New Calvinism. Explaining And Exposing This Latest Ecumenical and Apostate Movement Which Is Taking The Church By Storm

Introduction

I was asked to investigate what reformed theology teach. During my investigations on the subject, it led me to something much bigger than I imagined, opening up a massive "can of worms". I discovered   the newest fad which is taking Christianity by storm.



The last paradigm shift was the “emerging church” which was a call for Christians to return to vintage (Roman Catholic style) Christianity. NOW there is the NEW CALVINISM aka new reformation. What I read disturbs me a lot. Therefore, I feel led to write an article on my findings.

 New Calvinism is on the rise and taking the church by storm, especially amongst young believers (the future of the church).  This new movement is causing much concern for discerning Christians because of its ecumenical, worldly nature and because it embraces “dominion” theology.

At first glance it seemed to come out of the “seeker sensitive” movement because of its methodology of trying to appeal to the carnal nature of mankind. Therefore, I sensed it was vitally important to investigate this whole thing by seeking answers to the general questions I had, such as how everything fits together and how it fits into the ecumenical dominion apostate global scheme of things.

Introductory Information About The Dominionism and Ecumenism Of New Calvinism

For a background to this article (to get things into perspective) please reread my older article entitled:
"Why Dominion and Kingdom Now Theology Leads The Church Down The Same Road To Apostasy As Pursued By Rome" click here to read it

During my investigations I discovered another vital ingredient behind the “dominion” apostasy of the 20th-21st Century church.  My previous articles on the subject didn’t cover it because I was not previously aware of the dominionism (inspired by “a-millennial” theology and later “post-millennial”) behind Calvinism and the subsequent “reformed theology”.

From what I now understand, the New Calvinist movement has links with the New Apostolic Reformation both embracing Dominionism and both hold (generally) to a reformed theological position.

My previous article on “dominionism” showed how its history began within the Catholic church of the dark ages. I showed how Dominion theology was Catholic and those protestant/evangelical denominations/organisations who embrace its teachings are worldly or have been influenced or infiltrated by the Catholic Organisation through ecumenism in the form of disguised Jesuits and Illuminati/freemasons.

It has NOW come to my attention that new reformed theology also embraces the exact same things. This article will now demonstrate the evidence AND will show that new Calvinism is the same as old Calvinism BUT is much more dangerous and leads to a global ecumenically united, dominion apostate religion.

I used to think that Calvinism was harmless because it emphasised great truths like the eternal security of all “born-again” believers and emphasised salvation by grace and not by works and opposition to the paganised Catholic church and therefore would not embrace the ecumenism that this blog preaches against.

I think that most believers would think in this same way about Calvinism without knowing the actual truth and not realising that AT ITS ROOT Calvinism has ACTUALLY some very sinister elements to it.  Actually even most Calvinists do not know its “dark” background.  The “dark” background could all be explained by its extra biblical, allegorical “spiritualised” version of  the church and its “a-millennial” stance.

In fact any teaching, be it a-millennial or post-millennial, which preaches that Jesus will not return until the church reigns for a thousand years first (1000 years could be taken figuratively to mean a LONG period of time or a literal 1000 years) becomes part of the false/dangerous idea of “kingdom now” or “dominionistic” theology which teaches that the Church is responsible for setting up a global kingdom on Earth. This is the biggest concern behind the New Calvinists teaching – more so than the other reformed teachings which also contain unscriptural theology.

By understanding the background (I will try to describe it within this article) you will discover WHY New Calvinism embraces Dominionism and ecumenism?  In fact, could it be
 that this new movement is actually another work of Jesuits or some other Catholic counter-reformation influence, to weaken the position of protestant Christianity and therefore bring them back into the submission to Rome? For example, John Piper (one of the leaders of this movement is heavily involved in the VERY Catholic influenced ecumenical Lausanne Movement.

This article will now seek to bring answers to my various specific questions:

What Is New Calvinism?

Who Are The Players?

What Does It Teach?

Why Is It Dangerous?

Is it Apostasy?

How Does it fit into the Ecumenical, Rushdoony and NAR Dominion scheme of things?

How Is It Ecumenical?

What is The History And Origin Behind The Reformed Theology Of New Calvinism?

How/Why Was CalvinisticTheology developed?

Was it Biblical or Man’s Theory?

As well as answering these questions it will also show us:

How the Calvinistic Approach to Theology is the WRONG approach to studying The Bible Compared To The Correct way

Why reformed theology is Not Biblical Theology

How It Produces A Defamation Of God’s Character

How It Misrepresents The God of The Bible And His Teachings

The Problems and Heresy It Therefore Produces

What Is New Calvinism?

New Calvinism (aka new reformation) is recycled Calvinism (ie reformed theology) but with many extras. It retains its links with older "reformed theology" but also joins forces with the New Apostolic Reformation" (NAR), ecumenism, worldliness and the “Dominion” mandate.  From first appearances it seems to be supportive of the seeker sensitive approach to evangelism and has joined forces with the emerging church.  Although it holds the name “Calvinist” it is rather loosely held by most of those associated with this movement.  Today’s leaders are extremely enthusiastic in reaching out to the younger generation with an attractive style of preaching the message which appeals to the youth of today and gets them motivated into action. Francis Chan is one such person with a dynamic personality who is getting a big following.

There are wide ranging new Calvinists. Not all of them hold to one specific area of Calvinism.  This section will not debate the Calvinist view of election, pre-destination etc. because there is a MUCH bigger area of concern which is mainly why this article is being written. It is in the area of their “DOMINION” teachings which is ultimately ecumenical in practice.

Many New Calvinists lean towards the Dominion teachings of global conquest of the planet. Some take the “spiritual” conquest view that the Church is/should be reigning now spiritually (which ultimately will result in a physical reality) and some take on a much more active participation in the Rushdoony’s more visible physical reign on Earth scheme. Both of these are a-millennial view which effectively means that they do not believe in a literal thousand years but a “figurative” long period of time in which the Church reigns BEFORE Jesus returns to Earth.

Some NC’s join in with the New Apostolic Reformation’s (NAR), global dominion approach (which has major similarities with Rushdoony). They take on the post-millennial position of a literal thousand years which is similar to a-millennial because they both preach that Christ will not return until AFTER the “millennium” is completed.  

Peter Masters of London Metropolitan Tabernacle (Charles Spurgeon’s old church) who is a staunch Calvinist (reformed theologian) is of the opinion that most neo-Calvinists are not dominionists.  I would have to disagree with him because reformed theology (including Spurgeon, Whitfield etc) has always previously stated to be of the a-millennial camp WHICH IS Dominionistic in nature (although they may not use that word) and because many ARE following Rushdoony Dominionism .  Of course Masters would be biased towards the “purity” of his theology so will inevitably defend Calvinism against criticism.

Anyway, even Masters has criticised the New Calvinism movement (ie criticism of the movement – not Calvinism), but for different reasons than because of “dominionism”. You can read what he says here: Worldly Calvinism

He also wrote these words to me (by email):

 “do not treat the new Calvinism as a cohesive movement, for it is not. Although certain prominent names regularly share platforms with each other, they do not surrender their distinctives. As far as I know most ‘new Calvinists’ are opposed to Dominion theology, even if some of them have spoken at their conferences. Certainly most new Calvinists are very strongly opposed to Catholic teaching and ecumenism, even though John Piper speaks at deeply compromised Lausanne. New Calvinism has no adequate separation from worldliness, no Lord’s Day, and a number of other deficiencies, mostly in the areas of Christian worship and conduct. There appears to be a huge gulf between doctrine and conduct.”.

The rest of this article will go on to show that (according to much evidence) Peter Masters is wrong in his assertion that Calvinists are opposed to “dominionism” and opposed to the Catholic church and ecumenism. In reality there is much Catholic influence amongst Calvinists. There always has been!  The reformation was never about pulling away from the Catholic church. It was all about trying to reform the Catholic church back to the Catholic  Augustine’s theology. More on this later.

Emerging Church Connection

I have found that New Calvinism (although may have had some influence before the “emerging church” came on the scene) has joined forces with/through the rise of the emerging church. The whole crux of emerging Christianity was an appeal to return back to vintage Christianity (ie Catholic) and was all about the “experiential” using our 5 senses to experience God. Emerging Christianity was basically trying to get us to return to Babylonic pagan worship (Catholic Gnosticism aka new age). Emerging Christianity has emerged still further.  It appears that some “emergents” wanted to go back to vintage Calvinism or Augustinian Christianity rather than “dark ages” Catholicism.

It has been said that Emerging church theology (basically Catholic) was failing to achieve what it wanted. Why? Maybe because the warning had been declared about its Catholic links. How could they be more successful? I guess they felt that they needed to change their name and disguise it somewhat. I notice that most false Christian groups are doing this like Latter Rain. They have changed their name many times and are now called New Apostolic Reformation. However, they have many networks with many different names. This hides these groups from the public of who they really are. So, New Calvinism is an attempt to win Reformed Christians (because of their name) into the Catholic influenced/infiltrated "emerging church".  So how has Emerging church emerged?

So,  New Calvinism has spread out of the Emerging Church probably as an emerging church tactic to attract a greater number of young believers.  It is very difficult to see how it resembles old Calvinism because it is ALL embracing, ecumenical and very worldly.

It still has links with the emerging church and has as one of its leaders John Piper who is also a major player (being a council member and preacher) within the ecumenical "Lausanne Movement" which is heavily influenced and supported by the Vatican.

Can you see how all the parts of the Dominionists (protestants and Catholics plus) are coming together to become one united whole as the whore of Babylon?

Emerging Church’s New Calvinism

I have found out some information on the above. This new movement has "emerged" as one of 4 roads branching from the emerging church. It seems to be extremely popular (especially amongst the youth) and is led by leaders like Mark Driscoll and John Piper.  Although called new Calvinism it is a very liberal version of Calvinism. It is ecumenical and extremely worldly.  This is what Mark Driscoll  of New Calvinism (former Emerging Church Pastor) has to say.

“It has four lanes.

The First Lane - Emerging Reformers (New Calvinists):

Generally people like myself who are young (35 and under) and who are more or less Reformed.  I am a classical Reformed Christian, I subscribe to the WCF and the Regulative Principles of Worship, while the ER loves Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, ect. they are usually 4 point Calvinists who are uncomfortable with Limited Atonement.  They are also generally more for the Normative Principles of Worship.

I love the Emerging Reformers, we have our disagreements but you will not find a new movement within the Church that loves and promotes Monergism and a generally Reformed Christian Worldview than them.

The Second Lane - Emerging House Church:

The Third Lane - Emerging Evangelical:

This movement has pretty much died out.  It was pretty much a movement to look for new ways of doing "Church".  They were generally evangelical, believed in the basics and were chased and scared out by the extreme and heretical views of the fourth lane below.

The Fourth Lane - Emergent Church (formerly Emerging Left”

For more on what others say about New Calvinism, please click on the links below:

Calvinism On The Move

What Is Calvinism. Comparison of old and new

Who Are The Players

If you asked a group of New Calvinists you might get slightly different lists, but here is one that most might agree see as representing a broad appeal: 

John Piper of Desiring God Ministries

Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Mark Dever of 9Marks Ministries

John MacArthur of Grace Community Church

RC Sproul of Ligonier Ministries

CJ Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries

Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church and Acts 29 Ministries

Ligon Duncan of First Presbyterian Church—Jackson, MI

Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian

Phillip Ryken of Wheaton College and Tenth Presbyterian of Philadelphia

Michael Horton of Westminster Seminary, CA and the White Horse Inn

DA Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Online source)

The above list was obtained from another blog article entitled "New Calvinisms Personality Driven Life". You can see the same list presented there by clicking this shortcut link:  New Calvinist Leaders List


Others:
Francis Chan of Cornerstone and founder of Eternity Bible College

Paul Washer? Not sure if he should belong on this list as a NC (certainly his message is not typical NC, although, it is said that PW preaches Lordship Salvation and is a hyper Calvinist and ministers to the youth)

Note: I think John McArthur has been included on that list because of his associations with John Piper, especially because he participates at John Piper's "Desiring God" conferences.

What Does New CalvinismTeach

The biggest cause for concern is their emphasis on “a-millennialism” (rushdoony) and “post-millennialism” (NAR) because its roots are basically Catholic and therefore ecumenical and will eventually turn into a dominionised united global apostate church – even uniting with ALL religions.

The bottom line is that they are primarily based on Calvin's theology. By understanding that reformed theology comes from out of Calvinism, we can then understand why they follow their present doctrines.

It seems that  everything they do/believe  mostly emanates under the 5 main points of Calvinism = TULIP.  Here is a simplified version, so that you can see that it is a theology based on theory (Augustinian theory) and NOT based on the overwhelming  teachings of the WHOLE Bible. Although it includes much truth and uses scripture passages, it deliberately twists the majority of scripture verses to FIT IN this theology into the Bible, i.e. they superimpose this theology into the Bible rather than determine their theology based upon the Bible direct.

T    stands for Total depravity.  The theory that man CANNOT and will not choose God because of his/her total depravity and incapacity to do so. We are warped  and DEAD in trespasses and sins, i.e.  only God raises the dead, so it is impossible for us to come to God in repentance unless God has chosen us.

U    stands for Unconditional election.  This follows on from Total depravity. It is the theory that God chooses who will be saved BEFORE the world was made and nothing of human will can change that.

L    stands for Limited atonement.  This follows in sequence. The theory that BECAUSE God chose the elect it means that Jesus could only have died for the elect alone because all others will reject His gift of salvation

I    stands for Irresistible grace. The theory that the chosen/elect WILL choose God because of the work HE does alone changing us from within to love Him which is by irresistible grace.

P    stands for Perseverance of the saints.  The theory that the perseverance of the saints UNTIL THE END proves that they are the Elect. They take the verse “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion”  to mean that God works in the elect until the very end, i.e. those who fall away proves that they were not of the elect 

Why Is Calvin’s Teaching Dangerous

From the above description of TULIP it is clear that there is much error in their thinking which is theoretical rather than Biblical. I will go on to ONLY focus on the more serious issues of their heresy (which tends to lead to ecumenism) without getting caught up on the minors.

The problem with Calvinists is that they work enthusiastically and tirelessly trying to prove that Calvin’s teachings are scriptural by applying convenient scripture passages to their preconceived theology without letting the Bible teach them BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. Instead of letting the Bible change their thinking they change the bible to fit in by allegorising or spiritualising the conflicting texts. Bearing in mind the way Calvinists approach the Bible, it will become clearer (later) why they are dangerous to the TRUE church of God as they introduce “replacementism” and “dominionism”.

Through intense research looking into reformed theology, I  have discovered that even the root of replacementism (the church totally replacing Israel and taking on all of Israel’s blessings and promises)  lies at the door of Martin Luther and then John Calvin. Those like Stephen Sizer (of today’s church, who are Calvinists or Reformists) are heavily influenced by reformed theology. These people have been brainwashed into Calvin's systematic theology carrying preconceived ideas into their bible studies. Therefore, it is incredibly difficult for such people to be open to changing their minds because they are so totally convinced in Calvinist theology, so will fight to uphold IT rather than being humble enough to earnestly build their own BIBLICAL theology with an open heart and mind.

Augustinian Influence In Calvinism

I have also been reading up on Calvin's history from many sources, in which Calvin states that his teachings were basically the same as Augustine’s.  In the reformation he tried to show the Catholic leadership that his ideas came straight from Augustine (who was highly awed by them).

So what about Augustine? I read up on Augustine  that  he got his ideas from gnostics like Plato and used them in his biblical theology. It is said that his ideas like election and predestination etc. came from these gnostic beliefs and that Calvin simply reintroduced them into the Catholic church seeking to reform/restore the Catholic church to old truths.

During the Reformation,  the Bible was now available to the common man, Calvin was able to show the old theology in the bible but by superimposing it within the bible rather than being honest enough to develop theology DIRECTLY from the Bible. In fact (as it is told) the Ana-Baptists developed their theology based on the Bible (and not on preconceived Augustine/Calvin theology) which exposed Calvin’s false theology.  Therefore, Calvin and his followers persecuted the Ana-Baptists and put many to death.

Doesn’t this history/origins of Calvinism put into serious doubt the reliability of reformed theology? There is much more to follow which puts it into much greater doubt.

Basic reformed Theology Explained and Exposed

Here is an excellent book which exposes reformed theology as false: (if you have any difficulties opening it, please email me and I will send it to you as a pdf attachment)

Basic Reformed Theology Explained and Exposed

I have meticulously read/evaluated what the author said. I try to be a good Berean checking up what people say and see if it aligns with the whole context of the Bible.

I always thought I was primarily Calvinistic (without knowing the full extent of Calvin's teachings) simply because I could see the overwhelming evidence in scripture of eternal security "once saved always saved". However, that was as far as my understanding of Calvinism  went.

I have always avoided taking any specific line of systematic theology because I DID NOT WANT any specific theology to give me preconceived man's ideas of what the Bible actually teaches. I develop my theology DIRECT from the Bible (without reading books). I was always discouraged reading books because they seemed so empty compared with reading the Bible first hand.

I found using a concordance excellent in helping me to study. My approach was always to read through the Bible slowly digesting everything I read. I used a concordance to help me find other bible passages that spoke on the same topic and comparing them to get things into the right context of meaning. I used the method of asking questions about the passage and then through prayer seeking for the answers, such as who, what, why, where, which, when etc. More on my Biblical approach in the section “Why The  Calvinistic Method Of CollectingTheology Is Wrong Compared To The Biblically Correct Way”

Therefore, from this position of biblical overview I cannot see how Calvinism can be scriptural.

For example, if God is full of love, compassion, mercy, just. "He who did not SPARE His own Son" why would He (out of a nature of love) create humans  for the sole purpose of (effectively)  sending them to an eternal hell? To me that is a defamation of God's character. If some people have no chance of repenting because they are not of the elect, if they are incapable of choosing God because they are DEAD, then EFFECTIVELY God has created souls to be tormented for eternity. How can God be a God of Love and also be Righteous and Just if He did such things?  How can you trust a God like that? No wonder Atheism has taken on in a massive way because "how can you believe in a God like that?" No, I cannot believe in a God like that because that is NOT His nature, according to the Scriptures.

I still believe in eternal security because the SCRIPTURES say so, not because Calvin says so.

Why Is Dominion Teaching Dangerous

The biggest names behind latter day Dominionism  are  Latter Rain (includes all their offshoots over the last 60 years like Restoration, Third Wave, NAR etc.) and Word of Faith groups. (To see the extent in which WoF is involved in "dominionism"   Click Here  which takes you to an excellent dialogue - comments section from an ex WoFer).


However, during the process of putting this article together, I also came across Rushdoony in the process. He was the forerunner of the "reconstructionist" version of Dominionism which also the NAR super apostle Peter Wagner is promoting.  The differences between Rushdoony and NAR are only superficial. Where Rushdoony followers are looking to a Dominionised  Christian world  controlled by “reconstructed”  Mosaic Law, NAR are seeking to “restore” all things, ie restoration movement. Both seek the church to have dominion over all the Earth BEFORE Jesus returns.

Here is a good link which gives reasons to reject Dominionism:

10 reasons to reject Dominionistic Kingdom Now theology

Also

Dominionism is unscriptural (Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world" and many other teachings like "do not set up treasures on Earth" and "set your affections on those things above, not on Earth" and "our citizenship is in heaven") and it DOESN'T work as was proved by the Dominionism of the Catholic church through the Dark Ages. "All have sinned and fallen SHORT of the glory of God". Even as Spirit filled believers we STILL sin and fall short of God's standard and we tend to live "fleshly" lives at times.

This is why Paul encouraged us to "walk in the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh" because it is clear that at times we fail!!! The Catholic Institution exercised Dominionism. Just consider how quickly it turned into the flesh. It became something satanically inspired.

John warned us that the "whole world (ie world system) lay under the control of the evil one" This means that THIS AGE (before Jesus returns) has governments influenced and controlled by demons. This is why we pray for Governments so that the influence of satan will be weakened somewhat. However, our main prayer should be "maranatha" because ONLY then will the kingdoms of this world belong to Christ AND NOT UNTIL THEN!

Jesus NEVER stated that the role of the church was to have dominion. He simply stated that we should preach the gospel and making disciples throughout the Earth.

The whole doctrine of Dominionism is taken from a few isolated and vague verses (out of context). For example in Genesis it is referring to ruling over the animal kingdom and taking care of the planet. Then Jesus said to "make disciples of all nations". It is really making excessively great leaps to suggest Jesus meant ruling the World. Again the context would show it means we should make disciples FROM the nations.

The danger of Rushdoony and NAR is that TOGETHER the ultimate result is exactly the same i.e. an attempt to set up God's kingdom rule throughout the Earth which is contrary to our real purpose. Philippians 2 tells us that our attitude should be the same as Christ "although He was in the form of God did not count equality as SOMETHING TO BE GRASPED but EMPTIED HIMSELF and took on the form of a SERVANT ....." We are told to do the same thing!  HUMILITY and servitude is the bottom line, until Jesus returns!!! Our role is simply (in humility and love) to preach the gospel throughout the World seeking to save PEOPLE (not nations or governments) from their sins

Here is an interesting article showing the roots behind how Latter Rain Dominionism  (now known as NAR) came into being as a DANGEROUS movement:

 Latter Rain NAR Joels Army Dominion

How Does New Calvinism fit into the Ecumenical, Rushdoony and NAR Dominion scheme of things

Firstly, here is a link which is a good description of dominionism:

Dominionism

New Calvinism fits into the Ecumenical, Rushdoony, NAR dominion scheme of things because of who their leaders are, who they associate with and because of their agenda.  For example, John Piper (one of their prime leaders) is on the "council of reference" of the VERY  Vatican influenced  “Lausanne Movement”.

He has ecumenical leanings and has recently had strong associations with the ecumenical "New Apostolic Reformation" inviting Rick Warren  (who is also on the LM council) to speak at his "Desiring God" conference 2010. He also has invited C Peter Wagner (Main “super” apostle of NAR) to speak at meetings.

The fact that those who participate in New Calvinism are linking themselves to NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) leaders, is quite telling. There is overwhelming proof and evidence to prove that NAR are working with the Vatican to bring about their ecumenical mandate of the 1960’s. I have also written a number of articles showing how apostate and ecumenical the NAR are. Therefore, if New Calvinist leaders are working together with the NAR then it means they are also ecumenical.

There are some who say that Rushdoony Dominionism is completely different from NAR’s version.  I have checked out what they are saying and the links they give. However, I have to disagree with them.

From what I have read they have MANY similarities. The differences are only superficial. The deep underlying doctrines are actually from the same ilk of age-old Catholic dominionism, i.e. that Jesus will not return until the Church reigns on Earth. It carries the belief that we are actually now in the "allegorised" Millennium and therefore have the authority to reign.

How Is New Calvinism Ecumenical?

New Calvinism is ecumenical because many of the main leaders are associated with ecumenical groups and promote Catholic ecumenism.

For example John Piper is linked with NAR and emerging church i.e. with leaders like Rick Warren and Peter Wagner and is strongly part of the Catholic influenced ecumenical organisation (founded by Billy Graham) “Lausanne Movement”.

On the Lausanne Movement site you will see much that is ecumenical and linked with Rome. For example:www.lausanne.org/docs/lau1docs/0872.pdf  There is no doubt in my mind from all that I have read that they are heavily steeped in unity with Rome. So any organisation signing an agreement with LM indicates an ecumenical group. New Calvinists are linked to many such ecumenical organisations!

A New Calvinist “kid on the block” Francis Chan who is the founder of “Eternity Bible College” is training new leaders. But,  into what?

Francis is heavily steeped into emerging church’s new age (gnostic) “contemplative spirituality” methods. He was trained at John McArthur’s, Masters College and so brings into his own college hyper Calvinistic theology and has also appointed mostly  Masters College graduates. Note: Francis is part of John Maxwell’s “Catalyst” organisation.

John Maxwell graduated at the ecumenically compromised Fullers Seminary which is a College geared towards raising the major church leaders of recent times including names graduated or on the faculty like Peter Wagner, John Piper, Rick Warren, Richard Foster, Rob Bell. Most of the graduates became “emerging church” leaders. John Maxwell’s purpose for “Catalyst” is to raise up vibrant Christian preachers (under the age of 40) who will be the leaders of the new generation. It is clear that John Maxwell is passing on his training at Fullers onto the new generation. As John Maxwell is ecumenical it will mean that Catalyst must also be ecumenical.  So you can see how Francis (one of these new vibrant preachers) has been influenced.

I could labour this point but I think this information is sufficient to make the point. I have many other articles on my blog which shows how some of these New Calvinist leaders are ecumenically linked.

How New Calvinism’s Theological Approach Will Inevitably Lead To Ecumenism

I had (many years ago) spent some time reading up on some of the teachings of Calvinism, especially as presented from Romans 8.  If we read Romans 8 in isolation from the rest of the Bible it would be easy to conclude that Calvinists are correct. However, we need to compare the whole Bible with Romans 8 to get the correct context of that chapter.  If we take Romans 8 in isolation we would come to the conclusion of "fatalism". I mean, if man does not have freewill and God DOES EVERYTHING and "all things work out together for the good" for the elect, then it stands to reason that Toronto Blessing. Lakeland, Pensacola  etc.  MUST be of God and ecumenism is okay because God is Sovereign!  In the Calvinists thinking, nothing happens without God planning it or because He permits it.  Bear in mind that the background of reformed theology comes from the Catholic Augustine and much of RT comes from vasts amount of older Catholic teaching. Therefore, this fatalistic thinking WILL lead to a re-uniting with the Catholic Church and accepting all sorts of error.

If conflicting scriptures show areas of Calvinism to be wrong, they merely "spiritualise" these verses. Therefore, Dominionism and reconstructionism is inevitable because Calvin teaches "Covenant" theology i.e. the new covenant is totally fulfilled by the church and that it will be glorious (numerically and spiritually) before Jesus returns - there will be NO rapture and no literal 7 year Great Tribulation. If that was true then inevitably it would need an amalgamating together of all forms of Christianity and maybe including all religions under a “Christ”.

Anyway, based on the above study, I can now see how even the "pure in heart" true disciples can still preach reformed theology because they simply HAVE to defend their theological position which they sincerely believe to be right.

Why Is it Apostate

Before I state why New Calvinism is apostate, I will just give some important reflections:

I have now discovered that original Calvinism was actually seeking to reform the Catholic church and NOT set up a separation from it. Therefore, actually Calvinism is still very Catholic in its outlook. I had always been taught that the Reformation brought Christianity out of the dark ages and was the starting point of true Christian revival. I now find that this was not strictly the case. Yes, the Bible became available to the common man around this time, but very few seemed to trust themselves to study it directly, but had people like Calvin and Arminius (who is said to have been a Jesuit seeking to bring about a counter-reformation by surreptitiously re-introducing a works based salvation) to formulate their doctrine for them.

Maybe because of the oppressive/domineering tactics of Rome (throughout the previous centuries) the common person felt incapable of  studying the Bible for themselves. Bear in mind that they were taught that only the “enlightened” could understand the “hidden (ie gnostic) truths in the Bible. Maybe this thinking was still very rampant. I just wonder how many people actually really came out of the bondage of the Roman church?

It seems that we are all trapped into so much preconceived systematic theologies which influence the way we study/understand biblical doctrine. This seems to be a human trait "First impressions last longer" and very difficult to shake off. Maybe that is why it took such a long time for REAL revival to take place.

My Reasoning

God has gradually awakened the church out of the dark ages and exposed error by providing the Bible to us all. Because Romany so entrenched everything it became extremely difficult to escape from the affects. Although Luther, Calvin, Arminias etc. were still confessed Catholics, God used them as a starting point to expose SOME serious errors. In time God brought newer revelation through those awakened by God, to restore old truths long ignored by Rome. Wesley (although still influenced by old Catholic ideas including a "works" theology of Arminias) was shown further revelations.

If the above were not true, it would make me ask the question "when did God bring back REAL restoration of true biblical Christianity to the church? Has it ever been properly restored?"  I would also ask if the apostate Christianity in the 21st Century is actually any greater than the apostasy of the dark ages and is it any different/worse than what it was in Calvin's time, Wesleys time or at any other time since the Dark ages?

If apostate Christianity in the 20th and 21st centuries is not as bad (at present) as it was during the dark ages, then Paul and John would surely not have been talking about our time. What they were discussing was a time period worse than at any other time in history. Therefore, if they were not referring to the Dark ages, then they must have been referring to something far worse than the Dark ages for our day. Clearly that has not yet happened, has it?

Having said all these things, I believe that what we are now seeing with Purpose Driven (PD), Seeker Sensitive (SS), Emerging Church, NEW CALVINISM, Dominionism etc is a gradual coming together of all branches of  evangelicalism, charismania, protestantism and Catholics (and all other faiths) into an ecumenical powerful force known as the whore called Babylon the Great, which will become fully grown by the time of the Great Tribulation and the antichrist and WILL become worse than the Dark Ages.  We are FAST approaching that situation NOW.

Here is an excerpt taken from  Jacob Prasch Report

“The pre-Nicean Church Fathers (for all of their faults) maintained the contention the Apostolic tradition was pre-millennial. the spiritualization of the Millennial Reign of Christ is the invention of Augustine of Hippo and his ilk (who copied the influences of the Alexandrian Gnostics in his hermeneutics) when they needed to Hellenize the church away from its biblical Judaic root (Romans 11:18 ) in order to accommodate Constantine’s making it a state religion and state church which of course laid the foundation for Roman Catholicism and the Roman papacy. Like most people deceived into the errors of Calvinism, they are simply too ignorant to realize it.

Jesus’ kingdom “was not of this world”‘ and “the meek shall inherit the earth” needed to be redefined once Christendom became the religion of the state. Now, in their thinking, they inherited it. Instead of restoring the church to its biblical heritage, Calvin and his followers simply replaced the papal abomination with a Reformed one – complete with infant baptism, burning at the stake those who disagreed with them, Erastianism, a state church, and a rejection of the Millennium. Calvin even followed the Latin Vulgate and appealed to the same Augustine as Rome. Anyone who thinks Satan is bound needs their head examined.”

Why The  Calvinistic Method Of CollectingTheology Is Wrong Compared To The Biblically Correct Way

Calvinists Way

Calvinists build up a systematic approach to theology. They use the gnostic method of interpreting Bible passages/verses. They use hermeneutics. Hermes was the gnostic’s god of reason, hermeneutics is basically a method of interpreting hidden meaning of a text. Allegorising/spiritualising a text is basically the same as the gnostics method of revealing hidden truth. Its origins are pagan! Therefore, Reformists use pagan methods to find hidden truth in the Bible. This is unscriptural because the bible tells us that God REVEALS (does not hide) truth clearly to his people, but He only hides truth from the ungodly. For example: Matthew 11:25:

“You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants”.

Deut 29:29:

“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us”

The idea of hidden meanings began in the garden of Eden and is fully occultic in origin. God states that the hidden “secret” things belong to Him, i.e if hidden it cannot be correctly understood by gnosticism.

Many say they use  (their own idea of) a systematic theology but actually start from a preconceived position by already having been conditioned to think/study in a certain way by their mentors. The expression "first impressions are long lasting" comes to mind.  Therefore, they may take a position for example "the church has replaced Israel" and have a systematic study of superimposing this theology, to prove this. They will therefore, be blinded to whole sections of scripture that disprove their theology because they are already convinced what they believe and are closed minded. They will either avoid conflicting passages or "spiritualise" or "allegorise" it away.

Example Of  Error

For example,  Calvinism teach that we do not have freewill. But what about  "it is not God's Will that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance".  If we do not have free will and cannot choose God (unless He chooses us) then everyone would be saved because it is not His Will that any should perish. However, we know that the Bible teaches that many are on the wide road of destruction and many will not go to Heaven. Therefore, something does not add up. We know that the Bible is inerrant, but systematic theology is fallible. Therefore Calvin must be wrong regarding free will or He is defaming the character of God by teaching that God lies.

Conclusion re Election

The scriptures are clear (to me) that those God saves are eternally kept by Him, so I cannot agree with Arminianism either. The conclusion SURELY must be that God HAS given us free will to choose or reject Him, but if we choose Him, He then enables us to receive Him and then empowers us to be kept by Him eternally. When the bible discusses predestination and election I understand it to mean that God knew in advance who would receive or reject Him. He knew from the very beginning of time! Therefore, effectively the elect are predestined, chosen because God sees the end from the beginning.

What we need is leaders who are humble enough to be teachable and willing to modify their theological position (by opening their hearts, minds, eyes and ears) whenever any passages of scripture disprove their present position

A BIBLICAL Approach

"I use a systematic approach by studying the WHOLE Bible to understand the whole counsel and eternal plan of God with all its micro and macro parts BEFORE I formulate my theology.  First I formulate FROM SCRIPTURE the essential starting points of my position

For example, that  the Bible is the inspired Word of God, effectively written by God therefore  is fully true and can be trusted.  God  exists and consists  in 3 persons as a Godhead, that He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (all of these are clearly taught in Scripture).  That man is a sinner who needs to be saved and Jesus died to save us from our sins. Then, what the Bible tells us about God’s Character, eg He is Holy, Perfect, Righteous and Just and  is LOVE. He is faithful and His plans and purposes are irrevocable (of course these are just a few examples of many certainties).

These certainties are the foundation for interpreting all other scripture. We must always bear these things in mind.  Regarding the various theologies like Calvinism , Arminianism etc., they go beyond these things and  assume other things to be true (gnostic philosophies) BEFOREHAND and then go about proving it from scripture.

The right approach should be to formulate theology from the starting position of the Biblical certainties and then continuously modify and re-evaluate the overall theological position as we go along, whenever we are proved right or wrong by scripture. My overall position had already been determined by many years of studying the Bible, so I systematically examine, re-evaluate and modify this position in the light of newer scriptural revelation. For example, I constantly readjust my eschatological position and thereby am able to learn SO MUCH MORE regarding the end times

When I use the term macro I mean the external general outworkings and by micro I mean its individual specific internal working and how it can be applied to us specifically. As an example, macro could refer to "the eternal redemptive plan of God" including "once saved always saved" whereas micro could refer to "all things work together for our good" or  "we are being changed from one degree of glory to another".

I believe the value of my approach is that I am open enough to remain teachable by the Holy Spirit and humble enough to adjust my theology. My approach enables me to examine EVERY word in the Bible and NOT ignore anything".

I personally do NOT rigidly FOREVER hold on to a dogmatic view on any specific areas of theology. I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I am simply a Bible believer

Why Is Reformed Theology  Not  Biblical Theology

Here is some information regarding the origins of reformed theology and why it is Catholic in essence.

truth of augustine and his influence

more on the gnosticism of augustine

I have some further information on the subject and am reading through an excellent pdf book    Basic Reformed Theology Explained and Exposed     which someone gave to me. This book exposes reformed theology as unbiblical and contrived. It is a real "eye opener" and helps us to understand that this theology (which is the main cause of the great apostasy in our churches) is possibly the greatest smoke screen method used by the RC in their counter- reformation activities. Let us consider that the RC's false religion was being exposed by the Reformation and specifically by the Bible (now available to the common man). They cannot refute what the Bible says but they could build up a false theology based on false interpretations to weaken the movement and keep it still within Catholic constraints (to a certain extent). The fact that Calvin incorporated Augustine's catholic systematic theology into his own theology should be a clue.

Remember,  the Calvinists were only just learning about the LOST truths as found in the Bible. Therefore, Calvinism still carries much of old Catholic ideas. Hyper Calvinism is as much “works” theology as is Arminianism. Although Calvinism carries a lot of truth about God’s sovereign GRACE it also carries much false teaching. This false teaching has been corrected over the last 400 years as more and more of the truths in scripture have been revealed to us all by those who recognised the false teachings of Catholic inspired Calvin, like Wesley and Darby.

Defamation Of God’s Character

The Bible teaches us that God is full of Love, Compassion, Mercy, He is Just and Righteous in all His ways. Calvinism’s reformed theology defames God’s character by (effectively) teaching that God creates some humans for the sole purpose of sending them to an eternal torment of hell. This actually teaches something about God which is NOT true!

The scriptures teach that "He who did not SPARE His own Son". Why would He (out of a nature of love) create humans for the sole purpose of (effectively) sending them to an eternal hell? That would be the case, if (as they teach) some have no chance of repenting because they are not of the elect.  If they are incapable of choosing God because they are DEAD, then EFFECTIVELY God has created souls to be tormented for eternity. How can God be a God of Love and also be Righteous and Just if He did such things?  How can you trust a God like that? No wonder Atheism has taken on in a massive way because "how can you believe in a God like that?" No, I cannot believe in a God like that because that is NOT His nature.

Re: Election

Regarding election, I believe that means that God knows the end from the beginning, so He knows in advance ALL those who will choose Him. They are therefore all (pre) destined to become children of God and therefore effectively are the elect. In the same way that God foreknew "before the foundation of the Earth" of His redemption plan in Jesus. "the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the Earth", i.e. He knew the end from the very beginning

History and Information Behind Dominionism Within Reformed Theology

The Reformation Beginnings

The Reformation started as a "protest" against the "indulgencies" within the Catholic Organisation. The indulgencies were "payments" to absolve sins. Rome became very rich because of these indulgencies. Basically they were teaching that you could pay to be absolved for doing specific sins, basically you can sin as much as you like as long as you pay for it. Luther was the first to appeal against this around 1515 (16th century). He did not appeal against most of the other false pagan teaching and practices - only this idea of payment and hence "works" salvation. Calvin (soon after Luther) took the teaching of "grace" further and brought in Augustine’s theology of election. Calvin also introduced the unbiblical doctrines of TULIP.

Anyway, remember that the Bible was not available to the common man until the 16th Century. The Bible was (up until then) monopolised by the Catholic clergy. They sought to control the people by preaching a Dominionistic, controlling, works theology which had been influenced by the gnostics (now known as new age) from Babylon origins.

Most of the common people (laity) from the 16th Century onwards trusted the protestant bible teachers for their systematic theology of the Bible. Calvin was one such person that the people trusted. However, he actually stated that his teachings came from Augustine as if it was  Augustine writing through him. So this means the teachings of Calvin were still very much Catholic in origin. Augustine was a gnostic before he became a Catholic and brought gnosticism into the church but with "christian" names. Basically Babylon religion taking over the Catholic church.

How can we trust Calvin if he taught from a gnostic Catholic?

The Progress Of The Reformation

Anyway, as the laity were still for centuries later (in most part) trusting the leaders for their theology (which included the “dominion”  teaching of “a-millennialism”), rather than studying the Bible direct for their own theology, it took a long time for the old truths of the Bible to be restored to the church. The Anabaptists were such a group who DID read the Bible for themselves and were put to death by the Calvinists because they disagreed with Calvinism.

JN Darby was just one man (amongst others) who opened up the long lost truths that the early church knew about and practiced, such as the rapture and “pre-millennial” return of Jesus. The rapture is a CLEAR truth within the scriptures for those who read it.

Calvin re-introduced Augustine’s gnostic ideas of Covenant theology and election. The reformed church became brainwashed into this theology. They were so brainwashed that it was extremely difficult to notice what the Bible ACTUALLY taught.

The Calvinists George Whitfield (born 1714) and Spurgeon (19th Century) came on the scene much later. Therefore, for both of them Calvinism and reformed theology had developed a long way by their time. Wesley was around at exactly the same time as Whitfield.

Hyper Calvinism is the extreme teaching of Calvin, i.e. the strict observance of the 5 points included in TULIP and everything else that emanates from his teaching. All Reformists are actually 5 pointers but they don't know it. They may claim to be anything from 1 to 5 pointers but are actually ignorant because it is impossible to hold onto even one point without eventually succumbing to all 5. On the other hand, those who choose to reject any point of TULIP MUST reject all the points because they are intricately intertwined. If you reject one point, all the other 4 points come tumbling down.

Dominionism In The Reformation?

I haven't found any article that specifically stated Spurgeon or Whitfield rejected Dominionism (if you can find it please show me).  In reality Dominionism (it appears) was not a doctrine specifically taught until recent times. It may well have been implied and practiced but not specifically taught (at least, not like it is today). In fact, Whitfield illustrated his “dominion” viewpoint in practice, through his pro slavery activities. Please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Whitefield which includes a section entitled Advocacy of slavery in which it says:

"In the early 18th century, slavery was outlawed in Georgia. In 1749, George Whitefield campaigned for its legalisation, claiming that the territory would never be prosperous unless farms were able to use slave labour".  Why would he campaign for slavery unless he had a dominion theology?

Gnosticism (which Calvin brought into reformed theology) carried the theory that the material world was not important, therefore there COULD NOT BE a later Millennial reign of Christ ON EARTH. They theorised that the only thing which mattered was the spiritual, therefore any reference to the physical (in the Bible) must be an allegory with a "spiritual" meaning - not literal. Therefore, it was easy to "PROVE" their theories correct (within the Bible) because all they needed to do was "spiritualise" conflicting verses.

Therefore, the theory/teaching of:

a-millennialism developed into the belief that Jesus NOW reigns on Earth through the church. This would mean that their idea of dominionism is a spiritual version i.e. that the church has all authority on Earth NOW. This inevitably would later give rise to implications that the church needs to take control NOW.

A-millennialism and Post-Millennialism

As far as I can tell, post-millennialism developed much later AFTER the Reformation, which is a belief that the church has responsibility NOW to set up God's kingdom and work tirelessly to prepare the church as a glorious "dominionistic" bride (reigning through a thousand years - or long time) who would usher in the return of Jesus.

The a-millennial view was rampant throughout the Dark ages and at the beginning of the Reformation. Augustine, the Catholic church and Calvinism (reformed theology) rejected the pre-millennial view as it didn't fit in with their "spiritualised" ideas or their preconceived theories of election, predestination, the Sovereignty of God, Kingdom NOW ideas. The Catholic Church therefore developed their thinking into a global conquest. This is probably why the Catholic church went out on a mission to take dominion over the world.  Note: both a-millennialism and post-millennialism are both dominionistic in different ways, but actually lead to the same result of holding onto a position of Dominion authority, whether it be a "spiritualised" version or a "literal" physical version.

Regarding Whitfield, Spurgeon etc., they were very ardent strict teachers of Calvinistic reformed theology, which would mean they probably followed the a-millennial position or possibly the post-millennial one.

Remember these men were preconditioned to accept the ROMAN infected teachings of Augustine re gnosticism and election etc. Although these "men of God" may have had sincere an open hearts to God, their bible studies could STILL have been infected by those preconceived, preconditioned teachings they received from the Calvinist or Arminian camp. The Wesleys were in the Arminian camp but Whitfield and Spurgeon were DEFINITELY within the reformed camp.

Actually, from what I can tell, eschatology was not a big area within Whitfield and Spurgeons teaching because their focus was in the "now". I think if they were post-millennial they would have taught on eschatology because of the future/present literal implications of dominionism. It doesn't seem that they focussed on dominionism, therefore I assume them to have taken on John Calvin's a-millennial views.