The Qur’an: Another Gospel

John C. Vaughn

Posted by The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International

The Christian doctrines of inspiration and preservation explain the reverence that Bible believers have for the Word of God, but there are also Islamic doctrines of inspiration and preservation that explain the Muslims’ loyalty to the Qur’an. Some unbelievers are quick to argue that the “holy books” of various religions have only subjective value to the adherents of those religions, or even that they are alike. We even hear the claim that the Qur’an is the “Bible” of Islam. The Muslims consider it to be the revealed “Word of Allah” preserved without error in perfect Arabic, but it is so different from the Bible that the only thing they really have in common is that they are both books.
A recent news article reflects the widespread notion that the two are similar.

Like freewheeling fundamentalists of every religious stripe, any Muslim with an agenda now feels free to cite the Qur’an in his support. Osama bin Laden is the most dangerous and obvious example. … It is precisely here that the Bible and the Qur’an find their real kinship. As divine revelation, each book says much more than what a literal reading can possibly capture. To say that God is one, as both the Qur’an and the Bible insist, is also to say that God’s wisdom is unfathomable. As the Prophet himself insisted, God reveals himself through signs whose meanings need to be deciphered. Here it would seem, lie the promising seeds of religious reconciliation. Humility, not bravado, is the universal posture of anyone who dares to plumb the mind of God and seek to do His will.^[1]

This position not only is politically correct but reflects the view of the “Muslim as peacemaker” so popular in the media today. Free thinkers welcome the “search for reconciliation” between men of diametrically opposed religions so long as no one brings up the tacky subject of reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ alone. The truth is that the Bible is the direct revelation of the One True God; the Qur’an is the fabrication of a deluded lost man. The story of the Qur’an’s so-called inspiration and preservation is tragic fantasy at best and a Satanic deception at worst. In fact, the so-called “Satanic Verses” make this point precisely.^[2]

“The orthodox believe that the original text exists from all eternity, or at least was the earliest creation and is inscribed in the highest heaven upon the ‘well guarded tablet.’”^[3] On rare occasions Mohammed said he was actually allowed to see this huge “table” as it was lowered to earth for his inspection.^[4] Mohammed, it is claimed, was “divinely inspired” through mechanical dictation^[5] from Gabriel during and immediately after his many epileptic seizures or during dreams, or even as he was just thinking about them later. As he variously spoke authoritatively or muttered almost incoherently, scribes would try to capture the prophet’s words on anything handy including “pieces of papyrus, flat stones, palm leaves, shoulder blades and ribs of animals, pieces of leather, wooden boards, and the hearts of men.”^[6]

The organizational structure of the Qur’an is as confusing as its content. Arranged in 114 “surahs” according to length, with the longest surahs at the beginning and the shortest at the end, it requires extreme diligence just to read it.^[7] Many western scholars who have studied it as literature or for doctrinal analysis comment on the great difficulty they had in reading it. This is explained by the Islamic claim that the perfect Arabic of the Qur’an cannot be translated.^[8] But, structure and language alone are not the only problems with this book. It makes claims for itself that are easily shown to be false or inconsistent with its own view of God.^[9]

The Qur’an is not a revelation of God’s Person, nor does it claim to be. It is rather the recording of a system of law whereby believers hope to earn paradise. There is no security in this hope since the law is seen as difficult and strict. Abu Bakr, the first Caliph of Islam and fatherin- law of Mohammed, said, “If I should have one foot in paradise, I have no assurance that Allah would let me in.”^[10] The Muslim does not know much about Allah, except that Allah makes severe demands on him about prayers, cleanliness, pilgrimage, and jihad (holy war). Attorney General John Ashcroft summed it up well when he reportedly said, “In Christianity, God sends His Son to die for you; in Islam, God asks you to send your son to die for Him.”^[11]

The preservation of the Qur’an is as incredible as its inspiration. Robert Morey provides a concise summary of the documented examples of problems of preservation, quoting Muslim scholars who admit that “the bark crumbled and the stones were lost,” that camels and goats actually ate some of the leaves on which the prophet’s revelations were written, that reciters who were the only persons capable of remembering certain surahs were killed in battle before their portions could be written down, and that whole sections (some reports say up to one-fourth of the text)^[12] were deleted.^[13]

The collecting of Mohammed’s writings into a “canon” posed additional problems; with so many conflicting and embarrassing variations in circulation and with the loss of the reciters in battle, Omar ordered Caliph Abu-Bakr to appoint one “Zied” to collect the various artifacts on which the revelation was recorded and to compile a single copy. Later, in the time of Caliph Othman, with so many variant readings in circulation, Zied’s copy, which had been committed to Hafza, the daughter of Omar, was called (seriously) the “authorized version” and was sent to the principal cities with orders that all other copies were to be burned. Thus began the claim that the originally inspired Qur’an as revealed to Mohammed is still in existence, without error, to this day.^[14] Further, the Muslims shamelessly defend the glaring contradictions of the Qur’an with the “doctrine of abrogation,” which claims that passages revealed later “abrogate” (cancel or “cast down”) previous revelation, a doctrine not inconsistent with “the expediency [a veiled reference to the sword] which appears to be the salient feature in Mohammed’s prophetical career.”^[15]

Muslims claim that the Qur’an is the final revelation of God^[16] and is completely consistent with the Old and New Testaments,^[17] which it not only is not now, but never has been. The convenient argument of Islam that the Qur’anic quotation of the Testaments is the true and the Jewish and Christian versions have been corrupted^[18] flies in the face of the historical and geographical absurdities in the Qur’an^[19] and the historical consistency of the text of the Bible and archeology—not to mention the well-documented parallels between the Qur’an’s quotations and the Jewish and Christian heresies known to be widespread in Mohammed’s region and time.^[20] Among his wives were one heretical Christian and one heretical Jewish woman. Combined with the demonstration that the Qur’an is written not in a perfect, “heavenly” Arabic,^[21] but in the Koresh dialect, from the very tribe of Mohammed’s family, these facts speak for themselves.

What then are we to make of this “Bible of Islam?” Paul said it under true inspiration, preserved for our admonition: “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11:4). The book may be revered by millions, but it was not revealed by God.

---

John Vaughn is the President of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International.
(Originally published in FrontLine • March/April 2002. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)

1. Kenneth L. Woodward, “The Bible and the Qur’an, Searching the Holy Books for Roots of Conflict and Seeds of Reconciliation,” Newsweek (February 11, 2002), 57.
2. In some of his ecstatic revelations, Mohammed was at times self-serving, as in his claim that Allah had expressed his will that Mohammed’s wives stop bickering among themselves, and at other times was so offensive to the Arabians that he was forced to withdraw his revelation. The “Satanic Verses” called for the worship of the three goddesses, daughters of Allah, and were stricken from the revelation.
3. Henry Otis Dwight, “Mohammedanism,” The Encyclopedia of Missions, Descriptive, Historical, Biographical, Statistical, ed. Henry Otis Dwight, et al. (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1904), 489.
4. This, among other things, may help to explain why the Black Muslims, a cultic branch of Islam, have succeeded in the use of literature from the Mormon Church to undermine previously held Christian views.
5. “The Missionary Message in Relation to Non-Christian Religions,” a report of the World Missionary Conference, 1910, published by Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier (London) and Fleming H. Revell (New York), 145.
6. Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion, Confronting the World’s Fastest Growing Religion (Las Vegas: Christian Scholars Press, 1992), 110; quoting Guillame, Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 57. Morey has a vast array of helpful resources on Islam and the Qur’an (although he is at times somewhat caustic) available from Faith Defenders, P.O. Box 7447, Orange, CA 92863, Ph: 1-800-41- TRUTH or online at www.faithdefenders.com.
7. Thomas Carlyle said, “It is a toilsome reading as I ever undertook, a wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite. Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran.” Quoted by H.A.R. Gibb, Mohammedanism, An Historical Survey (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), 57.
8. ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali argues that there cannot be a perfect rendition of the meaning of the Qur’an and that it cannot even be translated—in the preface to his English translation of the Qur’an!
9. In spite of popular claims to the contrary, Allah is not God; i.e., although Allah is claimed to be the One True God, and the Qur’an is the third and final, therefore explanatory and fulfilling, of three chief revelations (which include the Jewish revelation [the Old Testament], the Christian revelation [the New Testament], and the Muslim revelation [the Qur’an]), neither Allah nor the Qur’an bear any resemblance to Jehovah or His direct revelation to man. Mohammed claimed that the Qur’an was delivered through the mediation of the angel Gabriel since Allah is unknowable and cannot demean himself to make contact with mere man.
10. Dave Hunt, “A Moment for Truth,” The Berean Call, October 2001.
11. “The Courage to Tell the Truth,” Posted: February 18, 2002, 1:00 a.m. Eastern, ©2002 WorldNetDaily.com.
12. The Shiites claim that “Othman struck out ten sections, or one-fourth part of the whole.” John M’Clintock and James Strong, “Koran,” Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, ed. John M’Clintock and James Strong (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1894), V:152.
13. Morey, pp. 111ff.
14. For further study, see M’Clintock and Strong, 152; Dwight, et al., 489; Gibb, 50; and Thomas Patrick Hughes, “Inspiration,” Dictionary of Islam, particularly the 1999 reprint of the 1885 edition.
15. Hughes, “The Abrogation of Passages in the Qur’an,” 519.
16. M’Clintock and Strong, 153.
17. Hughes, “Holy Scripture,” 566.
18. “The Missionary Message in Relation to Non-Christian Religions,” a report of the World Missionary Conference, 1910, published by Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier (London) and Fleming H. Revell (New York), 145, exposes claims that discrepancies represent “falsification of the original text.” For a revealing discussion of this claim, see E. M. Wherry, Islam and Christianity in India and the Far East: The Student Lectures on Missions at Princeton Theological Seminary for 1906-1907 (New York: The Young People’s Missionary Movement), 195-97.
19. Samuel Marinus Zwemer, “The Battle of the Books,” The Cross Above the Crescent (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1941), 218.
20. Samuel Macauley Jackson, et al., “Mohammed,” The New Schaff- Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson, Carles Colebrook Sherman, and George William Gilmore (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company), VII: 438-39.
21. Hughes, “The Reputed Excellence of the Qur’an, and Its Miraculous Character,” 521. Also, consider the frequent use of non-Arabic words and borrowed proverbial sayings in other languages.

How to Recognize False Religions

September 9, 2015

 

Bob Jones, Jr.
Posted by The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International

This is an age of proliferating heresies, cults, “kooky” religious practices, Scripture perversions, witchcraft, Satanism, and superstition. Eighteenth-century rationalists and so-called “Deists” denied the Scripture and attacked the very basis of Christian faith, but only the last 150 years have seen the birth of so many strange, false religions. Our Lord inquires as to whether He shall “find faith on the earth” (Luke 18:8) when He returns. He does not say “faiths.” There will be plenty of those, altogether false and some extremely foolish, conspiring together to strangle and crush true Biblical and saving faith. While Satan seems to be limited in the number of his “devices,” there is no limit to the variety of his false cults springing up. In the devil’s stock, there is something to appeal to everyone-educated or uneducated, cultured or crude. Many are attractive in their philosophies and appeal by their emphasis upon goodness, morality, kindness, love-indeed, upon everything but Truth.
Of course, all false religions have some truth in them. One of the favorite arguments of the ecumenists and those who say we should not criticize any man’s religion is this: “But there is so much good and truth.in it.” There is much good in rat poison, too. It is about 99 percent good grain and one percent arsenic, but the arsenic has spoiled the grain and made it fatal to anyone who eats it. Likewise, truth ceases to be truth when it is mixed with falsehood. That is why a man, taking an oath as a witness in court, swears to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” As a rat would not take the poison until it is incorporated into the good grain, so men will not swallow false religion if it is not masked with some degree of truth.

All false religions, however, have some things in common. Here are three simple tests by which any religious system should be judged:

First, What is its attitude toward the Bible? The Book makes certain claims for itself. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16); “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21); “Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven” (Psalms 119:89). The closing verses of the Book promise a curse upon any man who adds to or takes away from the words written therein (Revelation 22:18-19). It is, therefore, according to its own claims, an infallible, inerrant, inspired, and complete revelation of God’s will. It is unique, and there is no other revelation apart from it.

Beware of any religious system that offers some other work to be used along with the Bible. Christian Science adds to the Bible Science and Health — Mary Baker Eddy’s frivolous, shallow, and plagiarized work as “the keys to the Scripture.” The Church of the Latter Day Saints claims to base its doctrines upon the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The Roman Catholic Church sets the teachings of the “fathers,” the decisions of the councils, and the infallible “dogmas” of the papacy on a par with the Bible as sources of religious revelation and authority.

Other false religions would take away from the authority and perfection of the Scriptures by entirely neglecting certain portions. This is a favorite tactic of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Others completely disobey certain clear injunctions of the Scripture and are identified in the Scriptures themselves by their disobedience. We are told in 1 Timothy 4 that there will be false teachers in the last days who forbid marrying and giving in marriage and who command to abstain from meats. This passage informs us quite clearly, therefore, that Roman Catholicism is wrong, since it forbids priests and nuns to marry; and that Seventh Day Adventism is a false teaching because its followers are commanded not to eat meat. Scripture itself, therefore, identifies false religions quite clearly; and the false religion will reveal itself by its attitude toward the Scriptures.

In this connection, it should be pointed out that false religions not only wrest the Scriptures and misapply them, but they also handle the Word of God deceitfully, basing their doctrines on Scriptural passages which were not given of God to teach doctrine. There are certain books in the Bible which are prophetic, that is, God revealed in these books what His plans are for the future. There are certain books which – are historical, wherein God has given us a divinely inspired and accurate record of events in the past. There are poetical books like Psalms which may combine prophetic revelation, historical reference, and the outpouring of praise. There are certain books which are given for the purpose of teaching doctrine and practice. All of the epistles, for example, are books which deal with Christian doctrine and Christian living. False religions go to books like Ecclesiastes for their “proof-texts.” The theme of the book of Ecclesiastes, however, is “man under the sun” and God’s record of how man reasons, It is an accurate record of man’s reasoning — it is not a divine revelation of doctrine. To base a doctrine on Ecclesiastes, therefore, is to handle the Word of God deceitfully.

In the second place, any religious teaching should be tested by this question: “What is its attitude toward Jesus Christ?” Our Lord makes quite clear to us in the Bible Who He is and what He is. His claim for Himself is clear and definite. “I and my father are one” (John 10:30); “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9); “I am the way, the truth, and the -life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). He uses the Old Testament name of God for Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). John’s gospel describes Him as “the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14), and says “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” The Bible teaches very plainly, therefore, that Jesus Christ is a Person of the Godhead — virgin born, sinless, the unique Son of God, very God, very man, completely without sin, incarnate Deity. Any religious teaching that tries to give Him a seat in a pantheon with other gods or array Him in a faculty with other religious leaders and teachers is a false religion. Any cult that makes salvation possible without Him is unscriptural and Satanic. Any religious system that makes anyone else in addition to Christ necessary to salvation is equally Satanic. Our Lord, speaking of the Scriptures, said, “in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).

Islam, the religion of Mohammed, makes Jesus Christ a prophet. He is not a prophet; He is the fulfillment of prophecy. He spoke of things that would come to pass, but He is the God Who brings them to pass in conformity with His will from the beginning. Baha’i recognizes Him as a religious leader. He is not a religious leader; He is not the founder of a religious system-He is the Rock upon which the Church is built, the Stone of the corner. He is the Head of His body, the Church. He is not merely a teacher offering men a philosophy of life, a set of dogmas, and a rule of ethics; He is the God Who gives men life, and Who died on a cross that men might have life. Any system that attempts to veil Christ, or lower Him to the level of any other figure of Scripture or history is a false, Satanic religion.

Finally, in judging any religious system, we should ask, “What is its attitude toward the blood of Christ?” The Bible is quite clear on this subject. Acts 20:28 tells us that the Church is purchased with His blood. Romans 5:9 says, “being now justified by his blood.” Ephesians 1:7 speaks of “redemption through his blood.” Hebrews 13:12 tells us that He sanctifies with His blood, and Revelation 1:5 speaks of His having washed us in His blood. Hebrews 13:20 describes the blood of Christ as “the blood of the everlasting covenant.” This is a reference to God’s promise that by blood we are cleansed. Our Lord told His disciples on the night of His betrayal that His blood is shed “for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). It is quite plain, therefore, that Christ shed His blood on the cross that sins might be washed away. The whole teaching of the Scripture is that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22). Only the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, can cleanse from sin.

This is the point where Satan most strongly attacks the citadel of Faith. The devil hates nothing like he hates the blood. The saints have overcome him with the word of their testimony and with the blood of the Lamb. Any religion that discredits the shed blood of Christ or shows an attitude of hatred for the cleansing blood is of the devil.

Any religious teacher who would discount the blood is not to be trusted. Mary Baker Eddy says, “The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon (the accursed tree) than when it was flowing in His veins as He went daily about His Father’s business” (Science and Health, page 25). Obviously, therefore, Mary Baker Eddy is a liar, because God tells us that He shed His blood for the remission of sins; and that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

R. B. Thieme constantly minimizes and ridicules the blood of Christ. He tells his followers not to sing songs about it and declares we are not saved by the blood of Christ but by the death of Christ. Such statements are born in Hell and hatched in the mind of Satan himself.

Mormonism teaches a kind of progressive salvation through which men may eventually-somewhere, in some distant sphere-become angels and finally gods. The Bible teaches that men are reconciled unto God through the shed blood of Christ and become sons of God instantaneously in a new birth experience.

Three simple tests, therefore, are all that we need by which to judge a religion. However nice, however sweet, however “inspirational,” and however seemingly “Christian” a religion may be, if it fails to meet the Biblical standard on anyone of these points, itis to be shunned and avoided as a Satanic trap to damn souls. It may quote Scripture, and it may seem to follow the Bible on many points; but any teaching that does not recognize the Scripture as exactly that which the Scripture claims to be is not Scriptural. Any religious system which fails to give Christ the unique and exclusive position which the Bible gives Him is to be shunned as one shuns the plague, for no religion is Christian that does not honor Christ in an exclusive, absolute sense. Finally, any religious system which ignores, discounts, or ridicules the blood of Christ is a religion of darkness and damnation.

---

The late Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. was the chancellor of Bob Jones University. This article first appeared in Faith for the Family, November / December 1974 and is republished here by permission.

New Calvinism – The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness

As posted on the Proclaim and Defend website July 28, 2015

From The Sword & Trowel 2009, issue 2 by Dr Peter Masters

 

Please note that since its original publication, some of the ‘stars’ of the New Calvinism have fallen out of favor. Nevertheless, the critique of the philosophy of this movement is still particularly valuable. Given the author’s theological views, this should not be seen as an attack on Calvinism! It is instead a critique of a movement that happens to espouse Calvinistic theology.

A new form of Calvinism took the shape of a movement from about 2005, but it differed from the original in its acceptance of ‘the world’. This critique written in 2009 was sharply attacked by new Calvinistic preachers but strongly endorsed by conservative preachers worldwide.

When I was a youngster and newly saved, it seemed as if the chief goal of all zealous Christians, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, was consecration. Sermons, books and conferences stressed this in the spirit of Romans 12:1-2, where the beseeching apostle calls believers to present their bodies a living sacrifice, and not to be conformed to this world. The heart was challenged and stirred. Christ was to be Lord of one’s life, and self must be surrendered on the altar of service for him.

But now, it appears, there is a new Calvinism, with new Calvinists, which has swept the old objectives aside. A recent book, Young, Restless, Reformed, by Collin Hansen tells the story of how a so-called Calvinistic resurgence has captured the imaginations of thousands of young people in the USA, and this book has been reviewed with great enthusiasm in well-known magazines in the UK, such as Banner of Truth, Evangelical Times, and Reformation Today.

This writer, however, was very deeply saddened to read it, because it describes the New Calvinism as a seriously distorted Calvinism falling far, far short of an authentic life of obedience to a sovereign God. If this kind of Calvinism prospers, then genuine biblical piety will be under attack as never before.

The author of the book is a young man (around 26 when he wrote it) who grew up in a Christian family and trained in secular journalism. We are indebted to him for the readable and wide-reaching survey he gives of this new phenomenon, but the scene is certainly not a happy one.

The author begins by describing the Passion, conference at Atlanta in 2007, where 21,000 young people revelled in contemporary music, and listened to speakers such as John Piper proclaiming Calvinistic sentiments. And this picture is repeated many times through the book – large conferences being described at which the syncretism of worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic music, is mixed with Calvinistic doctrine. This gives a clear picture of what New Calvinism is about.

We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.

Collin Hansen contends that American Calvinism collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century and was maintained by only a handful of people until this great youth revival, but his historical scenario is, frankly, preposterous. As one who regularly visited American seminaries to speak from the early 1970s, I constantly met many preachers and students who loved the doctrines of grace, preaching also in churches of solid Calvinistic persuasion. But firmer evidence of the extensive presence of Calvinism is seen from the fact that very large firms of publishers sent out a stream of reformed literature post-war and through the 1980s. The mighty Eerdmans was solidly reformed in times past, not to mention Baker Book House, and Kregel and others. Where did all these books go – thousands upon thousands of them, including frequently reprinted sets of Calvin’s commentaries and a host of other classic works?

In the 1970s and 80s there were also smaller Calvinistic publishers in the USA, and at that time the phenomenon of Calvinistic discount Christian bookshops began, with bulging catalogue lists and a considerable following. The claim that Calvinism virtually disappeared is hopelessly mistaken.

Indeed, a far better quality Calvinism still flourishes in very many churches, where souls are won and lives sanctified, and where Truth and practice are both under the rule of Scripture. Such churches have no sympathy at all with reporter Collin Hansen’s worldly-worship variety, who seek to build churches using exactly the same entertainment methods as most charismatics and the Arminian Calvary Chapel movement.

The new Calvinists constantly extol the Puritans, but they do not want to worship or live as they did. One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings). But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian.

Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr. John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere. At the same time they reflect on predestination and election. Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. (Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, show business atmosphere created by the organisers.)

In times of disobedience the Jews of old syncretised by going to the Temple or the synagogue on the sabbath, and to idol temples on weekdays, but the new Calvinism has found a way of uniting spiritually incompatible things at the same time, in the same meeting.

C J Mahaney is a preacher highly applauded in this book. Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.

It was a protégé of this preacher named Joshua Harris who started the New Attitude conference for young people. We learn that when a secular rapper named Curtis Allen was converted, his new-born Christian instinct led him to give up his past life and his singing style. But Pastor Joshua Harris evidently persuaded him not to, so that he could sing for the Lord. The New Calvinism movement or The New Calvinists do not hesitate to override the instinctual Christian conscience, counselling people to become friends of the world.

One of the mega-churches admired in the book is the six-thousand strong Mars Hill Church at Seattle, founded and pastored by Mark Driscoll, who blends emerging church ideas (that Christians should utilise worldly culture) with Calvinistic theology.^[1]

This preacher is also much admired by some reformed men in the UK, but his church has been described (by a sympathiser) as having the most ear-splitting music of any, and he has been rebuked by other preachers for the use of very ‘edgy’ language and gravely improper humour (even on television). He is to be seen in videos preaching in a Jesus t-shirt, symbolising the new compromise with culture, while at the same time propounding Calvinistic teaching. So much for the embracing of Puritan doctrine divested of Puritan lifestyle and worship.

Most of the well-known preachers who promote and encourage this ‘revival’ of Calvinism (or New Calvinism) have in common the following positions that contradict a genuine Calvinistic (or Puritan) outlook:

1. They have no problem with contemporary charismatic-ethos worship, including extreme, heavy-metal forms.
 

2. They are soft on separation from worldliness.^[2]
 

3. They reject the concern for the personal guidance of God in the major decisions of Christians (true sovereignty), thereby striking a death-blow to wholehearted consecration.
 

4. They hold anti-fourth-commandment views, taking a low view of the Lord’s Day, and so inflicting another blow at a consecrated lifestyle.

 

Whatever their strengths and achievements (and some of them are brilliant men by any human standard), or whatever their theoretical Calvinism, the poor stand of these preachers on these crucial issues will only encourage a fatally flawed version of Calvinism that will lead people to be increasingly wedded to the world, and to a self-seeking lifestyle. Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world, and the New Calvinism has very little of that.

You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait. We hope that young people in this movement will grasp the implications of the doctrines better than their teachers, and come away from the compromises. But there is a looming disaster in promoting this new form of Calvinism (also known as The New Calvinism).

Why do some British Christians who hold the doctrines of grace give enthusiastic reviews to a book like this? There have been times in the past when large numbers of young people have suddenly become intellectually enthusiastic about solid Christian doctrine, only to abandon it almost as quickly. One thinks of the tremendous response the unique oratory of Francis Schaeffer secured on university campuses in the 1960s, and no doubt some young people were truly saved and established, but very many more turned aside. Gripped by the superiority of a biblical worldview, they momentarily despised the illogical, flaccid ideas of this world, but the impression in numerous cases was natural rather than spiritual. The present new, heady Calvinism, shorn of practical obedience will certainly prove to be ephemeral, leaving the cause compromised and scarred.

Has the New Calvinism come to Britain yet? Alas, yes; one only has to look at the ‘blogs’ of some younger reformed pastors who put themselves forward as mentors and advisers of others. When you look at their ‘favourite films’, and ‘favourite music’ you find them unashamedly naming the leading groups, tracks and entertainment of debased culture, and it is clear that the world is still in their hearts. Years ago, such brethren would not have been baptised until they were clear of the world, but now you can go to seminary, no questions asked, and take up a pastorate, with unfought and unsurrendered idols in the throne room of your life. What hope is there for churches that have under-shepherds whose loyalties are so divided and distorted?

Aside from pastors, we know some ‘new’ young Calvinists who will never settle in a dedicated, working church, because their views live only in their heads and not their hearts. We know of some whose lives are not clean. We know of others who go clubbing. The greater their doctrinal prowess, the greater their hypocrisy.

These are harsh words, but they lead me to say that where biblical, evangelical Calvinism shapes conduct, and especially worship, it is a very humbling, beautiful system of Truth, but where it is confined to the head, it inflates pride and self-determination.

The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.

Why have the leading preachers servicing this movement compromised so readily? They have not been threatened by a Soviet regime. No one has held a gun to their heads. This is a shameful capitulation, and we must earnestly pray that what they have encouraged will not take over Calvinism and ruin a generation of reachable Christian young people.

A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.

True Calvinism and worldliness are opposites. Preparation of heart is needed if we would search the wonders and plumb the depths of sovereign grace. We find it in the challenging, convicting call of Joshua:

‘Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.’

---

For a more detailed consideration of worship please see the writer’s book
Worship in the Melting Pot. Available for purchase via the Tabernacle Bookshop. The first four chapters of this book are shown as articles on this site.

---

Dr. Peter Masters is the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, England.

When the Land Vomits

As Americans celebrate our nation’s birthday this Saturday the media is gleefully barraging us with the news of some who are celebrating what once was considered sickening and outright repulsive.  Although God has blessed America with a beautiful land, He has also warned that when the inhabitants of a land defile themselves they also defile the land they inhabit.  And when the land is defiled, it vomits.  “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:  And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:24-25).  Briefly stated, “these things” were an obsession with nakedness (verses 1-19), adultery (verse 20), the sacrifice of children (verse 21), homosexuality (verse 22), and bestiality (verse 23).

 This “progression in perversity,” a phrase that gives more accurate meaning to the political “Progressive” label, parallels what has been occurring in our beautiful land for the past few generations.  Outlined by decade, it was in the 1950’s that nakedness began coming out of the closet.  In the 1960’s the “sexual revolution” made adultery shameless.  In the 1970’s the sacrificing of children, “abortion,” was legalized.  Then in the 1980’s homosexuals were emboldened to begin coming out of the closet in greater numbers.  The popular vote in state after state opposed this “progression in perversity” until June 26, 2015 when five Supreme Court despots declared that their will superseded that of We the People.  Next in the progression?  Bestiality – a perversion already becoming acceptable in nations that legalized sodomite marriage before “the five” did.

Of course, some like to smugly point out that the book of Leviticus also condemns the eating of certain foods like pork and shrimp.  However, what their beguiling talking-points sources do not inform them is that those dietary laws were for theocratic Israel alone, not for other nations.  In other words, that which God prohibited Israel from eating He did not consider an abomination to others.  For example, Deuteronomy 14:21, “Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God….”  Thus, they were not to eat it, but they could sell it to others to eat!

Or they reference Leviticus 19:19, where God instructs theocratic Israel not to allow the breeding of two kinds of cattle together, the sowing of two kinds of seed together, or the mixing of garment materials.  “See,” say they, “if you are going to judge us who practice what Leviticus 18:22 calls an abomination, you must also judge yourself for violating Leviticus 19:19!” 

Never mind that God never says that other nations were defiled for the mixing of fabrics, seeds or breeds.  Those statutes were designed to teach Israelites to “be holy unto” God (Leviticus 20:26) by learning to make distinctions (Leviticus 20:25).  Israel had been delivered from pagan Egypt and was about to enter pagan Canaan where moral distinctions were ignored (Leviticus 18:3).  One can be sure that if a person learned how to distinguish between a wheat and barley seed, or between a garment of wool and that of cotton, or between a goat and an ass, he would certainly know how to distinguish between a man and a woman!  A distinction that even little children have the power to make that evidently eludes adult progressives who ludicrously confer upon the gender-confused inapplicable titles like “courageous.”

Indeed, due to the compromise and effeminate attitude of so many churches, religious institutions and leaders, we find ourselves in an increasingly greater battle over the issue of sexual perversion.  For example although Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, rightly decried the faulty Supreme Court Decision, he is the same one who less than two years ago was featured in a Wall Street Journal article entitled, “Evangelical Leader Preaches A Pullback From Politics, Culture Wars” (The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, October 22, 2013, p. A1).  Mr. Moore, in Obama-like fashion, basically announced ahead of time to the enemies of the gospel that he was tired of the fight and was ready to surrender.  And some of the reasons given for this “pullback”?  According to the Journal summary, “to keep millennials engaged in the church” and out of concern for “alienated young believers.”  Moore’s quoted advice to church leaders is just as revealing: be “winsome, kind and empathic.”  Perhaps he and other men of his caliber think that is the type of preaching God bid Jonah have when he finally entered sick Nineveh?

This comment from the PatriotPost.com’s 5/29/15 “Daily Digest” well communicates the sissy response most professing Christians have had and will continue to have:  “Cultural and casual Christians, the ones who believe philanthropy and showing up for a holiday service is their only necessary spiritual response, will quickly self-identify and want to change the subject. Eventually, these fair-weather believers will either deepen their faith or more explicitly abandon it to avoid social stigma or name-calling.”

Our land is so sick it is about to vomit.  Yet, to those who are disheartened by the celebration of this defilement, surrender yourself to be the fulfillment of Ezekiel 22:30, “And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it….”  Moses was that man for Israel: “Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach (same Hebrew word as “gap” in Ezekiel 22:30), to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them” (Psalm 106:23). 

May the Lord God not have to say of America, “…but I found none.”  Rather, may the truly courageous stand in the breach that has been made in our land, claiming the promise given in II Chronicles 7:14, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”