Recently, the very excellent and wise commenter on this and other blogs, Lydiasellerofpurple, directed me to a link where presumably a neo-Cal, or one who has apparently accepted certain reformed premises as “orthodox”, essentially claimed that they could not condemn Adam Lanza because, doctrinally, their sin was equally condemnable as his was.
Translation: Just what I said in my post “Christianity: Cult of death, etc.” If we accept Calvinist theology, WE are are no better than the man who murdered 20 innocent children and 8 innocent adults. Who are we to judge? Because but for the grace go I, right?
This is my response, with some editing changes and some additional thoughts blended in. It was so long, I thought it would make a good post. At any rate, it clarifies and emphasizes my points on this issue:
Thanks for that link, Lydia. Exactly. I already knew that this was what was going through their reformed minds. “How can we condemn this act? Why, just the other day I thought about stealing a paper clip from work…I am as depraved and wicked as he is.”
CJ Mahaney had a saying, it was my personal favorite because it illustrated so perfectly the lunacy and dysfunctional moral logic from which the theology proceeds:
“Mother Theresa has more in common with Adolph Hitler than with Jesus Christ.”
Now, on the some level, he isn’t wrong. There is a huge distinction between Creator and created. But that’s NOT what CJ means. No, this statement has one point, and it is to make a MORAL comparison; to say that Mother Theresa has more in common, in her moral desires and decisions, with Adolph Hitler than with Jesus Christ.
Now, how can anyone who is not insane make this kind of proclamation. Easy, the kind of person who sees morality in BEING. Mother Theresa’s sin lay precisely in the fact that she is NOT God. Thus, her sin is like yours and mind, and her sin is that she exists at all.
What I mean to say is that neo-Cals blur all moral, metaphysical and physical lines, so that man can make no distinction between them whatsoever. The resulting theological slop is thus parsed into neat little piles, with a ton of semantic gymnastics and redefining of terms, of cohesive and metaphysically impossible black and white (what I mean is that the “black and white” delineation is merely a very good illusion). One pile = God, the other = man. God is good. Man is evil. The IS is what links sin and goodness. Anything else about man is irrelevant because his very existence is his depravity and is why he can do no good. Why he is born condemned, and why he must be elect, and afterwards, compelled into sanctification. His entire existence is defined by an external power beyond himself. Sin nature or God, depending on his elect status. And this is due, again, to the fact that he exists at all.
This of course destroys morality completely, which is exactly what Calvinism is designed to do so that “good” and “bad” may be thus declared to be whatever the gnostic ecclesiastical leadership says it is. Once you are categorically convinced that you have no claim to yourself or your mind because you are depraved and wicked merely by being awake, you can be owned by anyone claiming special divine dispensation. And, really, who in the hell are you to argue? The only “good” you an remotely do, since your sin is that you are awake, is to go back to sleep.
This is what this is all about by declaring none of us any better than Adam Lanza. We exist, so did he, and that is why we are evil.
In addition, the idea of “any sin is equal sin” is also designed to destroy the concept of an objective morality that man can know; that is, kill the idea of good and evil. Think about it, if one sin is as equally heinous as any other, then the converse of that should be true, no? If one sin can condemn to hell, even if it’s something like lying about your weight to your friend, then one act of good should be grounds for your utter vindication before the Lord, right? I mean, if we are being consistent, one act of good, even if it is telling your friend that she or he looks particularly attractive that day, should be as equally righteous as Christ’s perfect morality.
So, why the double standard?
Well, there is no double standard, really, because the idea of “one sin is equal to all sins” has nothing to do with convincing us that we need Christ. It is ALL about destroying the idea of morality altogether so that gnostics can CREATE it for us. All sin is equal because in reality, there is NO such thing as sin. You can do NO good because your very existence is what makes you wicked. There isn’t any chance for a double standard because you can NEVER do any good at all, because all you do is a function of your existence, and your existence is the root of your evil. And even salvation cannot change the status of your existence, so guess what? You know all that Calvinist talk about preaching the Gospel to yourself everyday? Staying at the “foot of the Cross”? Well, now you know why. Hard to stop sinning if your definition of sin is “I think, therefore I am…totally depraved” isn’t it?
There is obviously nothing in the faith or the bible to support this abominable lie. If existence itself is sin then that makes the Creator the author of evil. The fact is that man’s existence is GOOD, and has always been GOOD and it is man’s very consciousness, his reason, that allows him to acknowledge good and evil and thus cultivate volition and action in full awareness of the moral code. This means that sin and good are, in fact, existing in degrees. And they must, because the degrees of sin and goodness are the observable plumb lines for progress and regress; to know and understand when we are drawing to and away from God. They allow God to be at the center of what we do, and how we know where we stand relative to morality with regards to our individual context, and to recognize how God is working with us and how we are aware of what our relationship is with Him at any given moment and what we can expect and how we can grow. Once you destroy degrees, you destroy morality at its root.
And that is their goal. Destroy the biblical code of good and evil so that they may capriciously re-write it. Daily. “Whimsically.” Oh yes…THAT is the whimsical gospel. Morality becomes whatever THEY say it is.
This is no recipe for good.
8 thoughts on “Response to Lydiasellerofpurple: The Reformed/Calvinist goal of destroying the moral code of biblical GOOD and EVIL”
“If existence itself is sin then that makes the Creator the author of evil.”
And what does it do to the Cross and Resurrection? It makes them both null and void since it did not really change anything?
The blog post I sent you is not the only one. I am seeing this same theme on Lanze around Reformed circles. it is chilling. Talk about a religion of death. But the clincher is, they think it makes them sound pious and humble.
Lydia, You are exactly right. Excellent points. Yes, since you are stuck with your existence, you are stuck in sin. The cross is of no value at all, and neither is the Savior. The logical conclusions of this doctrine of death are indeed chilling.
I have also said that the doctrine of election doesn’t make the Cross possible it makes it pointless. Perfunctory and redundant.
Great comment and great observation. Thanks!
Testing…testing…come in Argo….
Welcome! So glad you have been reading!
This is scary. What is the point of being a new creature in Christ Jesus if sanctification means being the worst sinner I know? If the longer I am saved the more I see my depravity? If I never progress in sanctification?
It still doesn’t explain CJ and his current leaders having a double standard between themselves and former leaders who were stripped of their ministries. Maybe it’s the Shepherding movement verses Calvinism. Well — CJ explained himself away (as the worst sinner he knows) yet he continues to lead. I guess people don’t realize that he has disqualified himself with his own words. They must not read the Bible.
It goes back to what I said in the post…all evil and all good is a function of existence, period. Whether something is good or something is evil depends entirely on the WHO, not the WHAT. Thus, in effect, the moral law is removed from objectivity to UTTER objectivity, which is really oblivion. That is, once it becomes a function of the WHO, and not the WHAT (meaning the act itself, and the heart behind it…that is, the intent, volition, and meaning…now, I’m not denying that the WHO is able to be completely separated from the WHAT always, because an evil heart IS an evil person…or can be, anyway; but the idea of moral innocence that is required for salvation is exactly the separation of the WHAT from the WHO…that is, if the WHO is morally innocent, as in a child for example, then the WHAT does not condemn him or her…that’s the point) then nothing matters except this “truth”:
Man sins because he is man.
God does good because he is God.
The problem then, becomes the fact that you exist at all. And from this, you follow metaphysical reason down the primrose path to complete moral relativism. And, really, worse than that, because at least relativism believes that there is good and evil, its just relative to the moment or the capricious opinion of some person or other. What this neo
reformed idea does is make evil equal in power and moral worth as good. In other words, good isn’t good, it just IS, and evil isn’t evil it just IS. And so God lacks any power over evil because the fact it exists at all is a testimony to its equality with God in power and strength.
I know this is confusing…I guess what I’m saying is that if morality is a function of the WHO and not the WHAT, then a work of man is no worse and of no less “power” thus, than a work of God. Because, what, without ANY moral plumb line, is the new measure of “power”, “worth”, “meaning”, etc., etc? All meaning is destroyed, and thus, these concepts cease to have any objective value. So God, in creating man, then destroys ALL meaning, including that of Himself. What this “doctrine” says is that God is moot, And if God is moot, then who is left?
Thaaaaaaat’s right. THEY are.
And this really, after all the ambient noise and nonsense and circular logic and equivocating and lying and bullshit is removed is what it boils down to, and worse, is the conscious OBJECTIVE:
Remove man from himself; remove God from Himself. Everything exists to fill the capricious appetite of those who “rule”.
Where on earth do we think this idea originates? Luther? Calvin? Augustine? Plato? Or, would we be pursuing folly to think that it goes back even further…much, much further than even that?
Argo, I think we have found our soundbite. You said that they destroy the concept of morality when they make all sins equal. I have been mulling that over and think you hit on it. That is something that people can relate to and understand as a huge difference when it comes to the Calvinist filter.
They will defend it of course and claim you think you are sinless if you dare utter that not all sin isequal. (Nevermind those lists in Corin, Gal and Rev). But seriously, there are a lot of people who do not mass murder, are there? We are not sinless and that is not the point, now is it? Let us make sure we do not let them get by with it anymore, that false dichotomy of sinless perfection/total depravity.
Lydia, It is difficult to parse the “logic”. It isn’t always clean, neat and clear…sometimes I feel like I’m digging a hole in a giant tub if those little colored plastic balls. But, you are right…eventually we hit on something, and it doesn’t go away and it doesn’t stop being true; and the hole remains and is finally clear to see.
The logical conclusion of removing the lines of degrees means that EVERYTHING that is used to measure morality in any way is destroyed. You are never further or closer to the truth, or to holiness…you have no walk; no path, no place. There is no trying, because trying involves iimproving, which is impossible without degrees. In other words, you can never move from where you are. And the “are” is existence. And THAT, then, becomes the WHY of your sin. The why, becomes “who”.
A pervasively depraved person can never move from utter sin to sinlessness without degrees because the very acceptance of Christ is already tainted because you are depraved. The dichotomy then is SIN and NO SIN. And, again, sin becomes a function of who. Existence is to blame. You can do NO good because you live. The only dichotomy is God and Man. Beyond that, there is no morality.
You are right. This is the hole.
If there are no degrees of sin and good, then there is no line between them. No functional difference at all. This is a metaphysical truth of which there is no refuting.