness. However in Christ man is restored to God as cultural creature to serve his Maker in the world and as ruler over the world for God’s sake.

After my previous post concerning the “verse by verse” boast of Calvary Chapel I was asked the question, “would you have come to your current state of understanding had you been put on an Island alone with your Bible?”

I was thinking about that statement and it truly reflects the individualistic mindset of Calvary Chapel and the post-modern church.  Honestly, if I was put on an island alone with a bible and no prior knowledge of Christianity I am not quite sure I would come to an understanding of the trinity, the deity of Christ or MANY of the doctrines of the Church… and the reason?!  Because Christ established a Church, not an island!  Not even the Ethiopian eunuch could figure out how to be saved on his own.  “What must I do to be saved?!”  He had the scriptures to read, but Philip needed to be transported to his aid. (Acts 8 )

The Church was established to teach, instruct and to care for the saints.  The Bible is not organized as a textbook with a table of contents for doctrine.  The church was also established to protect and derive biblical doctrine.  A clear example of this is when Peter began teaching the error that gentiles must be circumcised.  Paul refuted Peter to his face and now here you have one apostle against another.  Who was there to decide the truth?  The CHURCH!  The Presbyterian (elder) model of church was in effect.  There are no individual final authorities, popes or islands.  Elders gathered from many churches to form the Council of Jerusalem.  Their task?  To search the scriptures, debate and derive doctrine!  They went back and forth, preached to one another and finally came to a conclusion.  The counsel’s decree, derived from scripture, stood as the authority. (Acts 15)

The believer is not an island, and neither is the Church.  If left to ourselves, any individual or church’s Christianity would be error prone, surface level and divided.  The test of good doctrine is not, “would we have come up with this if left alone.”  We are called to unity and every part of the church is called to be subject to authority.  This was a major point of the reformation.  The believer is under the authority of the local church.  The local church is united to the orthodox historic church and makes up today’s church as a whole.  Today’s church as a whole is tied to the generational church at large.. and the Christ of the scriptures trumphs over all. We see this example in scripture.  Ironically, the so called pope or “Moses model” was for a budding nation, not the new testament church.

Many councils have met since the Council of Jerusalem.  Ironically modern evangelicals presuppose the canon of scripture without recognizing the source.  They would like to imagine that God selected the books to be included in the Bible and hand delivered it to every publishing house that prints them. Truth is, it was a council, the Council of Nicea that did very much like what was done in Acts 15.

The Church throughout History has derived doctrine from the scriptures and has passed down knowledge throughout the generations.  Elders and Pastors were not self appointed, they were appointed by a Church “by the laying on of hands.”  This indicates continuity.  The post-modern Church rejects the generational church, knowledge and scholarship and claims they have done it all and can do it all on their own.  In so doing, modern evangelical’s individualism is the cause of division.  Not only do they lack the biblical model of leadership, but in their individualism they have set their church and their followers on an island.

The Pharisees often prided themselves in having a solid understanding of the scriptures and for teaching them.  They studied the scriptures in  detail and yet Jesus says of them, “you search the scriptures, for in them you think that you have eternal life but these are they that testify of me.” (John 5:39)

Jesus indicates that it is possible to study the scriptures, to comment on the scriptures, to read and to teach the scriptures and yet miss the forest for the trees.  The fact that someone has a process of working through the scriptures in a sermon series: verse by verse, chapter by chapter and book by book does not guarantee that the person is handling the text rightly.  To mutilate a George Orwell, “math doesn’t lie, but liars use math.”  In like manner the Bible doesn’t lie, but liars use the Bible!  Reading the text verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book is not a fool proof way to guarantee the text is taught in context or that the full counsel of God is being proclaimed.  So often I have heard Calvary Chapel pastors read texts verse by verse and use them as platforms to tell stories about unrelated concepts, newspaper prophecy, or as a comedy routine.  Teaching verse by verse does not excuse anyone from the false handling of scriptures.

In the book, “Calvary Distinctives” Chuck Smith makes the mistake of assuming that by going through the bible in this manner he is guaranteeing the proper handling of the text.  To quote him, “Yet, it’s so important to take the people through the Word, line upon line, precept by precept.  When we do, we are delivering to them the whole counsel of God.”  Ironically, he is quoting Isaiah 28:13 and Acts 20:27 out of context.  In the context of “line upon line, precept upon precept” it is presented as a curse so “that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.”   The reference to Paul being “innocent the blood of all men because he did not shun to declare the full counsel of God” comes from the book of Acts (Acts 20:27).  Paul is referencing his prior statement in v20 “how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable” and Ezekial 33:8, “If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.”  These are not proof texts stating that the only legitimate method of teaching the bible is verse by verse, nor does it indicate that by teaching verse by verse you are guaranteed to handle it rightly.

I am amazed, no longer being in Calvary Chapel, learning how much of the Scriptures I have missed out on over the course of seven years.  The mystery passages of Hebrews 6, Hebrews 9, Acts 2, Romans 9, John 6 and the many other passages that made absolutely no sense without the God of the covenant, the doctrines of grace or election now make complete sense and glorify Christ and His work. Old Testament passages no longer require complicated charts to understand, they too speak of Christ.

Calvary Chapel is quite often guilty of reading the recently invented dispensational view of scriptures into texts that are actually speaking of Christ.  In this sense they search the scriptures for in them they think they ‘can interpret the newspapers’ or ‘tell the future’, but these are they that speak of Christ!  This is typical of end-time movements.  Having gone through the scriptures with Chuck Smith on tape and taking notes; I am amazed, looking back, at how many times Old Testament illustrations of Christ’s first coming and ascension are mistaken for pictures of a secret rapture…  Or how Daniel’s prophecy of the first coming are mistaken for the dispensational “third coming.”

Texts are often grossly mutilated.  I have heard more than one Calvary Chapel pastor entertain cultist myths of Angels having sexual relations with men and talks of aliens by Chuck Missler.  I have also heard all of Greg Laurie, Chuck Smith and Jon Courson teach that Col 3:15 tells us how to hear the mystical voice of God “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts” when in fact it is in context teaching the unity of the body of Christ! I can’t count the number of times I have heard this verse of scripture used to teach the modern evangelical equivalent of the Mormon “burning bosom sensation.” In fact I have a Greg Laurie booklet for new believers that explains this bizarre pagan practice to, the soon to be confused, new converts who are never sure why they don’t hear God speak to them as clearly as he seems to speak to everyone else.

I am often humbled by the fact that I remained in Calvary as long as I did.  I honestly thought we were teaching the bible, I honestly thought these were respected views of scripture and I honestly thought we proclaimed “the full counsel of God.”  Instead, we mocked those who took the time to learn the original languages, we mocked the reformation martyrs who brought us out of Rome, we mocked the Puritans who established America, we mocked the Biblical mandate for Pastors to be dedicated to prayer and the study of scripture.  We rejected the sovereign grace of God.  Seminary was called cemetery and we replaced learning with the babbling’s and regurgitation’s of the Pope: the bishop of Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith.  We went back to Rome.