~ from email ~

Based on my understanding of that theologian, I think that if he had not committed himself to the Westminster Confession of Faith, or if he had stated his beliefs in his own words without constraint, he would have contradicted the WCF on at least several points. If I am correct, this goes to show the powerful hold that man-made traditions can have in the minds of even the clearest thinkers. He struggled to harmonize the truth that he saw and the tradition that he loved, but it was impossible. Since I cannot presume to speak for him, and since this is a hypothetical scenario (pretending that he had not committed himself to the WCF), it is only a guess.

On the other hand, I have no such loyalty to the WCF, not even a little bit. I could not care less if I contradict Westminster, or Dort, or Calvin, or whoever or whatever. I find the very idea that I should care to be puzzling to me, and everyone who presses me to side with a tradition always seems like a pathetic loser, just a rubbish believer. There are people who consider this attitude sacrilegious, but this is because their orthodoxy is human tradition, and it is this kind of attitude that crucified Jesus Christ. Human religious tradition, when it grows strong, becomes the spirit of slander, and when it grows stronger, becomes the spirit of murder — not always the physical act of killing, but a hatred that wishes to get rid of someone, often by dishonest means. We see this with every Christian tradition, and it is strong in the Reformed. There is something alarmingly wrong, defective, and broken in the person who insists that we ought to subscribe to a human tradition such that we must submit our conscience to it and then judge other people by it. When he does this, he becomes anti-Christ.

This is why, although I would admit that much of my theology agree with the Reformed, I do not call myself Reformed. On many things, the Reformed are not unique, so when I agree with the Reformed, I also agree with many others. Agreeing on these things would not make me Reformed. Then, on other things, I clearly contradict them. Some people call me Reformed and then attack me for not fully agreeing with the Reformed, but this is a strawman, because I prefer to do without the label, and have said so. This tactic is absurd and desperate. In fact, given what I have seen in the Reformed, including their doctrines, attitudes, and actions, I would be ashamed to be identified with the Reformed. Given how awful some of these people are, both intellectually and ethically, I am embarrassed that some people would think that I am one of them. Although I sometimes appear to accept this label in my writings — if I have done so, it was not done eagerly, but grudgingly for the sake of convenience — in all the years of my life and ministry, I have never introduced myself as Reformed. I also do not introduce myself as a Calvinist.

My doctrine is that God is sovereign, and that he causes and sustains all things as the Bible teaches. I have no special interest in emphasizing that God is sovereign over evil, but my interest is in saying that God is sovereign in general, sovereign over all, and sovereign in salvation, and to respect the biblical emphasis and proportion. In fact, I would mention his sovereignty over evil less often if not for the fact that Christians, even the Reformed, deny it, often contradicting themselves as they do so. Moreover, I have no special preference in using the term “author of sin,” and might have favored some other expression if not for the fact that this is the expression used to deny God’s sovereignty over evil.

Sometimes I use their expressions even if I do not prefer them, so that I can throw them back in their faces. If they claim that God is not the “author of sin” contrary to what the Bible teaches, then I will show them that the Bible teaches that God is indeed the “author of sin,” in the metaphysical or ontological sense. If they bully Christians for affirming a “health and wealth” gospel, but in the process also ridicule and overthrow much of what the Bible teaches — as they always do — then I will show them that the Bible indeed teaches a gospel of “health and wealth,” lots of health and lots of wealth. Health and wealth. Health and wealth. Health and wealth. What are you gonna do? Huh?! WHAT YOU GONNA DO??!! Are you going to ban me from your mystical snack, and take your tiny crackers from me? I prefer real oyster crackers in my clam chowder anyway, not that bland cheap stuff you serve. By the way, are you making your church members go on a diet, or do you think you are feeding baby pigeons (1 Corinthians 11:34)?

They persecute people who do not fight back. They are often nothing more than self-righteous bullies who vastly overestimate their intellect and faithfulness. In any case, I do not believe that those who deny that God is the author of sin is interested in defending God’s integrity. No, I think they are more interested in defending the notion that they are interested in defending God’s integrity, even if they must impose a moral standard on God that the Bible does not teach – this makes them the heretics. They are defending themselves, not God, since what they say about God adds to what God says about himself, and contradicts what God says about himself.

As for your point, I suppose you are correct. A person who agrees with the very words of the WCF would technically commit blasphemy, not only on this point about the author of sin, but on several other points as well. For example, it claims that certain things should only be performed by those who have been lawfully ordained. The Bible does not teach this, but it teaches the priesthood of all believers, which the Reformed also hypocritically teaches. The doctrine amounts to an indirect blasphemy against Jesus Christ as the only mediator between God and man. If we are going to be strict about this, to indirectly reject Christ as the sole mediator is also to preach another gospel, and the message ceases to save. One leading Reformed theologian declared, “God is our father. The Church is our mother.” If the church is your mother, do a paternity test, because God is not your father.

The WCF and the Reformed commit multiple blasphemies. I sometimes refer to the Reformed as “half-way Catholic,” and that is a good way to summarize what they amount to. And what about the master heresy of cessationism? And what about the false doctrines of passive reprobation, of free will, of compatibilism, of the covenant of works, of common grace, of the sincere offer, of the church, of the mystical presence in communion, and others? It is a big mess. Why would I ever sign my soul away to the WCF? Why would I ever want to be called Reformed? And if I contradict them on all these things, why would it be fair for anyone to call me Reformed, and especially for the purpose of accusing me for not being Reformed enough? By the way, if you are ordained by people like these, are you really “lawfully” ordained, or somehow less ordained than before?

Limit the time you spend in arguing with people on this matter, since many of them are hardened. Jesus taught us not to cast pearls before swine. Do not waste your life on people who would never listen. There are many people who have not been instructed. They want to learn, and might listen. Part of the reason I mentioned several other issues is to show you that the WCF and Reformed are not defective only in the area of divine sovereignty, so it would be a mistake to focus too much on this area. You could argue endlessly with them on this, and never get anywhere. They are broken people. And even if you change their minds after years of debate, you have only fixed one thing. What they need is a “conversion” in their way of thinking, in their very way of being followers of Christ, and not just doctrinal correction on one issue. A Catholic who abandons one Catholic doctrine is still a Catholic. He has to stop thinking like a Catholic completely. Otherwise, he just ends up a half-way Catholic, awfully ordained.