Our Justification Crisis, Perseverance, and Assurance: Part 2
Live Streamed every Sunday @ 7pm from freebereans.blogspot.com
CLICK ON TO ENLARGE
CLICK ON TO ENLARGE
CLICK ON TO ENLARGE
CLICK ON TO ENLARGE
Last week we looked at the nature of the present-day justification crises. Tonight we will look at the relationship between justification, perseverance, and assurance of salvation. This is another topical subject related to the book of Romans that we are adding to our verse by verse study. I have interjected this study because of the rampant confusion related to perseverance and the Christian. Granted, there are verses in the Bible that seem to indicate that Christians have to persevere in their faith to obtain a “final justification.”
If there is anything about election that would endear detractors at all, it is the idea that our justification was determined before the creation of the world, and therefore, there is nothing we or anyone else can do in sanctification to mess that up. Once saved, always saved. Traditionally, Calvinists have been primarily associated with this election idea. The idea makes people uneasy, but at least you get assurance of salvation in the deal. Or do you?
In our endeavor to understand the paramount subject of justification, Calvinism and Reformed doctrine in general must be dealt with. Why? Because as the lazy-thinking church slumbered, Calvinists have established a doctrinal foundation. They own the history. They own the seminaries. They own the publishing companies. They own the debate. They are accepted out of hand as the ones who know. This is what they do—they attempt to create a reality that yields the results that they want. And in our day, they have nearly succeeded. If not for the internet, this would be a done deal.
Many assumptions prevail: total depravity only pertains to the unregenerate. Faith alone (sola fide) only pertains to justification. Christ alone (solus Christus) doesn’t literally mean “Christ alone” to the exclusion of the other Trinity members. Scripture alone (Sola scriptura): instruction for life and godliness, or a meta-narrative for gospel contemplationism? And now we find that election doesn’t really mean “election” per se. Now we find that election justifies you, if you are chosen, but you have to persevere in order to obtain “final justification.”
And this idea is split up into two authentic Calvinism camps. In one camp, the Christian must persevere in sanctification by faith alone with his/her primary nemesis being the temptation to “obey in our own efforts.” “Effort” is the essence of works salvation. Augustine and Calvin both taught that the Sabbath rest was sanctification specifically. Because salvation is a “golden chain” where justification starts, and progresses in the middle towards final justification, we must maintain our justification in the same way that it began at the beginning of the chain. By faith alone. This is the double imputation crowd. Christ’s passive obedience to the cross secured our justification, His active obedience to the law while He lived on earth is imputed to our sanctification as long as we live by faith alone in sanctification. To the contrary, biblical double imputation is the imputation of God the Father’s righteousness to us apart from the law by faith in Christ alone, and the imputation of our sin to Christ. The imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the law being imputed to our sanctification to finish justification is NOT righteousness apart from the law.
Now the other camp. They reject Reformed double imputation, but their view of election is also an initial justification that must be maintained by our perseverance. In this case, a general faithfulness to the New Covenant. Note the following comments I received on my blog from a knowledgeable Reformed teacher from this camp:
I think it is clear from Scripture that salvation (election, calling, justification, glorification) cannot be lost. But justification can be initially entered into via faith alone, but we must then remain faithful. This was the error of the Jews, they thought that because they had entered a right standing (justification) with God, they were good to go…. All who have been elected unto mercy will persevere unto salvation, but Scripture makes it clear that there will be some who enter into or begin a relationship with God (justification, a right standing), but who fall away, commit apostasy, are severed from Christ, do not bear fruit, soil their garments, are excommunicated, etc. Another way to say this is that they lose their justification.
Justification is necessary for salvation, but the initial possession of justification does not mean that one will be saved in the end. He must endure….Sure there is – the New Covenant. And our faithfulness to this law will certainly be judged. This is why Paul teaches a gospel of righteousness, self-control and judgment in Acts 25 (or 24?)…. Back to your first statement – there is a standard: it is called the New Covenant. We now have cleansing (forgiveness, justification) through faith in Christ, but just like the Jews, we must also maintain that righteousness by virtue of faithfulness to the moral law – which, by the way, has been the same since Adam and Eve. Furthermore, under the new covenant, it is the Church (the Body of Christ) that is the focus of this covenant. We are enslaved to God, we are bound to the law of the Spirit, the law of Christ, etc. We have all kinds of instruction in Scripture about how to keep the law of God and what to do when we break it.
The key is the covenant community, however. There is no justification outside of the visible, local church…. All who have been elected unto mercy will persevere unto salvation, but Scripture makes it clear that there will be some who enter into or begin a relationship with God (justification, a right standing), but who fall away, commit apostasy, are severed from Christ, do not bear fruit, soil their garments, are excommunicated, etc. Another way to say this is that they lose their justification.
Justification is necessary for salvation, but the initial possession of justification does not mean that one will be saved in the end. He must endure.
Here was one of my responses that I think is the crux of my contention:
The problem is a standard for faithfulness maintaining justification. Those who are justified are no longer under any standard/law that judges whether or not they are justified. The justified live BY the law as a pattern of life, but not FOR justification. We are justified “apart from the law” and it is impossible for us to sin in the eyes of justification because apart from the law, “sin lies dead.”
That’s the problem. There is no standard or way to judge faithfulness in regard to justification because we are no longer “under the law.”
This view by camp B is specifically called, mutable justification. So, these are the two authentic Calvinist camps: Reformed double imputation and mutable justification. Both of these ideas are referred to the reformed motto, already-but not yet. Here is yet another assumption, that this is a Reformed paradox. Not so, “already” is initial justification; “not yet” is perseverance. This is why Calvinism is predicated on lack of assurance. The following is an illustration from the Reformed book, The Race Set Before Us p. 40:
CLICK ON TO ENLARGE
Now, let me begin by saying that election must be completely reevaluated because most of the thinking in regard to it has come from Reformed orthodoxy. That makes election according to the Reformers extremely suspect, especially since it is not really election to begin with. And trust me, for six years, I have been dealing with the justification issue and its relationship to the law and have not had time to reevaluate the metaphysics of election, and I know, much to the consternation of many of PPT’s (blog) readers. But I want to begin our evaluation of justification’s relationship to perseverance and assurance by beginning with what we do know about election. We have addressed the reality of the present-day foundation that dominates the church; now let’s look at this biblically.
What do we know today, here at the Potter’s House, about election? First, we know its purpose. Its purpose is to completely remove works from justification:
Romans 9:11 – though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
This couldn’t be clearer: God’s purpose in election is to remove all of our works from justification and make it dependent on the “call.” By the way, though I haven’t revisited the metaphysical questions of election yet, I do reject, on the basis of Scripture, that the call equals fatalistic determinism. Now, I don’t know how that fact is going to play out when I revisit this, but to date, I know that much. This brings us to the second thing that we know about election. In the following text, election is referred to as the call:
Romans 8:30 – And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Stop right there. Here is where we drive a stake. If we can’t take this at face value, neither can we take John 3:16 at face value. The two things we know about election is that it has two purposes: one, to eliminate all works in justification; therefore, perseverance must be excluded from justification because perseverance has to be judged by a standard. To meet that standard is a work. Perseverance must be severed from justification completely. Secondly, election is for assurance of salvation. Election is the bedrock of our assurance. Paul makes this clear in the next verses immediately following:
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Now, how can glorification be spoken of in the past tense? Because it is a finished issue. It is guaranteed. In addition, the philosophers among us can probably be a help here, but I assume there is no beginning and end in eternity. This calling took place before creation. So does this mean there was never a time when we weren’t elected? That would be an interesting discussion for the philosophers among us. But sanctification is not in Romans 8:30 because sanctification has no connection to justification. Justification results in glorification. The two are inseparable because the calling guarantees glorification.
Romans 11: 29 – For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
John 6:35 – Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Verses that seem to indicate a necessary perseverance by the believer to the obvious hindrance of assurance must be interpreted in light of Romans 8:30 and 9:11-13. These verses are definitive. Furthermore, 1John 5:13 states unequivocally that we can presently know that we have eternal life. If final justification awaits a confirmation in the future as a result of our perseverance, this is ambiguous at best. Though we are born again, our ultimate confidence, our sure confidence, is in God. Moreover, the New Covenant is a one-way covenant that does not depend on anything we do. We enjoy the benefits of the covenant as heirs, but all the riches of the inheritance are because of the testator, not our contribution to that covenant. The Old Covenant was the will; the New Covenant is the inheritance upon the death of the testator, Jesus Christ. The fullness of the inheritance will be realized at the new heavens and new earth.
There are many, many, conditional promises in the Bible, for example, EPH 6:1-3, but The Promise, the Abrahamic Covenant that is built by all the other covenants, is UNCONDITIONAL. God put Abraham in a deep sleep and consummated the covenant himself. The thief on the cross contributed nothing to his election. He only believed, and was assured by God Himself that he would be in heaven that day. Not because of anything he did, there was no perseverance to be had by him—he could only hang there with the hope he had been given by God’s promise.
So what is going on with all of the verses in the Bible that seem to indicate a requirement on our part to persevere in order to obtain a supposed “final justification”? You can consider Romans 8:30 and 9:11-13 point one, and the following point 2: perseverance is stated throughout Scripture as a characteristic of salvation, but not a condition. We are engaged in warfare, and the friends of God and the enemies of God are evident. During the tribulation period as now, the side you are on is manifest. We are not justified by anything we do, but we can be called justified by what we do. Our actions justify our justification. We have a good example of this in the book of James:
James 2:14 – What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
This isn’t that complicated. Saving faith justifies us, and is alive: therefore, works result that per se, justify us, or show that we are justified. Rahab wasn’t justified by what she did, her actions revealed the fact that she was justified. This is also the Bible’s way of making a strong statement about Christians acting like Christians. Stating that we are justified by what we do is using an obvious contradiction to get our attention: behavior is so intrinsically connected to the new birth that for all practical purposes you can say one is justified by what they do. This is the point James is making. And I think that point is made throughout Scripture:
Romans 2:13 – For the hearers of the law be not just with God, but the doers of the law shall be made just (Wycliffe Bible).
You can’t read the book of Romans and think for a second that Paul is talking about being justified by the law. The point is made here: obedience justifies the claim that we are justified. Likewise, those who are justified persevere as a characteristic of the justified; the perseverance does not make them justified. It’s our character resulting in practice, not our position. All such verses can be read in that way.
This is the third point concerning assurance: practice gives assurance. No text gives this more clarity than 2Peter 1:5-11:
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (KJV).
Obviously, Peter isn’t talking about solidifying our election through works; he is talking about making our election sure to ourselves through obedience. This is also the major theme of 1John. Verse ten strikes a contrast between it and verses eight and nine. We can forget that we have been purged from our sins and heaven can become a distant reality. Also note that there is a quality of entry into heaven (v.11). Some translations refer to a “rich” entry into heaven. Verse ten refers to falling into deep sin. This is a picture of someone who is unsure of their standing with God. We can’t work for our justification, but we can certainly work for our assurance. Peter calls for “diligence” in this regard. One of the elements he mentions that needs to be added to our faith is “patience.” This has the idea of “endurance” and “perseverance.” The three words are used interchangeably throughout Scripture. The reward for our perseverance is assurance—not salvation.
I would like to close with some charts. The following two are from last week and illustrate what we have discussed in general.
CLICK ON TO ENLARGE
CLICK ON TO ENLARGE
The next one is from page 24 of False Reformation:
Justification is a one-time declaration. Salvation is a little different. At salvation we receive all of the blessings and power of heaven. As we appropriate that power through obedience in sanctification the reality and power of our salvation is experienced. This gives assurance, and shows others that we are justified. In that regard we are justified by our works.
Addendum:
We have discussed many reasons why we believe that Christians will not stand in a final judgment to determine final justification. We reject the idea that justification has a beginning, process, and end (aka, justification, “progressive sanctification” and final justification confirmed at a final judgment). We find that at the final judgment, books are opened and the “dead” are judged from the books according to what they have done (REV 20:11-14). Being “under the law,” we assume that they are judged according to the law. Everyone at this judgment has died. This is NOT so with the OTHER judgment that seems to be primarily a judgment for rewards.
We believe that Christians will not be judged by the law in a final judgment. It is very possible that our sins were once recorded in those books, but were blotted out when we gave our lives to Christ:
Isaiah 43:25 – I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.
Many texts document the fact that God will not remember the sins of the redeemed (a few: HEB 8:12, 10:17, JER 31:34, Micah 7: 19 ISA 44:22, Acts 3:19, PS 103:12) . As the apostle Paul said, “love does not keep a record of wrong.” At one judgment, Christ states, “depart from me….I never knew you.” “Knew” probably refers to the fact that He never loved them as a kingdom heir. At the final judgment, there is obviously a record of sin. But of particular interest is the blotting out statements. Again, this probably refers to the idea that our sins were once recorded in those books, but were blotted out when we were saved. Similar language is used to refer to those who are blotted out from the book of life:
Psalm 69:28 – Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; let them not be enrolled among the righteous.
A Scriptural study of the books is critical to understanding justification and the grace of God. How many of us have been taught this subject in-depth? Let me give you some framework as a result of some residual study I have done. There appears to be books where all of the sins of mankind are recorded, and the book of life in which all who are born into the world are recorded. A cursory observation seems to point to the idea that the saved are blotted out of the books that record sin, and not blotted out of the book of life. It is also possible that some are never recorded in the book of life even though they walk the earth at some point. The Lamb’s book of life may also be a separate book. Christ promised the saved would never be blotted out of the book of life (one among many: REV 3:5).
The Dirty Dozen: 12 Things That the Lying Calvinists Want You to Assume
1. Total Depravity pertains to the unregenerate only. No, they mean the saints also.
2. Sola Fide (faith alone) only pertains to Justification. No, it pertains to sanctification also.
3. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) means “alone” and not other “subordinate” truth that also has authority though “subordinate.” No, creeds and confessions also have authority; it is not Scripture “alone.” What does “alone” mean?
4. Solus Christus (Christ alone) only regards the way to the Father. Not so, Christ is the only way to understanding all of reality. This was the crux of Luther’s Theology of the Cross.
5. Progressive sanctification sanctifies us and is separate from justification. No, they say, “never separate” but “distinct.” Then why not call it “progressive justification”? Why not clearly say that we are sanctified by justification?
6. Election predetermines our eternity. No, the elect have to persevere. The perseverance of the saints is not a characteristic of the saved, it is something that the saints have to add to their faith to complete their justification. They call this, “already-but not yet.” The promises of God are “conditional.”
7. Proponents of synergistic sanctification are mistaken. No, Calvinists think they are lost and promote a false gospel.
8. Spiritual growth is about change. Absolutely not. Calvinists believe we experience manifestations of Christ as we live by faith alone.
9. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is only imputed for our justification. No, they believe it is imputed to our sanctification as well.
10. We should learn what the Bible teaches and apply it to our lives. No, they believe we should look for the cross in every verse which results in Christ manifestations in the Spirit realm. They call this, “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.”
11. Calvinists don’t believe in absolution. Not so. Calvin believed Christians need a perpetual forgiveness of sins that can only be found in the church. Augustine and Luther propagated this as well.
12. Christ works within us. Only BY faith, and faith only exists in the object that it is placed in. Calvinists believe that when the work of Christ moves from outside of us to inside of us that it makes “sanctification the ground of our justification.” The contemporary doctrinal term for Calvinism is “the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us.”
If Calvinists want to deny this, have them explain to you what all of the aforementioned para-biblical expressions mean. If they don’t mean what is stated above, what do they mean? Perhaps there is a perfectly logical explanation for all 12.
paul
Eight Reasons Why Christians No Longer Need the Same Gospel That Saved Them
1. When we are saved, we are washed and do not need another washing: John 13:9-11.
2. When we drink of the gospel, we never thirst again: John 4:13,14.
3. When we eat of the bread of life, we never hunger again: John 6:35.
4. When we are saved, we receive all of the fullness of God: Ephesians 1:19, 20.
5. We are called to move forward from repentance of dead works and on to maturity: Hebrews 6:1, 2.
6. Reconciliation only occurs once: 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.
7. The gospel is a foundation that we build on—you don’t continue to build the foundation: 1Corinthians 3:10-15, Romans 15:20.
8. Peter said he wanted to spend his last days reminding believers to add certain things to their faith. If PTGTY (preaching the gospel to yourself) is the paramount vessel for sanctification, why would that not be his emphasis in the time he had left? 2Peter 1:5-17.
New Calvinists Start 12-Step Program for Righteous Christians
New Calvinists, firmly in control of Christian counseling in our day, have started a 12-step program for Christians addicted to righteousness. According to David Powlison’s research and development team at CCEF, the addiction begins with a literal translation of the Bible. Apparently, the addiction is most prevalent among lower income Christians who can’t afford CCEF and NANC materials that keep Christians updated in regard to the latest Christocentric metaphysical interpretations. This marks a new focus by CCEF towards the ignorant laity.
Powlison joins colleague Paul David Tripp in this new program that targets the longstanding problem among Christians of not interpreting the Bible in its “gospel context.” Consequently, the writings of the apostle Paul are interpreted literally in regard to his assertion that Christians are “enslaved” to righteousness (ROM 6:17,18) and able to please God by obeying Scripture. Particularly troublesome is Paul’s message to those who are obeying: do it “more and more” (1THESS 4:1). While Powlison acknowledges that the enemies of the “vertical church” have been sufficiently neutralized, there is an unfortunate remnant suffering in the shadows caused by obedience in our “own efforts” that eclipse the Son.
As Paul David Tripp explains on page of 64 and 65 of How People Manifest the Saving Works of Christ in the Spirit Realm, Christians are still enemies of God, spiritually dead, alienated from God, suppress the truth in unrighteousness, and “enslaved.” The problem, asserts Tripp, is that many well-meaning Christians confuse that Christocentric reality with the apostle Paul’s description of the unregenerate throughout the New Testament.
PPT has obtained a tape of a weekly meeting associated with this new program:
Group leader: “We have a new visitor with us tonight. Jake, would you like to introduce yourself?
Jake: “Uh, uh, I, uh, Hi, uh, my name is Jake, uh, I, I, I, I am righteous.”
Group: “Hi Jake.”
Group leader: “Is there anybody here who might encourage Jake?”
Group member: “Hi Jake, I’m Kippy, and I have been righteousness-free for five years now. You can do it Jake! Like us, you can stop trying to be the gospel and instead let Jesus show forth His righteousness in your realm.”
Applause from group.
PPT has also obtained the 12 steps associated with this new program:
1. Admit that you are righteous. Overcoming denial is the first step.
2. Begin using the Bible to plunge the depths of understanding in regard to your wickedness.
3. Burn all to-do lists at home, work, and at church.
4. Buy and read all new releases by John Piper.
5. Join a gospel-centered church.
6. Obey the elders for weekly absolution.
7. Tattle on anyone seen frowning during a sermon.
8. Stop hanging on to anything that gives you joy other than Christ. Most New Calvinist churches have covenants that allow you to sign all of these things over to the church.
9. Avoid all persons who are addicted to righteousness as you once were. Remember, bad company corrupts good orthodoxy.
10. Refute challenges with a list of quotations from 45 Reformed dead guys. This list can be obtained from your local New Calvinist elder.
11. Ignore guilt associated with unrighteousness, this is the flesh tempting you to focus on something you may do rather than what Jesus has done.
12. Preach the gospel to yourself daily. As you then partake in deep repentance, the works of Jesus are offered to the Father and you are once again justified.
paul
"Vertical"? Or Horizontal?
"When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel."
~ John Piper (yes, he really said this)
http://paulspassingthoughts.com/2013/04/19/calvinisms-denial-of-scripture-the-new-birth-and-the-trinity/
First let me state I am no blind Paul Dohse "follower", however he has a very important ministry in exposing some of the beliefs of New Calvinism.
Pathetic
Following is a video of a sermon preached by New Calvinist James MacDonald to his congregation. I don’t understand this attitude at all. I feel so fortunate that here at the Potter’s House we have our own little routine. During the week, I study for our Romans series, eagerly anticipating what God will teach us. My applications are from other books and letters of the Bible. We are presently in chapter ten, and have arrived there by studying Romans to that point verse by verse. If I have quoted a man or another pastor to this point, I don’t remember when. I type out my whole lesson word for word, and everybody gets a copy. Its not about me, I just attempt to teach the text as closely to the truth as possible. I don’t want it to be about me, unity comes from agreement regarding the one mind of Christ. I also try to teach hermeneutic principles that can help people in their own private Bible study. As our congregation grows, I hope to learn from those who attend from their own personal study. More than one head is always better. Frankly, I cringed as I watched this video. It’s embarrassing. I am also very uncomfortable with his spiritual caste mentally concerning the elder/parishioner relationship. Just seek the truth of God’s word, make it about that, and the need for “catapults” should be far and few in- between. If at all.
Heresy’s Calling Card: “We Must Preach the Gospel to Ourselves”
While we hear the same worn-out calls for revival, most Christians don’t even know what the gospel is. It is those under grace calling to those under law to be “reconciled to God.” If Christians really understood the difference between, under grace and under law, preaching the gospel to ourselves would be rejected out of hand.
Christ, as an apologist for truth, focused on one principle: the traditions of men replacing the truth of God’s word resulting in antinomianism. That’s it. He also stated that this would be particularly pervasive in the last days. And that is exactly where we are at today. The full counsel of God’s word has been replaced with seeing every verse in the Bible as salvific. The full counsel of God’s word (for life and godliness) that is the only cure for our new addiction to righteousness has been circumvented by denying that Christians are born again. Yes, there is a reason that we need to preach the gospel to ourselves every day: “The believer is no whit different than the unregenerate.”
They need the gospel; we still need the gospel. We “grow” by the same gospel that saved us. So-called “application” is a gospel application to every need of life. And the news is good. Tragedy need not upset us anymore because it pictures the cross. Wives being beaten by their husbands can glory in the fact that it “shows forth” the beating Jesus received before dying on the cross. Our own decadence serves to show how great our need is for Jesus; the more decadent the better. Anyone who “passes judgment” on the church’s resident pedophile doesn’t understand the depths of grace. Christians want to believe what is going on in the church isn’t connected to doctrine—whining about symptoms is easy; thinking is hard. Supposedly, lecturing people who believe Christians are still totally depraved will solve the problem. I think not.
“Change” is really “manifestations” and “experience.” We don’t change, but we can change our “sphere” and what we “look like.” Much of today’s “gospel-centered preaching” explains what Jesus’ manifestations in our life “look like.” This is the focus of James MacDonald’s Vertical Church program verses horizontal helps. Even John MacArthur bragged recently that he merely presents the text and the application is determined by the Holy Spirit and because of this, his people obey biblical truth without even being aware of those specific truths intellectually. This is what they mean by “new birth.” Our realm changes and we “experience” it, but it is really Jesus doing the work. That’s why these “experiences” are always experienced by a willing spirit and joy. As MacArthur has also said, true “obedience is always sweet, never bitter.”
The crux of antinomian sanctification is the fact that it sees the law in justification (it unites law and justification); therefore, sanctification must be lived by faith alone in sanctification in order not to make “sanctification the ground of our justification.” Hence, believers are still, “under the law,” and by biblical definition, LOST! It all boils down to the simple understanding of the difference between, under law and under grace in the book of Romans. This is a simple thing: if Christians still need the gospel, they are still under law; if Christians are still totally depraved, they are still under law; if they are still under law, they are not saved; those under grace are enslaved to righteousness and therefore need the law; but if they are NOT enslaved to righteousness, they are under the law which produces nothing but fruits for death.
Christians have to stop pretending if anything is going to change. You’re not giving your time and money to Christ if it goes to ANY ministry that tolerates ANYONE preaching the following:
“We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”
paul
Mark Driscoll: The Personification of Calvinism
The Potter’s House: Our Justification Crisis, Perseverance, and Assurance: Part 1
Tonight we will be looking at the present justification crisis, perseverance, and assurance. The relationship between these three is causing much confusion in our day. This is another topical subject related to our Romans study as we have been fluctuating between specific verses in Romans and topics related to Romans. We will look at the crisis tonight, introduce perseverance, and address the remainder of perseverance and assurance next week. Then the following week is our annual conference.
First, the crisis.
Those who love God simply want to know the truth; they want wisdom; they want to know the way; they want to be at peace with God; they want to please God, and they want to be able to share God with others according to the truth. They want hope; they want to know for certain that they will live with God for eternity. I recently watched a disturbing video that was a Q and A excerpt from the 2010 “Shepherds” Conference hosted by Dr. John MacArthur’s church. In light of the supposed Calvinistic view of election, an attendee asked what should be said to people when we evangelize. MacArthur’s answer was somewhat snarky; in essence, “Tell them what the Bible says, duh!” MacArthur then went on to explain that the Bible was full of paradoxes and tensions that couldn’t be understood. Therefore, just obey Scripture and leave all of the logic to God. In essence, understanding is none of our business. Dr. Michael Horton seems to parrot the same idea by stating that the law “gives us something to do.” It would seem that the totally depraved Christian masses need something to keep them focused while God does whatever He is going to do despite ourselves.
Let me just pause here a moment and clarify “supposed” in regard to Calvinists believing in election. Election should give Christians complete confidence that they are going to heaven which is the headquarters for His Tabernacle Project. Chew on that awhile; heaven is not our eternal dwelling place, that’s a Protestant fairytale, to name just one among many others. More would be done for God in the here and now if we understood that it is preparation for much bigger tasks that we will be doing for God in the future. The apostle Paul said that whether here in our present bodies, or present with the lord, we make it our “goal” to please Him. What! In heaven we will have a “goal” to please God? Woe! Perhaps we are not getting the whole story about our future with God. Perhaps our future with God is a lot more definitive than we have been taught. And does this affect our present service for God. Absolutely. Lack of information never facilitates action. Never.
Granted, election is a mystery. But what is important is that election and justification go hand in hand. Romans 8:29,30 makes that clear. Our justification was sealed before the foundation of the world. Our justification was before time, as in, space of time. That’s why in those verses we were also considered glorified. Now look, there are a lot of theories on election, and I don’t care which one who hold to just so you agree with me that our salvation was settled before time, and if we were justified before we were born, we can’t do anything to mess that up.
Unless you’re a Calvinist. If you’re a Calvinist, you can mess that up by unwittingly doing something in sanctification that is a “work” and thereby making sanctification the “ground of your justification.” Reformed elders are the experts in regard to what is a work in sanctification and what isn’t a work in sanctification. Be sure of this: the crux of Calvinism is the following: “We can’t know anything for certain so your best shot at heaven is listening to God’s anointed who save us from ignorance as much as that can be done. Though they don’t claim to know anything for certain either, they have been given the keys to the kingdom and have the authority to declare us unbelieving. They can’t give us assurance of our salvation, because living by faith alone in sanctification is very tricky business, but they can declare the contrary. Be a good Calvinist, keep your mouth shut, obey the elders, and hope for the best. That’s Calvinism, and I will debate anyone who tries to say otherwise. Words mean things, and I have the black and white of their words in abundance.
Unfortunately, Calvinism must be harped on in our day because this ideology has been ruling the American church since 1995. Its contemporary form was launched in 1970 and grew at a very fast pace, but circa 1995 marked a beginning of dominance culminating in the fact that this movement crosses all denominational lines and is the only option available in many US cities. And its view of justification has profound implications for the Christian—utterly profound. If revival is possible in America, Calvinism must be used as an example to highlight the way to real sanctified life; it must be stripped of its deceptive costume because the case has been well presented—evil and brilliance are not mutually exclusive. The leaven that blinds must be rooted out as learning progresses.
I find my discussions with Susan regarding her material for this year’s conference disturbing. On the one hand, Calvinists, including John MacArthur, proudly claim St. Augustine as the father of Reformation doctrine. On the other hand, Augustine flaunted his Platonism in broad daylight and stated in no uncertain terms that the Bible has no credibility without Plato. Pardon me if I am extremely uncomfortable with a justification formed by a committee of which Plato was a contributor. Moreover, the results speak for themselves.
Although the New Calvinists have dominated the American church for eighteen years now, things are not better, they are worse. John Piper, while announcing his future post-retirement plans from Geneva, stated that wherever the Reformation doctrine has sprung forth, that same geography is saturated with the blessed light of God. Well then, where’s the beef? Socially, there were over 333,000 abortions in America last year. Divorce in the church has surpassed secular statistics and is approaching an astounding 60%. Spiritual abuse blogs, mostly focused on New Calvinist leaders, have exploded in number over the past two years. In the past ten years, at least two organizations have been formed to keep New Calvinist churches out of civil and criminal court. This is all unprecedented. Where’s the beef? And where are the NEW converts associated with real revival? Polls have clearly indicated that new sheep are not coming in; they are merely being relocated and rearranged at the cost of split churches.
Yet, New Calvinists constantly talk as if they have arrived on the scene recently and their “revival” is just now getting into second gear. This is nonsense! They have been in solid control of the American church for at least eighteen years. And please, please, do not miss this: they continue to blame the mess they have created on “evangelical subjectivism.” This is the religious equivalent to the political, “Blame it on Bush.” Don’t miss this either: the problems with evangelicalism to begin with are due to the fact that the Reformers gave birth to them resulting in an overemphasis on salvation to the detriment of sanctification.
I say all of that to say this: when the Australian Forum launched Neo-Calvinism in 1970, they highlighted the idea that the church was in a “justification crisis.” That isn’t true, the church was actually in a sanctification crisis, not a justification crisis. But the reason for its crisis was the root that it came from: the belief that justification and sanctification are the same thing. Hence, getting people saved continued to be the obsession along with a woeful devaluing of discipleship. Basically, New Calvinism offered the full dose of the cancer as a cure.
But this is a very good thing. It is especially good because the theological dream team of the Australian Forum systematized this doctrine in a way that gives it staying power. These guys were right in a wrong way (they absolutely did rediscovery the authentic Reformation gospel), but nevertheless, they had brilliant theological minds coupled with personalities capable of strong persuasion. What this will do, finally, is force the church into revisiting the subject of justification in an in-depth way. It will force the American church to come to grips with their long held mentality regarding justification. And here is the crisis of confusion in our present day: what is the relationship between the two?
Here at the Potter’s House we have looked at that deeply. For instance, how could Christ have come stating that he didn’t come to abolish the law while the apostle Paul stated the exact opposite? We conclude that Christ was speaking of sanctification and Paul was referring to justification. Here is a statement for you: “The law is for those under it and those being sanctified, but not the justified.” Or how about this statement: “The law has a relationship to unregeneration and progressive sanctification, but has no relationship to definitive sanctification and justification.” The first one may incite the following conversation:
But I thought anyone who is justified is sanctified. “That’s absolutely true.” So how can you say the law has no relationship to your justification? “Because I didn’t need the law for my justification, but I need it for my sanctification. In fact, I couldn’t be justified with the law.” Then why do you need it for your sanctification? “Because being justified without the law resulted in being enslaved to the law.” So then, what was your relationship to the law before justification? “It was my enemy.” How so? “Because the desires of the flesh are contrary to the law, and the law provoked sinful desires within me. That doesn’t mean the law is bad, the law is holy, and unfortunately while provoking sinful desires within me, a judgment awaited me by that same law in the future. But now the law is my friend, and instead of provoking me to sin, it provokes me to righteousness. I am not sanctified apart from the law (John 17:17), but I am justified apart from the law (Romans 3:21).” But that verse states that the righteousness of God was MANEFESTED apart from the law. That righteousness is Jesus, not you in regard to justification. “Well, if that righteousness manifested was Jesus, that would teach that His righteousness was manifested apart from the law as well, so what’s your point? My point is that justification is apart from the law. If you look at verse 19 prior, and verse 22 after, the point is a righteousness manifested by faith in Christ alone. That’s my point.”
This brings us to Perseverance. Granted, there are verses in the Bible that seem to say that our salvation is contingent on persevering till the end. I have done a lot of reading on this from the Reformed perspective, and clearly, the belief is that the promise of salvation is “conditional.” Sanctification is a race from which we can be disqualified, but if we aren’t, the prize spoken of in Scripture is salvation. Salvation is the prize for finishing the race. The Reformed refer to this as “already-but-not-yet.” This would eliminate any rewards for obedience and service in sanctification. The reward is salvation itself. So, election (already) qualifies us for the race, but we have to finish in a way that doesn’t disqualify us (not yet). The obvious problem here is, if the focus is staying saved by faith alone, or persevering in our salvation, this keeps us focused on staying saved and not serving! No wonder sanctification is so weak in Protestantism, if salvation is not a done deal, that’s where our focus is going to be if we are smart. In fact, we are warned not to “obey in our own efforts” or “live by do’s and don’ts.” This is all very confusing to say the least.
I want to address one particular passage they cite regarding this:
Matthew 10:21 – Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Here is what I want to point out: in this passage, “saved” doesn’t mean “salvation.” This is where I keep saying that eschatology is not “secondary.” Eschatology is gospel. Remembering what we have learned in the past makes it obvious that Christ is giving directions for staying alive during the tribulation period. Verse 23 is the point; if you flee from town to town, you options are not going to run out before my return. The obvious implication is that they will remain alive. This is so very important. If you do not understand eschatology, this passage means our salvation is not a finished work; it means we have to persevere to finish our salvation. This passage also adds much weight to the argument for the millennial kingdom following the tribulation period which begins with the judgment of the nations.
Let’s look at what this all boils down to in the following visual illustrations:
As we have discussed before, sanctification is missing from Romans 8:29,30, but what follows is Paul’s point to what he stated in verses 29 and 30:
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
This cannot be deviated from. Paul is stating here that trials cannot separate us from the love of God. Something else is being communicated in passages that seem to say that we are required to persevere in life for some kind of “final justification.” Lord willing, we will take a much closer look at this next week
Let’s Pretend: Cedarville University Cares About the Gospel
“Did you know Christians still need to be saved? Well, bless your heart, it may be too late for you, but quickly enroll your children at Cedarville where they can be saved by Dr. White’s gospel.”
Nobody wants to discuss the gospel that has been running the show in the American church for several years. Launched by a Reformed think tank in 1970, it seized control of evangelicalism in the mid-1990s. Propagators continually put forth the idea that they are the new sheriffs in town and they need time to straighten things out, but the fact is that their gospel has been running the show for almost twenty years now. Are we better off? Hardly.
We aren’t talking about mere semantics here. We are talking about the heart of the gospel. We are talking about the law’s relationship to grace. We are talking about the very definition of justification. New Calvinism keeps the believer under law, but supposedly that’s ok because Jesus keeps it for us. No, under law is under law no matter who keeps it. God will not honor a false gospel. The New Calvinists aren’t fixing anything—they are creating the mess with their backdoor antinomianism.
The new President of Cedarville College is just what the trustees were looking for: handsome; educated; an adventurist; sports enthusiast; the appearance of pure orthodoxy; the Mayberry RFD family—all the things that bring in admissions from suburbia Christianity. Hope has returned to Cedarville; the alumni can once again look at themselves in the mirror. Yes, he’s good, even being a student of New Calvinism for six years now, it took me forty minutes to positively identify him as a New Calvinist heretic. I consider him one of the best at masking his false gospel.
Dr. Thomas White and his wife were both educated at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a bastion of Christian mysticism and New Calvinism. But a statement on his blog says it all:
When the Gospel drives everything we do, we see all of us need grace every day. We all have deceitfully wicked hearts and preaching a moralistic set of rules will never save but will only add a burden that mankind cannot bear. We should teach about theological realities such as adoption, redemption, forgiveness, and grace. We should become protectors of widows and orphans and fathers to the fatherless.
We need to proclaim loudly the biblical message that children are a blessing from the Lord, that life begins at the moment of conception, that we must fear God more than any opinion of man, and that the Gospel brings grace if one repents and believes. No matter any judge’s verdict, we must defend life now, not wait until the morning after.
For the most part this reads well, but the devil is in the details. The greatest errors are always closest to the truth. Does the gospel drive EVERYTHING we do? Does the same gospel that saved us continue to completely drive our Christian life? You know, the “gospel-driven life.” The “gospel-centered life.” Do Christians continue to need grace every day? What does he mean by “grace”? The common grace we expect from God every day, or the same grace that saved us? Do Christians need daily salvific grace? Is that what he means? Sure it is, for he goes on to write,
We all have deceitfully wicked hearts….
Is that true? Do born-again Christians have “wicked hearts”? Yes, according to New Calvinists. That’s why we need the gospel every day.
Like with all New Calvinists, we receive the same ambiguous rhetoric from White that masks his false gospel:
….preaching a moralistic set of rules will never save but will only add a burden that mankind cannot bear.
“Mankind” is thrown in to knock you off the scent. This kind of New Calvinist deception is protocol. The “preaching” refers back to “we” and “us” in the previous sentence including “all.” That would be us, as in CHRISTIANS, the fact that New Calvinists see us as no different than the unregenerate (and therefore still under the law) notwithstanding.
Furthermore, try not to close your eyes because a shocking scene is coming:
1. Rules in the Bible are called “moralistic.”
2. And, preaching rules will never “save” Christians.
Did you know Christians still need to be saved? Well, bless your heart, it may be too late for you, but quickly enroll your children at Cedarville where they can be saved by Dr. White’s gospel.
Somehow, they will become moral and serving as well. Dr. White will teach them two different things that supposedly yield godly results:
A. They are still totally depraved.
B. They should value life and help the poor.
Really? Dr. White also states that we should….”teach about theological realities such as adoption, redemption, forgiveness, and grace.” “Obedience” and “sanctification” and “discipleship” are conspicuously missing. And there is a reason for that.
Like all New Calvinists, Dr. White will propagate a gospel contemplationism that supposedly results in the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the believer in sanctification. That’s because we are still under the law and Christ’s obedience must be imputed to our sanctification so that we can live our Christian life in the same way we were saved: by faith alone. Synergistic sanctification is believed to be works salvation. It’s antinomian let go and let God theology.
Again, these guys have been running the show for twenty years and the results speak for themselves. One result is the GARB response to the ABWE scandal. It’s sad but true: Christians continue to pay good money in the name of a gospel that will not sanctify, or save.
paul
What Christ Would Say About, “Preaching the Gospel to Ourselves”
The more I learn about Jesus Christ the more I stand in awe of Him. He was/is for the little guy. He wants to be glorified in little people doing great things in His name. Hence, if one pays close attention, he taught His truth in a way that it could be understood by the least gifted. I am not saying that the Word is not deep at times, but I am saying that depth does not stand in the way of the knowledge we need for individual “life and godliness.”
Plato was different. He wasn’t like Jesus. Knowledge was the only way to understanding reality, so vast giftedness in regard to intellect was critical for the wellbeing of society. That gift was only found in a few who should rule the masses for the betterment of “the group” or “the whole.” Knowledge is it.
And that’s the American church. Obviously, in our mindset, a Ph.D. equals intellectual giftedness that must rule over others for the sake of “the group.” We have lots of them telling us that we need to “preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” John Piper and Al Mohler et al continually warn us not to think we can be saved by the gospel and then, “move on to something else.” The brilliant Dr. Horton tells us that we must continually visit the gospel “afresh” in order to live the Christian life. Supposedly, the spiritual peasantry should listen to them because they are the gifted ones appointed by God to, as Al Mohler put it, “save God’s people from ignorance.” Ahmen.
But what did Jesus say thou spiritual ditch digger? Well, He told us a story about a woman He met at a well:
John 4:7 – A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” 8 (For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.) 9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 11 The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.” 13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”
Obviously, Christ was talking about the gospel, salvation, or whatever idiom you want to use. The one drink results in a continuous spring of living water with no need to drink of it again. Then why would we need to continually drink of the gospel “afresh” for our Christian life? Christ is clearly saying that one drink is enough and that particular thirst/need will never reoccur. “But Paul, He wasn’t speaking of the gospel per se.” Then what was He speaking of?
Bottom line: Jesus’ illustration completely refutes the idea that sanctification, or the Christian life, has a realized or unrealized thirst that needs to be satisfied by the gospel. We drink of the gospel once for salvation and have no need to drink again.
paul
Calvinists Say the Darndest Things
“Calvin didn’t write that….I have read Calvin.”
Paul,
It seems you have finally stated our position accurately. I would go to the stake to defend the doctrine of “perpetual” justification. Perpetual means ” Neverceasing; continuing forever or for an unlimited time; unfailing; everlasting; continuous.” Once God has declared believers to be righteous in his sight, we cannot and need not do anything to perpetuate that standing. “Through whom [Christ] we have an access into this grace in which we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” This bears no resemblance to “progressive justification.”
Paul: It’s perpetual only as long as one lives by faith alone in sanctification.
C: Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Paul: Why is that? What’s so hard about the concept of keeping yourself saved by not obeying the law in “your own efforts” in sanctification because a perfect obedience is needed to maintain justification. What is so hard for you to understand about that concept?
C: There is nothing difficult about it except that no one believes it. You are clearly confusing concepts and statements and putting them together in a statement that is sheer nonsense.
Paul: Calvin clearly taught that any Christian who believed that they can please God by keeping the law in sanctification are condemning themselves (CI 3.14.10). Calvin Also taught that sin in the Christian life “separates” us from the “grace” of God.” Got that? Sin in the Christian life SEPARATES us from God’s GRACE. And moreover, that forgiveness for the grace-separating sin has to be continually sought in the church “daily” in order to “keep us in the family of God” (Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 45: Catholic Epistles). Give it up dawg, the gigs up. Calvin was a stark raving heretic.
C: Calvin didn’t write that. He did not teach that sin in the believer’s life separates us from the grace of God. Give me the quote. Even if he had taught that, it doesn’t mean Calvinists have followed him in that belief. Calvin believed many things that Calvinists don’t believe. If you want to discuss real quotations, I would be happy to do that. Don’t just try to tell me what Calvin wrote. I have read Calvin.
Paul:
John Calvin: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. The Calvin Translation Society 1855. Editor: John Owen, p. 165 ¶4
“Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God”
C: …. you need to remember that Calvinism did not come from Calvin. His body had long been decayed in the cold ground when the system we know as “Calvinism” was born. The Scriptures, not the Institutes, are our authority. I would not spend a second of my time defending Calvin or his writings. However, he was used of God to revive important truths that had lain buried for centuries. He was not inspired, but he was hardly a heretic.
Calvinism didn’t come from Calvin? Really? And sorry, this, ”Calvin didn’t write that….I have read Calvin.” is more than one second.
paul
The Real Meaning Behind “We Must Preach the Gospel to Ourselves Everyday”
In his commentary on the Catholic Epistles, volume 45, Calvin states the following:
“Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God” (John Calvin: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. The Calvin Translation Society 1855. Editor: John Owen, p. 165 ¶4).
Calvin is clearly stating here that sin in sanctification separates us from grace:
by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God.
Hence, there is no distinction between sonship and justification. Sin can only separate us from grace, and not intimacy with the Father. Sonship, which should be under the auspices of sanctification, is fused with justification. Then the shocker:
Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God.
Notice also that this “gratuitous pardon” is “offered” daily. So in the same way we are initially offered salvation for forgiveness of sins, we have to continually accept this daily offer of forgiveness. And moreover, that “keeps us” in the family of God. “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Sound familiar?
Now we know why.
paul
Press Release on 2013 TANC Conference
Please help us! Distribute this press release/invitation to your pastor and fellow Christians. It can be attached to emails, printed as a flyer, or posted on a blog.
Here is the pdf file: 2013 TANC Conference Press Release 6.6.2013
A Wartburg Watch Repost: Appalling Documentation on the Calvinist Use of Church Discipline to Control People
Wartburg Watch does a very good job of reporting on trends in the New Calvinist movement. Hence, I stroll over there from time to time. This post caught my eye because it reinforces what I have witnessed in these churches for a number of years now. Like all cults, these churches strive to gain control of people through indoctrination, fostering dependence through benevolence, and fear. When you go into these churches you can cut the aurora of fear with a knife. While still a member of Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio members were afraid to be seen talking to me because I asked questions in Sunday school that the leaders were unable to answer. We presently know of members in some of these churches that are being held hostage through fear. Once you are invested there, they can put a social hurtin’ on you, and maybe even financial ruin. In both cases, I have the T-shirt.
I continue to insist that these church policies are in violation of most state laws. It is illegal to restrict the lawful movements of any person through threats of personal loss; specifically, loss of reputation. TANC has a very long list of future endeavors, but on that list is to contact our local congressman to see if anything can be done about this type of covert kidnapping. Sometime after the conference I will be treating law enforcement officials to lunch in order to get their input on this issue.
And as usual, I would encourage the gang at Wartburg to realize that this behavior isn’t happenstance; it flows from an ideology called “Calvinism.” Their report describes Calvin’s mentality to a “T.” Wartburg continues to associate with those who hold to the ideology without the bad behavior. That’s a bad idea.
paul
The Grave Danger of Gospel Contemplationism
Hitler never really hid his intentions; nevertheless, when the truth came out the world was horrified. That’s because people didn’t pay close attention to his words, and assumed he really didn’t mean what he seemed to be saying. Hence, when New Calvinists say that “ALL REALITY” is interpreted by the gospel, we assume they don’t really mean, you know, “all” reality. But they do. The following link is to a Dr. Phil show. The doctor is incredulous that “ Raylynn” fell for, and believed the ridiculous antics of cult leader Curly Thornton for nine years (this is an amazing study). But what the good doc doesn’t understand is that Cult 101 is about the interpretation of reality; a lost art and emphasis in our day, especially in the church. Multitudes of New Calvinist parishioners witness behavior that clearly contradicts the plain sense of Scripture, so why do they condone it? ”We trust the elders; they are the ones who can most often see the situation in its ‘gospel context.’” Cults always hijack the epistemology; again, that’s Cult 101. The link follows. This woman is not stupid, she was brainwashed into interpreting reality subjectively. After that, anything is possible.
Link to the Dr. Phil show: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1948
paul
An Open Letter to Frank S. Page: President of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee; Do You Really Love the Truth?
Dr. Page,
Let me introduce you to our organization. “TTANC” (The Truth About New Calvinism) is a nonprofit L.L.C. educational organization. Our focus is a wholehearted dedication to truth as found in God’s word. We believe that saved people are infused with a love for the truth that comes with our salvation (2Thessalonians 2:10). True Christians love the truth and have no peace when it is compromised. We believe that truth, and only truth, sanctifies (John 17:17).
Though our beginning is very humble, we have bold plans to defend the truth because we know our sovereign Lord helps those who love His truth. We also love unity, the result of truth. Unity that does not come from the womb of truth is not unity.
This brings us to our primary goal within the TTANC organization: to articulate the false gospel of Calvinism in a way that the average parishioner can understand it, and then take that message to every truth-loving Christian that will listen. It begs the following question: “Will Christ bless fellowship with a false gospel?” Our answer to that question is a resounding and unequivocal “no.”
We want to assume the best about you, but we are perplexed by your endeavor to unite Calvinists and non-Calvinists within the Convention. We must assume then that you are among those that we intend to challenge one by one while being unmoved by long traditions, folklore, and the credentials of men that are not wholly devoted to truth.
I will close with an example of one such truth (among many that we will continue to develop) that we will present to Christians wherever they will hear us. In the Calvin Institutes, specifically 3.14.11, Calvin states clearly that the gospel’s “ablution” is “perpetual.” According to the Webster’s New World Dictionary, ablution means, “A washing of the body, especially as a religious ceremony.” John 13:9-11 and 1Corinthians 6:11make it certain that our justification (referred to as a washing in 1Corinthians 6:11) is not “perpetual.”
Moreover, if you think the mantra, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day” has no connection to this idea of perpetual justification, you would be mistaken. This is a theological felony performed in broad daylight and an open mockery of the truth. This is a grave error that thrusts a dagger through the very heart of the gospel—the same gospel you claim to love. We care not what esteem Calvin holds among the multitudes of mere men because we love our Lord and the truth. Men great and small will stand in judgment; greatness does not equal truth.
Your consideration of this would be embraced, but either way, we will strive to fulfill our duty.
”…it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” ~ Jude 3
Paul M. Dohse
TTANC L.L.C.
The Bible is to Be Interpreted Grammatically, NOT Redemptively
Labeling something with nomenclature that identifies something of high value as a way to lend credibility, and even circumvent scrutiny is the oldest trick in Evil’s tool bag. Hence, the “redemptive” historical method of interpreting the Bible. Supposedly, the Bible is a narrative about Christ’s works, and every verse must point back to that theme. Instead of the Bible being a full-orbed worldview, all reality is interpreted through Christ’s saving works, or “gospel.”
Let me just cut to the quick here: as a result of all of the study that Susan and I have done for this year’s conference, little more is obvious than the fact that the Reformers went to the Bible and interpreted it according to Plato’s worldview. They simply made Christ the “form of the good” or the perfect form, and made us the “lower forms” among “material objects.” Plato believed that only the pure forms of the good are “objective” and as you descend down to the “higher forms,” “lower forms,” “material objects,” and “images,” things are more and more “subjective.” Hence, the “centrality of the objective gospel outside of us” as opposed to “evangelical subjectivism.”
The Reformers even refer to the “golden chain of salvation” which is eerily reminiscing of the sophist familiarity of “the golden chain of Platonic succession.” Also known as the “golden chain of philosophers.”
Christ and the apostles interpreted the Bible grammatically and posed rebuttals with the minutest grammar rules. Christ argued for the resurrection against the Sadducees by citing the tense of “I am.” The apostle Paul argued for justification apart from the law by referring to the singular form of the word, “offspring.”
This argues for an empirical approach to the Scriptures concerning the literal meaning of words. This does not exclude the use of parables, metaphors, etc. as tools for understanding, but it does exclude the replacement of study and observation with meditation. The redemptive approach calls for meditation (or deeper understanding) of the only two things in our realm that do not change (supposedly): God’s holiness and our evil. This gives us access to the “unchanging truth” of the “object gospel.” In the selfsame tradition of the philosophers, Calvinist Paul Washer states that the gospel cannot be completely known.
Calvinists are really little more than a return to the elitist arrogance accompanying the propagation of the gnosis that plagued the apostolic church.
paul
Dear Tullian, Is My Pastor Preaching Correctly?
The litmus test that I use for myself is that if people walk away from my sermons thinking more about what they need to do than what Jesus has already done, I’ve failed to preach the Gospel….And a lot of preaching these days is “do more, try harder”…. (Tullian Tchividjian: Does Your Preaching Pass the Grace Test?).
“Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more” (Apostle Paul, 1Thess.
Christ’s Bride is the City of Love, Not the Church
“The church is part of God’s plan to bring history to that event, but it is hardly the Bride. Such a notion is merely Gentile visions of grandeur.”
The apostle Paul endeavored to explain in many different ways that the law is not a standard for the righteousness that justifies us. The law informs our sanctification, but it has never been a standard for justification. God didn’t add more law to human history to better define righteousness, He had no problem declaring people righteous hundreds of years before Mt. Sinai (GAL 3:17). The problem with law, especially as a covenant, is that it has terms. That’s a problem. It invites man to review the terms presented by God, and then to agree or disagree. The most important covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant that all of the other covenants contribute to towards a final goal, was based on promise and one entered into that covenant by believing God in regard to those promises. Trust in God is the issue. Noteworthy is the fact that God asked Israel to enter into a covenant with Him at Mt. Sinai before they had any idea what was going to be in the covenant. He did state the goal of the covenant: to make them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation set apart for His glory before the nations (EX 19).
Paul used many human examples to solidify the idea that law and justification are mutually exclusive. He describes the law as a marriage covenant (ROM 7), a will (HEB 9), an offspring (GAL3), a slave woman (GAL 4), and among other examples, a city:
Galatians 4:21 – Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
The Bride is the ultimate goal of the Abrahamic covenant. Human history apexes at the Lambs wedding feast. The church is part of God’s plan to bring history to that event, but it is hardly the Bride. Such a notion is merely Gentile visions of grandeur.
Abraham sought a city built by God (HEB 11:10l), and Peter stated that we are not ultimately looking for the rapture, but a new heaven and new earth were righteousness dwells (2PET 3:13). Peter stated that is “according to the promise.” The promise is the Abrahamic covenant which is based on promise and not law. The righteousness that will dwell in the new heavens and new earth is God Himself—He will then have what he wanted at Mt. Sinai as depicted by the tabernacle in the wilderness, an abode with man on earth in peace and love. God will reconcile with mankind and then vacate heaven and make an abode with him. Emmanuel, “God with us.” The tabernacle represented the ultimate goal and the means.
Hence, in Revelation, many of the judgments come from that very tabernacle via the angels who are the enforcers of that covenant (GAL 3:19):
Revelation 8:3 – And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne, 4 and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel. 5 Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the earth, and there were peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake.
And,
Revelation 11:15 – Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” 16 And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17 saying,
“We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, who is and who was, for you have taken your great power and begun to reign. 18 The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.”
19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
Shortly before Christ comes to subdue the earth:
Revelation 19:9 – And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”
And finally,
Revelation 21:3 – And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
Then the Bride is introduced. This is contrary to the earthly Jerusalem that represents Hagar and slavery, this is the church’s “mother” representing Sarah, but it is Christ’s Bride:
Revelation 21:9 – Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.
The only thing that we have now that will continue in that city is love:
1Corinthians 13:8 – Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
That is why faith working through love (GAL 5:6) is so important in the here and now, and the law informs us of that work, but it has never had fellowship with justification. In the same way that those who are under the law violate all of it by one infraction (JMS 2:10), those under grace fulfill the whole law by one act of love (ROM 2:8-10, ROM 13:8-10).
These considerations are serious issues. There are no “non-essential issues.” We will either add to God’s word or take away from it. Love and error do not walk together.
paul
Addendum:
The church is the friend of the Bridegroom: John 3:28-30, Matthew 9:14,15.
We are also children of Sarah who is depicted as the heavenly Jerusalem: 1Peter 3:6, Galatians 4:26.
Jerusalem citizens represent the saved while those outside Jerusalem represent the lost: Revelation 22:14,15.
We are friends of the Bridegroom, children of Sarah, and citizens of Jerusalem, but we are not the Bride.
John Piper: How to Hide Your Talents in 6 Minutes
I would like to point out some disturbing parallels between New Calvinism and the “wicked and slothful” servant in Matthew 25. It’s a difficult portion of Scripture, but a few things are certain: the servant’s improper view of God caused him to be “fearful,” resulting in him playing it safe, so to speak. The servant was fearful that he would do something wrong with the master’s money that would incur a loss, and thereby landing him in deep trouble.
Law: Calvinism’s Achilles Heel
Request free DVD of this message here: Free Offers Link
The Potter’s House 6/2/2013: Law’s Relationship to Justification and Sanctification
I think if there has ever been a Dark Age in Christianity we are in it. If you think about it, Christ wasn’t concerned with a bunch of ism’s, He continually warned about the traditions of men. I only now understand how powerful that is. I have been a Christian since 1983, and since then I have been functioning as a Christian on rudimentary information. And often in my life, it has shown. And the following is frightening: I was often considered to be an annoying zealot who dared to proclaim that he knew something.
Contemporary Christianity functions on the traditions of men. When people write me to make a theological case, it is made with a long list of quotations from men. “Orthodoxy” is a word that has become synonymous with truth itself. How can this be when orthodoxy is the creeds, confessions, and catechisms written by men? One advertisement for a Seminary boasts that they are “confessional.” We refer to it as “subordinate truth” to the Bible while we wait with bated breath for its next contemporary addition to be available at the Christian book store. While there, we will often pick up a little plaque or bumper sticker to add to our orthodoxy. “What! What do mean when you say that ‘Footsteps in the Sand’ is not in the Bible? That’s blaspheme!”
Truthfully, even though I have learned more in the past six months than my whole Christian life, I now see that I am really just beginning to learn, this is all new to me and I am rethinking everything. But this I do know: Christians in our culture really struggle with a biblical understanding of law. And here we are, Romans 10:4;
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
This is what is really difficult for us to understand. I had to learn it on my own with the help of the Holy Spirit. I went to Bible college—they didn’t teach it to me. I went to Seminary—never learned it there either. I have been to countless Bible conferences—ditto. No wonder that John said that we have no need for anyone to teach us; that is a good thing, because apparently, they aren’t going to do that anyway. But here it is:
For the believer, law and righteousness are mutually exclusive. Shock and dismay now equals traditions of men. This verse states that the law had to end in order for us to be declared righteous. The law “ended” “for” righteousness. This is to everyone who believes in Christ—that’s why Paul states that He is the end of the law.
As Christians, we don’t obey the law perfectly. That’s unfortunate, but in regard to our just position and present righteousness—it doesn’t matter. The law can no longer condemn us or judge us. Our salvation is lawless. The law doesn’t exist, so there is no sin (ROM 5:13), and it has nothing that it can say to us (ROM 3:19).
Because the apostle Paul knew that law being a standard for our justification would completely sap our salvation power in sanctification, he drives the point home in many different ways. Let’s start with Christ. Turn to Romans chapter seven and we will begin reading in verse one:
Romans 7:1- Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Who is the spouse that died in this case so that we are no longer under the law? Christ, and we died with Him. We are also the other spouse who was resurrected with Christ and is now free to remarry another so that we can serve in the new way of the Spirit. Christ bore our sin on the cross (imputation) so that we could die with Him and be resurrected with Him in the new way of the Spirit—not the old marriage covenant. The old us died with Christ, and our sin died with Him. The new us is no longer under that covenant—the covenant of the law. If we remarry, that law cannot condemn us. The dead are never prosecuted and brought to court. If a cold case is solved and the suspect is dead, he is not indicted by a grand jury. The dead are not exhumed and brought to court. Do you believe that a perfect keeping of the law is required in your Christian life for your just standing? Then the old you is still alive and you are an adulteress.
Paul explains this another way. The law was a will.
Hebrews 9:15 – Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
The law was a will, and like any other will it promised an inheritance. Like any other will, those named in the will are partakers in that promissory note. And before Christ went to the cross all who believed in Him were heirs of the promise. It was a covenant inaugurated with blood because all of the sins of those who believed on Christ were imputed to that covenant. This is yet another thing that I have never been taught before in regard to the subject of imputation. There is the imputation of the Father’s righteousness to us, the imputation of our sin to Christ, and the imputation of the believer’s sins prior to the cross. Our sins were imputed to that covenant/will with the promise of the inheritance upon the death of the testator, forgiveness of sins and eternal life. I am convinced that Old Testament believers were completely aware of this and understood it. Undoubtedly, this fact also opens up an additional wealth of understanding while reading the Old Testament with this in mind.
Let’s look at this a little deeper. Please go with me to Galatians chapter three and let’s start at verse 19:
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Notice that Paul said that sin was imprisoned in the Scriptures. As we have discussed before, the law is the same thing as the Bible. Again, we see that here in verse 22. Many teach in our day that this passage means that the law continually shows us our need for Christ and a perpetual forgiveness. The law is a “schoolmaster” that continually leads us to Christ. That’s not what this passage means at all. Ironically, the ESV has this right: the old covenant was a “guardian” that kept us safe from the eternal consequences of sin until the death of the testator. The full inheritance was received when Christ died. Now the law serves a different purpose which we will look at later.
But herein lays the Achilles heel of the Reformed gospel. Herein lays the reason that Calvin’s gospel is a doctrine of demons. It teaches that Christ fulfilled the law for us so that we could be declared righteous. It teaches that Christ is the end of the law in regard to us keeping it. Hence, there is really no END to the law. But worse yet, let’s compare this reasoning with a few texts in the same vicinity of where we are presently:
Galatians 3:10 – For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
To believe that Christ fulfilled the law for us is to also contradict what our beloved brother has said here in the following ways:
1. It relies on the works of the law; who does the perfect work is not the point. If Christ fulfilled the will perfectly, and we could have received the promised inheritance by His fulfilling of the law, why did He have to die? That’s the Hebrew writer’s point: IT’S A WILL—somebody had to die.
2. The law cannot justify because it is not of faith. It doesn’t matter who keeps it. “The law is not of faith.” If Christ fulfilled the law, that fulfillment makes us righteous and we are then indeed justified by the law. Christ’s perfect obedience is transferred to us and then we are in fact justified by its perfect keeping. By the way, this is exactly what Luther himself propagated. He stated that Christ’s obedience becomes our obedience and that obedience is transferred to us by faith alone. It’s backdoor law-keeping. Said Luther,
Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, His suffering and dying; mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, and suffered, and died as He did . . .(Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955), Vol. xxxi, pp.297,298).
This makes an imputation of law-keeping the standard for righteousness. The law is therefore not ENDED. For all practical purposes, we are credited with keeping it for our justification albeit by faith in Christ.
3. Furthermore, if the fulfilling of the law by Christ brings righteousness, that means that the law has life. Note verse 21:
For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
This brings us yet to another way that our brother Paul wants us to get this; OFFSPRING. If the law could give life, there is more than one offspring:
Galatians 3:15 -To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
This is also why the promise could not come through Ishmael; it had to come through Isaac because the promise concerned Sarah and not Hagar. Hagar represents the Mt. Sinai law, and Sarah represented the promise:
Galatians 4:21 – Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
Pray tell, why would Christ come to fulfill a covenant with Hagar so that we could be righteous? Christ is the end of that covenant. He came to ABOLISH it—not to fulfill it:
Ephesians 2:11 – Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
“But Paul, what then was Christ talking about in the Sermon on the Mount when He said He didn’t come to abolish the law?” Well, he wasn’t talking about that law, He was talking about the law of love. Same words, different law. Hence:
Galatians 5:1 – For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
Now, look at what he says in the very next verse:
Galatians 5:7 – You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?
So, what are we to conclude? We are to conclude that faith working through love….
1. Works (“working”).
2. Runs.
3. Obeys.
4. Is guided by an objective truth.
5. Defines love as truth (2Thessilonoians 2:10).
6. Can be hindered from obeying the truth.
This gives new meaning to Christ’s words, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” In Matthew 5:18 Christ isn’t talking about the Mosaic Law, He’s talking about the law of love. He didn’t say that our righteousness needed to surpass that of Pharisees as a challenge for us to let Him fulfill the Mosaic Law for us because the Pharisees were really, really good at obeying the Mosaic Law, why would He do that? That’s of Hagar and not Sarah; it’s a law that has no life. He fulfilled that law perfectly by virtue of who He is, but not for the purpose of justifying us because after its inherent fulfillment there is still nothing but the dead letters of that law. His problem with the Pharisees is that they sought righteousness in the law rather than in Him. This is why Paul wrote the following just prior to our text at hand:
Romans 10:1-3 – Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
Christ’s indictment against the Pharisees was that they sought the Mosaic Law rather than faith working through love. They put faith in the Mosaic Law instead of Christ (JN 5:39). Said another way: they sought the Mosaic Law rather than the law of love. And since love fulfills the law (GAL 5:14, ROM 13:10, EPH 3:14-21, DUE 6:5, LEV 19:18), that is the righteousness that surpasses the righteousness of the Pharisees. It is a righteousness APART from the law (ROM 3:21).
So in what way did Christ come to fulfill the law of love? Not by fulfilling the Mosaic Law—that is certain. It has no life! He came to fulfill the law of love. I would say His death on the cross would be a description of that. But the idea here is a constant fulfilling of the law. As Susan brilliantly pointed out two Sundays ago, the law is not completely fulfilled because of all of the things in the law that haven’t happened yet. Not only that, all of the references in the Bible that pertain to the fulfilling of the law by single acts of truthful love are in the present tense. If Christ fulfilled the law completely, how is that possible? (GAL 5:14, ROM 13:10, EPH 3:14-21, DUE 6:5, LEV 19:18).
Romans 8:3,4 makes it absolutely clear how Christ is fulfilling the law; He is fulfilling it through us as we walk in love. To say otherwise deprives us of our ability to love Christ and others and creates cold-heartedness in the vacuum. Wherever anti-law of love reins, cold-heartedness makes its abode (PS 119:70, MATT 24:12).
Anyone who uses the imperfect law-keeping of the Christian to prove that the law is still the standard for our justification also proves that they believe in a vicarious law keeping of a law that has no life for our salvation. It teaches salvation on Mt. Sinai rather than salvation at Galgotha. Christ was the end of that law because he put it to death along with the sin that held us captive to it (GAL 3:23). He did not end it by fulfilling it. He abolished it on the cross and raised us to a new life that is sanctified by obedience to the perfect law of liberty. Be careful to note James 1:25 on that. The blessings are in the “doing,” not meditation on Christ’s obedience to the dead letter of the law. The standard for that law is a perfect keeping of every letter (GAL 5:3, ROM 10:5) while the Christian fulfills the whole law perfectly with every act of obedience. We are blameless before Him in love (EPH 1:4).
Our Lord’s yoke is a light one for the impossible demands of Mt. Sinai do not terrorize us. We are free to love God aggressively. We bemoan our sin, but the old us who would be judged by that failure according to justification died with Christ (ROM 7:20), and the new us is under grace and not under law (ROM 6:14). There are relational consequences, but not eternal ones.
This is my prayer for the Potter’s House: as we strive to walk in loving obedience to Christ more and more, that our brother Paul’s prayer would be answered:
Ephesians 1:16 – I do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
Now, how does this all relate to the perseverance of the saints? Is our perseverance necessary to confirm or salvation? Does salvation require God’s call and our perseverance? I am going to address this next week because there is much confusion in regard to this subject, and I will tie it in with the issue of assurance—that’s next week.
NANC’s Salvation by Working at Doing Nothing
Thanks to the reader who sent me a recent article by “counselor” Rick Thomas—a Fellow with the annexed National Association of Nouthetic Counseling. The article utilizes a wide body of New Calvinist theology and thought which originated with a Seventh-day Adventist who is now an atheist (the doctrine is presently known as “New Calvinism”). NANC, which is now an embodiment of false doctrine, and unfortunately under the auspices of counseling, continues to thrive on the neo-evangelicalism that godly pastors warned the church about in the latter sixties.
Bright Spot Alert: Jay Adams Returns to the Pulpit
“Jay Adams will go down in church history as the founder of the most significant discipleship movement to ever occur in Western culture.”
Last week, the father of the competent discipleship movement returned to the pulpit in an amazing display of God’s goodness. What a privilege it would have been to be there to see this elder statesman put real preaching on display. In the message, he expounded on one basic, but very important principle of biblical thinking. The fact that he was standing there delivering the message also added a living dimension: don’t believe there is a practical/sensible season of retreat from our mission in the here and now.
Jay Adams will go down in church history as the founder of the most significant discipleship movement to ever occur in Western culture. The remnant of that movement that survived a demonic onslaught is embodied in the Institute of Nouthetic Studies. A certificate from that institute should be required for any church to consider a pastoral candidate. Pastors who are able to give people real hope are the only answer to present-day dysfunctional churchianity ruled by mystic despots.
Our thanks to God precede. Here is the mp3: http://www.nouthetic.org/resources/podcast/psalm-11
paul
To the Whiny Crybaby Calvinist Heretics: This is For You
I have been barraged lately with emails and comments by Calvinists whining and moaning that I have not quoted one respectable Calvinist to prove that Calvinism is the false gospel of progressive justification. What is progressive justification? Well, it is what Calvinists call, “progressive sanctification.” They believe justification has a beginning, and then progresses to “final justification.” Basically, by faith alone in our Christian life, the perfect obedience of Christ who came to fulfill the law is imputed to our Christian life, and this progresses justification (or maintains it) till the end. This is what Calvinists deceptively refer to as “progressive sanctification.” Christ’s obedience to the cross effected the beginning of justification (“passive obedience”), but Christ’s perfect obedience to the law or “active obedience” is an efficacious part of the atonement if anyone is to be saved, and of course, the belief in it as well.
Greshem Machen, the founder of Westminster Seminary, obviously a Calvinist heavyweight, was a big advocate of the “active obedience” of Christ:
J. Gresham Machen, the courageous Presbyterian churchman who sought to preserve the Gospel message in the warring Presbyterian Church (USA), who went on to found Westminster Theological Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), wrote the previous quote in a telegram on Jan. 1, 1937 to Prof. John Murray, a friend and colleague. This is the last thing Dr. Machen ever penned, and he went to be with the Lord a few hours later. Not only does this quote summarize the life and faith of a man who followed the Lord faithfully until the end, but it also presents a clear look at the absolute centrality of Christ’s obedience during His life for those of us who call upon His name in faith–”No hope without it” (David Bibee: CHRIST-CENTERED, NOT (MERELY) CROSS-CENTERED: PART 2 Online source: http://thebereanway.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/christ-centered-cross-centered-pt-2/#).
Machen, a Calvinist, thoroughly understood that this was Calvin’s position.
Now someone asks, How has Christ abolished sin, banished the separation between us and God, and acquired righteousness to render God favorable and kindly toward us? To this we can in general reply that he has achieved this for us by the whole course of his obedience. This is proved by Paul’s testimony: “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience we are made righteous” [Romans 5:19]. In another passage, to be sure, Paul extends the basis of the pardon that frees us from the curse of the law to the whole life of Christ: “But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, subject to the law, to redeem those who were under the law” [Galatians 4:4-5]. Thus in his very baptism, also, he asserted that he fulfilled a part of righteousness in obediently carrying out his Father’s commandment [Matthew 3:15]. In short, from the time when he took on the form of a servant, he began to pay the price of liberation in order to redeem us.
Yet to define the way of salvation more exactly, Scripture ascribes this as peculiar and proper to Christ’s death. He declares that “he gave his life to redeem many” [Matthew 20:28]. Paul teaches that “Christ died for our sins” [Romans 4:25]. John the Baptist proclaimed that he came “to take away the sins of the world,” for he was “the Lamb of God” [John 1:29]. In another passage Paul teaches that “we are freely justified through the redemption which is in Christ, because he was put forward as a reconciler in his blood” [Romans 3:24-25]. Likewise: “We are …justified by his blood …and reconciled …through his death.” [Romans 5:9-10.] Again: “For our sake he who knew no sin was made sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” [2 Corinthians 5:21] I shall not pursue all the testimonies, for the list would be endless, and many of them will be referred to in their order. For this reason the so-called “Apostles’ Creed” passes at once in the best order from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, wherein the whole of perfect salvation consists. Yet the remainder of the obedience that he manifested in his life is not excluded. Paul embraces it all from beginning to end: “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant …and was obedient to the Father unto death, even death on a cross – Calvin’s Institutes 2.16.5
Calvin, knowing that references to Christ’s obedience to the Father always refer to the one act of submitting to the cross, makes the specific references to His death justifying us a thumbnail that supposedly encompasses his life and death. Let’s say that this only refers to positional justification; that’s still a problem because the Bible states that we were justified apart from the law. If Christ obeyed the law perfectly for our justification, that’s not a manifestation of righteousness apart from the law (ROM 3:21). Moreover, if Christ’s life fulfilled the law, why does the Bible say we were justified by His death? Why is the clear emphasis on the one act rather than His whole life?
But the primary concern here is that sanctification completes justification (denying that it is a finished work), and Christ’s perfect active obedience is imputed to our sanctification by FAITH ALONE as part of the salvation process. That’s progressive justification. It’s also faith alone in sanctification in order to keep ourselves saved because “the same gospel that saves us also sanctifies us.” And: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Calvinist heavyweights in our day see it that way. But is that what Calvin believed? You be the judge:
Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification (CI 3.16.1).
The above reference is referred to as “duplex gratia” or Calvin’s view that grace was extended equally to justification and sanctification. Few Christians would quarrel with the idea that sanctification comes with justification, but the contention arises against the idea that sanctification is powered by perpetual justification: “These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie.” This states the fusion of justification and sanctification together, and makes them both continuous or “perpetual.” Elsewhere, Calvin stated,
Our justification is his work; from him is power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every good thought, since it is from the Spirit alone that all good gifts proceed (CI 1.13.14) [sanctification is powered by justification].
So, if we are sanctified by justification progressively, sanctification is also monergistic—hence:
If our sanctification consists in the mortification of our own will, the analogy between the external sign and the thing signified is most appropriate. We must rest entirely, in order that God may work in us; we must resign our own will, yield up our heart, and abandon all the lusts of the flesh. In short, we must desist from all the acts of our own mind, that God working in us, we may rest in him, as the Apostle also teaches (Heb. 3:13; 4:3, 9) – CI 2.8.29
And this is how the Calvinist heavyweights of our day interpret all of this. For example, Michael Horton:
Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both (Christless Christianity: p. 62).
Graeme Goldsworthy and co. articulated it this way:
The Present, Continuous Nature of Justification. For all its strength, Reformed theology tends to relegate justification by faith to an initiatory action in the soteriological process. This is because it contends that the subjective (personal) justification of the believing sinner is a once-and-for-all, nonrepeatable act. Hence the relationship between justification and sanctification is seen as justification succeeded by sanctification (Present Truth Magazine: vol. 16; art.13).
And like this:
The Holy Spirit gives the sinner faith to accept the righteousness of Jesus. Standing now before the law which says, “I demand a life of perfect conformity to the commandments,” the believing sinner cries in triumph, “Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, His suffering and dying; mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, and suffered, and died as He did . . . ” (Luther). The law is well pleased with Jesus’ doing and dying, which the sinner brings in the hand of faith. Justice is fully satisfied, and God can truly say: “This man has fulfilled the law. He is justified”…. We say again, Only those are justified who bring to God a life of perfect obedience to the law of God. This is what faith does—it brings to God the obedience of Jesus Christ. By faith the law is fulfilled and the sinner is justified. (Present Truth Magazine: law and Gospel vol. 7 art. 2 pt. 2).
And then for good measure:
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death—viz. ablution, satisfaction, expiation; in short, perfect obedience (CI 3.14.11).
So there you go crybabies. Do not respond to this post; I will not answer your correspondence because I do not have time to change your poopy diapers.
paul
Why it is a Total Waste of Time Talking to Calvinists
Paul,
I saw that you challenged John Lofton to an online debate. I know that challenge was not made to me, but I would be happy to accept the challenge. Let the games begin.
Answer:
Ya, sounds good big guy. I have a conference coming up and will need time to prepare afterward. Pick a day in August. Bring it.
paul
Answer:
Great. I think we need to decide on a specific topic, a forum, a mutually acceptable moderator and a set of guidelines to govern the debate. Will the moderator pose questions, will we pose questions to each other, or will we take questions from spectators? All of this needs to be decided well in advance.
After all of that is agreed to, a date for August 8 is set, and then this from the challenger:
The following are the rules apart from which I will not debate:
1. The Scriptures are solely authoritative.
2. Each participant must be able to state his opponent’s position to his satisfaction before being able to comment on it.
3. Every assertion must be supported by direct quotations, in context, that indicate the veracity of the assertion. (For example, you may not assert that Calvinists believe that matter is inherently evil, or that justification is progressive unless you can quote a Calvinist who explicitly states such a belief. A title from Calvin’s institutes will not be sufficient to establish that he taught what is stated in the title).
4. Each participant must define the terms he is using according to some accepted standard.
5. Though not a rule, the debate needs to center as much as possible on presuppositions, not on conclusions, since faulty conclusions are based on faulty presuppositions.
Response from Paul:
NO. Let each state his own position to his own satisfaction as well as one’s perception of the other side and let the people decide. And NO, the logical conclusions from stated positions will not be excluded. If Calvin said a cat walked across the street, I will not be excluded from saying that the cat was on the other side of the street just because Calvin didn’t specifically say, “The cat that walked across the street was then on the other side of the street.”
Furthermore, I will not be excluded from my firm belief that words mean things and that conclusions cannot be drawn from titles. If you want to say that a title of a treatise doesn’t reflect the theses of the treatise, state it accordingly and we will let the people decide.
Likewise, be sure of it, I will clearly state that we are debating from two different realities: grammatical verses redemptive. I will call you out on the fact that “The Scriptures are solely authoritative” equals ALL reality being interpreted through a redemptive prism. I will then cite the first tenet of New Covenant Theology according to the Earth Stove Society to back that up. If that’s a bad citation—state your case accordingly. If you reject that, state your case and we will let the people decide.
Moreover, let the people decide in regard to citations and their weight for the case. You don’t decide that and neither do I.
Answer from challenger:
Forget it then. I refuse to debate with anyone who makes up his own interpretations and definitions as he goes along. I can’t defend a position neither I nor any Calvinist believes. If you can’t show we believe a doctrine from clear contextual quotations, then you have lost the debate already. The truth is, you are an arrogant, theologically ignorant and inept fool who refuses to acknowledge what another person states as his belief. Your response has only confirmed what I stated earlier–you are too stupid to understand truth. I refuse to answer a fool according to his folly.
Just so you know, grammatical-historical and redemptive-historical methods are not mutually exclusive. Still, that has nothing to do with the topic we were to have debated.
Answer from Paul:
Whimp.
Answer from Challenger:
Call me a whimp if you like, but you are the one who refuses to provide quotes. I don’t really care what someone who calls himself a Calvinists has written. People in all camps say and write stupid things. If you want to say ”a Calvinist named __________________has written__________” that is one thing. To then state that Calvinists believe___________ is another thing altogether. If you are going to make such a statement, you need to show that this has historically been the Calvinists’ position. Prodigious generalities are never good. In any case, you need to actually quote the person. Let the reader decide whether the person is saying what you allege. You must stop simply assigning to people doctrines they don’t believe. You need to learn something about scholarship. Frankly, you are simply not worth my time.
Answer from Paul:
Same old – same old Calvinistic evil despotic communication: because “all of the elders do not agree on that point” you guys have deniability whenever you want it. Calvinism is a joke. The church needs a massive exodus out the Geneva city of spiritual whores.
Discipleship
The Potter’s House is a place where we emphasize the need for new creatures in Christ to learn and obey, not meditate and wait. Our goal is to maximize the gifts and the callings that God has given us and to pursue that goal relentlessly.
The Potter’s House: Calvinism’s View of the Law Driven by Platonist Metaphysics
We Are Declared Righteous, and We Are Righteous
I had planned to continue in Romans 10 and 11 tonight as we are looking at those two chapters as one unit beginning in 10:1 and ending at 11:26 with a doxology following. But a combination of events has prompted me to share something very important tonight. Lord willing, we will finish our study on justification from the book of Romans within the next two weeks and begin studying more in the area of sanctification, or Christian living.
Last week, I wrote an article announcing that the Potter’s House is now an organized church. I have also been very busy because of the upcoming conference—so busy that I almost didn’t recognize the craziness that was going on. Paul’s Passing Thoughts blog is not a blog that usually evokes a lot of comments, but out of nowhere, it seemed that Calvinist crackpots where converging on the blog from every direction. I finally stopped to take a look at what was going on. That post in particular drew more than 60 comments (with an additional 30 related comments posted on other articles) in a couple of days with no end in sight—I finally closed the comments down.
But with the research Susan has been doing for the conference in the back of my mind, a particular comment on the blog hit me right between the eyes—truly a light bulb moment. It just made it all come together for me and supplied a clear vision moving forward for the Potter’s House. First, let me display the Reformed illustration that will be the thesis of all three of my sessions at the conference:
This is a Reformed illustration of the official Reformation gospel, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Here is what Susan’s research has made clear to me: this is nothing more or less than a Platonist construct; period. This is predicated on the idea that matter is inherently evil and only spirit is the true, good, and the beautiful which is Plato’s trinity. That’s what this is. Man, being part of the material world, cannot have grace or goodness within him. And I quote:
When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel.
~ John Piper
In our time we are awash in a “Sea of Subjectivism,” as one magazine put it over twenty years ago [see left man in illustration]. Let me explain. In 1972 a publication known as Present Truth published the results of a survey with a five-point questionnaire which dealt with the most basic issues between the medieval church and the Reformation. Polling showed 95 per cent of the “Jesus People” were decidedly medieval and anti-Reformation in their doctrinal thinking about the gospel. Among church-going Protestants they found ratings nearly as high.
~ John H. Armstrong
And here is an excerpt from the exact article Armstrong spoke of:
Whether the Medieval church believed the new birth aided us in finishing our justification is not the point. The point is that sanctification does not finish justification and the two or totally separate, but more on that later. I now want to address the aforementioned comment on Paul’s Passing Thoughts blog:
Perhaps you could give me an example of a Calvinist teaching that matter is evil in and of itself. What you say about law is true regarding Calvinists and Paul’s teaching except that Calvinists do believe that Jesus satisfied the Law’s righteous requirements so that the believer stands justified before the Law.
And this was my answer to the comment:
You just stated it yourself. Calvinists believe Jesus had to fulfill the law for us and not in us because we are of matter and not Spirit. Paul taught that the new birth enabled the righteous requirements of the law to be fulfilled in us in sanctification–and the law is abolished in regard to justification.
Of course, this is a direct reference to Matthew 5:17;
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
THIS IS IT RIGHT HERE. The Calvinist interpretation of this passage equals the same as the two-man illustration. This has to be interpreted as Christ fulfilling the law for us while not abolishing it for justification. Abolishment pertains to justification; i.e., Christ didn’t come to abolish the law in regard to justification, and fulfillment is completely of Christ for that purpose. Because of the fundamental idea that the true, the good, and the beautiful cannot be united with evil and create good, this MUST be their view of law. It is of necessity within that construct.
But this is where interpreting the Bible in context of justification and sanctification is absolutely critical. Is Matthew 5:17 regarding justification or sanctification? Unless this distinction is made, the Bible contradicts itself. How so? Because in fact, the apostle Paul stated that Christ came to “end” the law:
Romans 10:4 – For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
When one believes, they are no longer “under the law” ….for justification. In regard to justification, the law is abolished—it is no longer a standard for our justification:
Romans 3:19 – Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
Romans 5:13 – for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
So what was Christ saying when He said He didn’t come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it? He was talking about sanctification which by the way is the subject of the Sermon on the Mount. Justification by faith alone is nowhere to found in that sermon. The sermon is about how the Christian builds their life on a rock. So, in what way did Christ say He was going to fulfill the law? Let’s see:
Romans 8:3 – For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Christ came and died on the cross to release us from the law so that the law could be fulfilled in us….for sanctification. Another way of looking at this is that he came and died on the cross to destroy the works of the devil in us:
1John 3:8 – Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Living a life of sin denies the very reason Christ went the cross. Ephesians gives us a good example of how this is applied:
Ephesians 4:19 – They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
By practicing righteousness (put on) we please God, love Christ, and fulfill the righteousness of the law in His service. By putting off the old us we serve Christ by destroying the works of the devil. But if obeying the law perfectly to maintain our just standing is the case, we are obviously out of the loop. Moreover, it combines the good with mortality which is anathema in the Platonist construct. Hence, in Calvinism, the law must remain as a standard to maintain a just standing. That makes righteousness within mortality impossible. This is the crux of the issue. True righteousness operating in imperfection is a metaphysical impossibility to the Platonist. But God has accomplished it by putting to death the mortal body we dwell in, abolishing the law for our justification, imputing our sin to Christ, and imputing His righteousness to us apart from the law. The old us died with Christ and cannot be judged, and the righteous seed of God dwells within us.
Let’s examine some of the answers to this that I received by Calvinists on the blog:
No, I was asking for an example of a Calvinist teaching that matter is evil in and of itself. Where does any Calvinist teach that Jesus had to fulfill the law for us because we are matter and not spirit? Now I even have questions about your statement that Paul taught that law is abolished in regard to justification. Where does he ever say the law is abolished in regard to justification?
In regard to the latter, we have answered that question. Paul stated plainly that we are justified APART from the law in many places. In regard to the former, it is like a wife-beater demanding to be shown in the Bible where it states specifically that he cannot beat his wife. It’s ludicrous. The principle can be seen in Calvinism’s “T” in T.U.L.I.P: total depravity. Look, I could once again cite the Calvin Institutes to make this point, but I think the following tweet from Tullian Tchividjian should suffice:
This mentality mimics Calvin precisely. Hence, my answer:
Calvin rejected the idea that any saint has ever done one righteous deed that pleased God (CI 3.14.9-11). Was he speaking of flesh or spirit? And if both are depraved, why would it make a difference?
I got this in reply:
Even those who believe in total depravity (whether in a regenerate or unregenerate state—most Calvinists would not subscribe to the idea that believers continue to be totally depraved in the same sense as are the unregenerate) do not believe the body is evil in and of itself.
And my reply:
In regard to you: we are all totally depraved, but not in the same way, and it doesn’t mean our bodies are inherently evil. Right. Typical Calvinist double speaking nonsense–you will not be wasting any more of my time. Post if you will, and get your jollies doing it–but they will not see the light of day here.
No matter what verbiage Calvinists use and what they seem to say, they must be brought back to the two-man illustration to give an account. In our day, the New Calvinist problem is a return of the exact same Gnosticism (which came from Platonism) that wreaked havoc on the first century church. This can be seen throughout the New Testament. New Calvinists like Paul David Tripp and CJ Mahaney call Christians, “enemies of God,” “God ignoring,” “we hate God,” etc., while the apostles stated the exact opposite:
Romans 15:14 – I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another.
The book of 1John is peppered with rebuttals that reflect a contention against the exact same things that the New Calvinists teach in our day. That is because John was contending against Gnosticism and that’s what the New Calvinists are. This will be clearly demonstrated at this year’s conference historically, doctrinally, and practically.
Therefore, the clear vision for the Potter’s House moving forward is a strong assertion that we are not only declared righteous, we are righteous. Our primary goals are aggressive sanctification in all areas of life, emphasis on doctrinal and theological training, and making disciples by teaching them all that the Lord commanded.
Because only truth sanctifies.
Mohler, DeYoung, Carson, Dever Defend CJ Mahaney’s Known Criminal Behavior in Recent Statement
“Mahaney has never repented of this documented criminal act. But while Mark Dever excommunicated 256 people for non-attendance, which isn’t a biblical reason to bring anyone up on church discipline to begin with, he is giving Mahaney a pass on blackmail and coercion.”
When are Christians at large going to stop letting New Calvinists frame the discussions to their desirable outcomes? DA Carson et al have issued statements explaining their silence about the SGM pedophile class action lawsuit. See here: SGM Civil Case pdf And no, I don’t have a “trigger alert” for its reading, suck it up and face the facts; it’s the American church in living color. The “unadjusted gospel,” the “scandalous gospel” [true that], the “shocking gospel,” the “underestimated” gospel has inundated the American church for 43 years now—WHERE’S THE BEEF?
Instead of revival and “real lasting change” we have two Reformed organizations needed to keep Calvinists out of court, innumerable broken families and friendships, innumerable church splits, an unprecedented doctrinally dumbed down congregant, a massive exodus of people from the organized church known as “The Nones,” a Neo-Calvinist resurgence exclusive to upper income churches, and innumerable spiritual abuse blogs spawned by the New Calvinist movement which again has had 43 years to make its mark. When are Christians going to start asking the hard questions?
The statements clearly reveal the true character of these evil, wicked men. They falsely accused one blogger of issuing unsubstantiated information about the suit. How can you call the posting of the actual lawsuit unsubstantiated? The statements are blotted with hypocrisy and indications of how stupid they think people are. And frankly, I don’t have time to unravel it all, so let me cut to the quick. But first, let me mention that Mark Dever, who excommunicated 256 parishioners for non-attendance and was applauded for it, along with the others, vindicated Mahaney based on a ruling by a civil judge. In the statement, they also declare Mahaney innocent and fit for ministry based on what they know of him while rejecting the massive outcry against him. Who made them judge?
But let’s just zero in on one fact that they ignore and that Mahaney has never repented of. Oddly, this incident is widely reported as an attempt by Mahaney to force the cofounder of SGM out of the ministry—the opposite is true; Mahaney tried to blackmail the cofounder in order to force him into remaining a member of SGM. In most states, this is clearly a criminal act:
Transcript of Phone Conversation between C.J., Doris and Larry Tomczak on October 3, 1997 pp. 10-11:
C.J.: Doctrine is an unacceptable reason for leaving P.D.I.
Larry: C.J., I’m not in sync with any of the T.U.L.I.P., so whether you agree or not, doctrine is one of the major reasons I believe it is God’s will to leave P.D.I. and it does need to be included in any statement put forth.
C.J.: If you do that, then it will be necessary for us to give a more detailed explanation of your sins [ie, beyond the sin of leaving for doctrinal reasons].
Larry: Justin’s name has been floated out there when there’s statements like revealing more details about my sin. What are you getting at?
C.J.: Justin’s name isn’t just floated out there – I’m stating it!
Larry: C.J. how can you do that after you encouraged
Justin to confess everything; get it all out. Then when he did, you reassured him “You have my word, it will never leave this room. Even our wives won’t be told.”
I repeatedly reassured him, “C.J. is a man of his word. You needn’t worry.” Now you’re talking of publically sharing the sins of his youth?!
C.J.: My statement was made in the context of that evening. If I knew then what you were going to do, I would have re-evaluated what I communicated.
Doris: C.J., are you aware that you are blackmailing Larry? You’ll make no mention of Justin’s sins, which he confessed and was forgiven of months ago, if Larry agrees with your statement, but you feel you have to warn the folks and go national with Justin’s sins if Larry pushes the doctrinal button? C.J., you are blackmailing Larry to say what you want!―Shame on you, C.J.! As a man of God and a father, shame on you!
This will send shock waves throughout the teens in P.D.I. and make many pastors’ teens vow, “I‘ll never confess my secret sins to C.J. or any of the team, seeing that they‘ll go public with my sins if my dad doesn‘t toe the line.”―C.J., you will reap whatever judgment you make on Justin. You have a young son coming up. Another reason for my personally wanting to leave P.D.I. and never come back is this ungodly tactic of resorting to blackmail and intimidation of people!
C.J.: I can‘t speak for the team, but I want them to witness this. We’ll arrange a conference call next week with the team.
Doris: I want Justin to be part of that call. It’s his life that’s at stake.
C.J.: Fine.
(SGM Wikileaks, part 3, p.139. Online source: http://www.scribd.com/sgmwikileaks)
Ohio: 2905.12 Coercion.
(A) No person, with purpose to coerce another into taking or refraining from action concerning which the other person has a legal freedom of choice, shall do any of the following:
(1) Threaten to commit any offense;
(2) Utter or threaten any calumny against any person;
(3) Expose or threaten to expose any matter tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, to damage any person’s personal or business repute, or to impair any person’s credit;
Mahaney has never repented of this documented criminal act. But while Mark Dever excommunicated 256 people for non-attendance, which isn’t a biblical reason to bring anyone up on church discipline to begin with, he is giving Mahaney a pass on blackmail and coercion.
paul
Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Carson, Taylor, DeYoung, Aiken Support of C.J. Mahaney
Well, statements of support have been issued by the elite regarding the drawn out scandal that is Sovereign Grace Ministries.
D. A. Carson, Justin Taylor and Kevin DeYoung have issued a statementsupporting their friend C. J. Mahaney, while Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and Ligon Duncan have issued a similar statement expressing their love for and confidence in C J. Sovereign Grace Ministries is currently undergoing criminal investigations with charges ranging from obstruction of justice to rape.
Piper’s Tweet: Evangelicals Don’t Understand That He is Talking About Our Children Too
“What’s the attractiveness of this philosophy? Simply, an escape from dealing with real life and responsibility in general.”
There is a lot of discussion among evangelicals (who don’t consider themselves New Calvinists) about John Piper. This is not unusual; we evangelicals love to talk about things we know nothing about. In regard to Piper’s heartless tweet concerning the little children who died in Moore, Oklahoma, evangelicals sit back and ponder why he would attempt to reach out to the lost in this way. What they don’t understand is he’s talking about our children too. All evangelicals can apply the principle of the same tweet to your child dying as a result of you fill in the blank.
Reformed theology is grounded in ancient paganism. It flows from the following basic construct:
1. Metaphysics. The material is evil, only spirit is good.
2. Epistemology. Truth cannot be obtained empirically. It must be obtained through some sort of gateway into the spiritual; usually contemplationism of some sort.
3. Ethics. Determined by the spiritual, and manifested by birthing the spiritual into the material realm.
4. Politics. The enlightened rule over the unenlightened masses on behalf of the spiritual. The masses are in bondage to empirical epistemology.
American evangelicals do not see the line in the sand that should be there. New Calvinism is a return to the same Gnosticism that plagued the first century church and even infiltrated Judaism. It has little patience for those who cling to the material in any way. And that includes children. The ability to dress up Gnosticism in biblical garb and its tsunami-like overtaking of Christianity mirrors what was going on in the first century church to a “T.” In New Calvinism:
1. Metaphysics: The idea that God will renovate heaven and earth with fire and dwell with us eternally in the same basic form that we perceive at this time is an abomination. Hence, Christ will not really dwell on David’s throne literally, Abraham wasn’t really looking for a literal city built by God, etc. It’s all allegory because it’s contradictory to basic Gnostic metaphysics (the idea that God would value a sliver of geography called “Israel” is an absurd notion to the average Gnostic). This is why Christians commonly think the Bride of Christ is the church and that we will dwell in heaven eternally.
2. Epistemology. ALL REALITY is interpreted by contemplating the personhood of Christ. Some call this “gospel contemplationism.” The Bible is a gospel meta-narrative (meta-narrative metaphysics) for contemplation purposes, not grammatical interpretation of reality. This is the basis of the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic.
3. Ethics. Manifested in the “flesh realm” by the imputation of Christ’s perfect life lived on earth, and a natural outflow of gospel contemplationism. New Calvinists call this, “The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.”
4. Politics. Reformed enlightened elders rule over the unenlightened masses in order to “save them from ignorance” (Al Mohler). Adherence to Reformed elder rule and orthodoxy is one’s best chance to arrive at the final judgment covered by Christ’s obedience. As God’s rulers they also have the authority to declare someone saved or unsaved.
What’s the attractiveness of this philosophy? Simply, an escape from dealing with real life and responsibility in general. Contemplating the gospel and disregarding the material enables us to stand back and observe our lives without emotional attachment. Our only responsibility is to live by faith alone, and by the way, John Piper makes faith absolutely synonymous with joy. This is the premise of his Christian Hedonism philosophy. Therefore, the death of children leads to joy because it shows us the utter worthlessness of this present material world. This is also the thesis of Paul David Tripp’s How People Change: ALL events in life are preordained in order to contribute to gospel contemplationism resulting in spiritual fruit. See the chart below taken from a CCEF workbook based on the same book (click on to enlarge):
And another chart from the actual book:
To Luther, this meant a cycle of deaths and rebirths leading to joy—tragedy enables us to empty ourselves and eradicate connections with the present cares of this material world. Here is how one New Calvinist stated it:
What, then, is the subjective power of this message? Firstly, we find that there is real, objective freedom, the kind that, yes, can be experienced subjectively. We are freed from having to worry about the legitimacy of experiences; our claims of self-improvement are no longer seen as a basis of our witness or faith. In other words, we are freed from ourselves, from the tumultuous ebb and flow of our inner lives and the outward circumstances; anyone in Christ will be saved despite those things. We can observe our own turmoil without identifying with it. We might even find that we have compassion for others who function similarly. These fluctuations, violent as they might be, do not ultimately define us. If anything, they tell us about our need for a savior.
That’s it in a nutshell. And it explains Piper’s heartless tweets down to a gnat’s eyebrow. He has no patience for anyone who entangles themselves in the material world. They are ignorant.
Christians better get a grip on this. This is not mere disagreement on obscure biblical ideas—this is a completely different way of looking at reality that has wreaked havoc on mankind for thousands of years.
paul
The Formal Launching of the Potter’s House: Why?
“Christian fathers have been sold a bill of goods. They have been told by the inept Christian academia of our day that they are not qualified to teach their families the word of God. Supposedly, the academiacs are the experts, but all they have done is regurgitated Reformed orthodoxy and tradition for hundreds of years.”
I became a Christian in Dallas, TX circa 1982. I was pursued by a young Christian zealot named Mark Cline. Mark was an individual whose life commanded respect from the saved and unsaved alike. Mark was a member of the Prestonwood Baptist mega-church located in Plano, TX during its infancy. I often visited with Mark and associated with the young singles group there. Mark died unexpectedly during minor surgery; an event that facilitated my full commitment to Christ. I now know why God took Mark home; the insidious scandals that where revealed at Prestonwood shortly after Marks death would have absolutely crushed him. The infamous womanizing founder of the church, Dr. Bill Weber, who Mark had infinite respect for actually conducted Mark’s funeral.
I moved on and eventually joined Richardson East Baptist Church where my calling to the ministry was formally recognized four years later. The pastors that participated are men of qualities hard to find in our day—that means a lot to me. But as one who grew up in the faith as a Southern Baptist, being Protestant has always been the greatest challenge in maintaining my faith. How can I still have complete faith in God and His Son after all that I have witnessed among Southern Baptists? It can only be chalked up to saving faith.
Recently, I have finally concluded what the problem is. It’s our foundation. Protestantism itself is the problem. First of all, it was founded on the false gospel of progression justification; that was Luther and Calvin’s gospel. Protestantism is a religion founded on a false gospel—it’s just that simple. Empowering the laity and starting home fellowships is not a radical alternative, it’s the only solution. “That’s throwing out the baby with the bathwater!” Absolutely, the baby is a Nephilim. That’s what Christians have to come to grips with in our day: the Western church was built on a faulty foundation. The only true road to revival is a rebuilding on the authority of God’s word. The anemic American church’s lust for control and indifference to spiritual abuse does not happen in a vacuum—it happens because of the pagan foundation it is built on.
Thank goodness for the New Calvinism movement. It is responsible for drawing attention to the real problem. Authentic tyrannical Reformation doctrine oscillates between the weakness/easy believeism that it created and New Calvinist resurgences claiming that the full dose of the disease is the cure for Calvinism Light. The president of Southern Seminary recently stated that Reformed theology in the form of New Calvinism is the “only alternative” for the present condition of the church. He failed to mention that Reformed theology is responsible for the present condition of the church to begin with.
In contrast, Susan and I have learned more about Christianity in the past six months than we have in the combined eighty years of our Christian lives. And I wonder if we haven’t had a bigger impact in the lives of others than we ever have as well. This is the result of merely studying the Bible for ourselves, and with the minds God gave us. But the statement by Al Mohler really incited me to make the Potter’s House an official church. Susan and I have filed the necessary papers with the state of Ohio. The Potter’s House will operate as a non-profit organization under TTANC L.L.C. (a non-profit LLC). Our Sunday evening Bible study will start at 7PM and will be streamed live weekly. All are invited to join us.
We endeavor to incite others to be the alternative to the formal church’s present-day tyranny and arrogance born of the Reformation. Christian fathers have been sold a bill of goods. They have been told by the inept Christian academia of our day that they are not qualified to teach their families the word of God. Supposedly, the academiacs are the experts, but all they have done is regurgitated Reformed orthodoxy and tradition for hundreds of years.
We hope to publish materials that will aid the laity in teaching their families the word of God. We hope this will be a major thrust of our ministry. Our present materials can be found at tancpublishing.com. We also have plans to start a Bible Institute as well.
Our new church website address is freebereans.blogspot.com. It is also the location of our live feed for the Sunday Bible studies.
Because only truth sanctifies,
Paul and Susan Dohse
TANC 2013: Susan Dohse on the Reformation and Platonism
Susan Dohse MEd.
Susan and I have been discussing her research for this year’s 2013 TANC Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny. This research by Susan started shortly after last year’s conference. Susan will explore how Plato linked the Western world with Eastern mysticism, and how Augustine then integrated those ideas into what later became Reformed theology. Your prayers for Susan and the conference are greatly appreciated and needed.
Conference website: 2013.ttanc.com
The Potter’s House 5/19/2013: The Gospel Truth About Israel (Part 2); “All Israel Will be Saved”
The Potter’s House 5/19/2013: The Gospel Truth About Israel (Part 1); “All Israel Will be Saved”
“The idea that all of national Israel will be saved is absolutely huge in understanding prophecy and its connection to the gospel.”
We are now very near to the end of our study on justification. Please pray for me as we will continue in the book of Romans and take a sharp right turn into the arena of Christian living. The apostle Paul is going to teach us how to obtain a powerful life to the glory of our Father. That starts in Romans 12.
The first eleven chapters in Romans are about justification. The gospel of first importance. How we are reconciled to God. How we tell others to be reconciled to God. And how those that we are trying to reconcile think. What man’s greatest need is, and what makes him tick. But there is another gospel as well: the good news of kingdom living. The perfect law of liberty that sets us free.
Paul finishes his treatise on justification with a major element thereof: the issue of national Israel. As we have seen, national Israel was elected by God, and there is a remnant within Israel that is also elected. We have seen clearly that God had a specific purpose in election—to completely eradicate man from any participation in his eternal security. If we were not born again with a heart enslaved to the desires of the Holy Spirit we would have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to live according to the law in our Christian life….for justification. And look, all of the Bible must be interpreting with this prism: [Bible verse]….for justification; or,[Bible verse]….for sanctification. The Bible is divided into those two subjects. Beware of any man who applies justification verses to sanctification issues. Mark that man and flee from him. The law has NOTHING to say to us….for justification. It has plenty to say to us….for sanctification.
And know this, know this shocking revelation (ROM 11:25): If Paul’s prayer in Romans 10:1 is not answered in the affirmative, no one, but no one is saved:
Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.
Listen, Romans 10-11 is a sermon manuscript in and of itself. It’s self-explanatory. Paul opens with that prayer in verse one, and closes with the following statement preceding his doxology in Romans 11:
26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins” (ISA 59: 20, 21).
In what way? In what way will Israel be saved? As we will see, there is yet another purpose in God’s election. Paul shortly revisits justification fundamentals in regard to national Israel’s rebellion which is, as we will see, used by God in His second great purpose of election. Paul’s sermon here is really about the two great purposes of God’s election.
And note: “ALL” Israel will be saved. Stop right there. Please do not believe the lie that eschatology cannot be understood definitively. Please do not believe that it is “secondary,” “nonessential” truth. We have bought into that because of the confusion surrounding the subject of Israel. If there is a time that ALL of national Israel will be saved, and obviously that is the case, this is a key interpretive element in understanding eschatology. AND justification. AND the gospel. 25% of the Bible being about eschatology is not an aside—it’s not a preface—it’s gospel.
The idea that all of national Israel will be save is absolutely huge in understanding prophecy and its connection to the gospel. First, let’s go back in time and establish that this was God’s original purpose for Israel:
Exodus 19:3 – while Moses went up to God. The Lord called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: 4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”
God’s original covenant with Israel was contingent on His promise alone, or “the promise.” When God made this covenant with the father of our faith, God put Abram into a deep sleep and consummated the promise himself:
Genesis 15:1 – After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” 2 But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” 4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
7 And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” 8 But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” 9 He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” 10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. 11 And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. 13 Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. 14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. 16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
And the plan always included the Gentiles being grafted in (blessed) “through” God’s covenant with Israel:
Genesis 12:1 – Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Genesis 17:1 – When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 4 “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
Genesis 22:15 – And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”
In regard to the Mt. Sinai covenant, national Israel did break it for the most part except for the remnant chosen by God. But God used that rebellion, prophesied in the original covenant, to bless the Gentiles while adding another covenant to the original covenant:
Jeremiah 31:31 – “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
35 Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the Lord of hosts is his name: 36 “If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the Lord, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.” 37 Thus says the Lord: “If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the Lord.”
38 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah. 40 The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the Lord. It shall not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever.”
The New Covenant was never made between God and the Gentiles—it was made with Israel. Nor is the covenant fully consummated. We presently enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant by Jewish proxy. What God said He was going to accomplish in the New Covenant is clearly not fulfilled. Many need to simply get over it: the saving of national Israel is yet future. But when? And what relationship does that have to justification?
Obviously, those who want to make weak distinctions between justification and sanctification (resulting in passive sanctification) do not want to separate the two in prophetic interpretations. Popular in our day and indicative of Protestant tradition is the idea of one resurrection and one judgment. More than one resurrection and judgment opens up the door to distinctions between justification and sanctification as well as Jewish uniqueness. The latter is has always been the scourge of worldly sentiment dressed in religious garb. Moreover, the idea of one final judgment to determine who is truly justified and who isn’t is somewhat disconcerting to anyone who understands justification. The idea that our justification is a settled issue is far more desirable, and I contend, biblical. Notice the excerpt below from a video interview conducted with John Piper:
Notice “last day” is singular and we are only then going to be counted righteousness. Such an assertion gives us pause in light of Romans 8:
28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered” (PS 44:22).
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Election calls for us to be counted righteous before the earth was even created. It is a settled issue presently. During the 2009 Resolved Conference, Pastor Steve Lawson preached on the Great White Throne Judgment. Throughout the message, it was unclear where he stands on whether or not believers will stand in the same judgment with unbelievers to determine final justification. But throughout the message he seemed to insinuate that believers would not be present. I thought this odd knowing that he is an avowed Calvinist. That is, until he connected Matthew 25:31-46 with the final judgment. That is a judgment where the sheep are separated from the goats among all the nations gathered before Him. Is that the scene at the Great White Throne Judgment? And obviously, if it is, this is where our final justification would be confirmed.
Furthermore, in this particular judgment, not all of Israel is saved. This is the judgment that follows the return of Christ visibly with myriads of angels. The scene is extremely apocalyptic:
Luke 21:25 – “And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
Matthew 24:27 – For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
However, at the end of the Millennial Kingdom, and preceding the Great White Throne Judgment, there is no visible return of Christ. When the armies of all the other nations surround Israel, God merely rains fire down from heaven and consumes them:
Revelation 20:1 – Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Furthermore, prior to the Great White Throne Judgment, Satan is bound for 1000 years. This is certainly not the case prior to the Millennial Kingdom. During the tribulation period, Satan is free to wreak havoc on the earth. More than likely, the judgment Steve Lawson referred to is known as the judgment of the nations at the end of the tribulation period. Those who will be commended by Christ at that judgment are commended for helping people with needs that will not be present during the Millennial Kingdom:
Matthew 25:31 – “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Until the day Satan is released, a mass of Scriptures describe the Millennial Kingdom as paradise on earth. Also note REV 20:4—there is also a judgment in which those slain for their faith during the tribulation period stand. These are multiple judgment thrones, and probably the same ones Christ referred to in a discussion with His disciples:
Matthew 19:27 – Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.
Christ’s “glorious throne” is the same one He refers to regarding the judgment of the nations. Apparently, at the end of the tribulation period, Christ will judge the nations and the apostles will judge the elect of Israel in regard to rewards and how they will rein with Christ for the next 1000 years. I think the Judgment Christ speaks of in Matthew 7:21-23 refers to the judgment of the nations during that time. In both cases, “lawlessness (anomia)” and false wonders/miracles are a major theme. In both cases, entering into the kingdom of heaven is a theme, but there is no such theme at the White Throne Judgment because it is a judgment connected in totality to the “second death.” Besides, what follows would be an entering into the new heavens and new earth—not the kingdom of heaven on earth. This is a given because all who are not at this judgment have received their invitation to the wedding supper of the lamb (REV 19:9) which takes place when the Bride arrives from heaven (REV 21:9-14).
Moreover, during the Millennial Kingdom, all of the inhabitants of national Israel will be saved:
Revelation 20:7 – And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
I believe Paul’s reference to ALL of national Israel being saved is encompassed in the 20th chapter of Revelation. That begins when God sends His angels to enforce the Mt. Sinai covenant during the tribulation period. The angels put the covenant in place at Mt. Sinai (GAL 3:19). That’s why there are direct references to that covenant in Revelation. For example:
Revelation 6:9 – When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” [Alter of incense].
Revelation 8:3 – And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne, 4 and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel. 5 Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the earth, and there were peals of thunder, rumblings,[a] flashes of lightning, and an earthquake.
Revelation 11: 19 – Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
The final judgment to consider is the bema judgment (1COR 3:10-15, 2COR 5:10). This is a judgment for rewards and probably occurs shortly after the rapture since the twenty- four elders in REV 4:10 already have their crowns. This is also distinct from the White Throne Judgment because everyone at that judgment has died. That’s not the case with the rapture (1THES 4:13-5:4, 2THES 2:1-12, 1COR 15: 51-53, LK 14:12-14). The main distinction between the judgment of the nations and the rapture is that one is imminent while tribulation events are marked by time periods. So, from the signing of the treaty between Israel and the Antichrist (God strictly forbade the signing of covenants with other nations for protection at Mt. Sinai) to the visible apocalyptic return of Christ will be exactly seven years. It is not an imminent return, and unlike the rapture is not a meeting with Christ in the air.
At any rate, the idea that eschatology is too deep and mysterious to be definitively understood is just more Protestant boloney. It doesn’t make sense that a subject comprising 25% of the Bible has no objective outcome as if it’s God’s goal to keep us confounded. The following chart illustrates what we have discussed thus far:
I contend that the issue here is the relationship of eschatology to the gospel. One resurrection and one judgment argues for progressive justification. “Final justification,” while giving a node to once saved always saved actually calls for an ambiguous final judgment where the elect’s justification is “manifested” and confirmed. If God knows we are justified, and we know we are justified (1JN 5:13) why is such a confirmation hearing necessary? Many in Reformed circles, if not most, posit the idea that the prize we seek in the Christian race is salvation itself. We must keep ourselves “qualified” by faith alone in sanctification in order to not be “disqualified” from the race. Some even suggest “mutable justification” as opposed to immutable justification. A wink and a node is given to once saved always saved with “already not yet.”
How we are saved effects how things end. All of Israel will be saved because the New Covenant is dependent on what God does, and not anything Israel has done or will do. Likewise, the security of our own salvation does not depend on anything we do in sanctification. Seeing the biblically defined power of God in our lives certainly bolsters our assurance, but the work of justification is finished. We are all like that thief on the cross; all he could do was believe and ask for mercy, and with that Christ declared that he would be in paradise that same day. Likewise, in Romans 8:30, we are declared glorified already; it is finished, it is as good as done.
Joseph Prince: A Kinder, Gentler Calvinist
“Some think that this message originated from Joseph Prince. It does not: it was the message of the Reformation; the message of Martin Luther and John Calvin, and it is still preached today, and needs to be preached much more from all the pulpits in Singapore and Malaysia.”
~ Kenny Chee, senior pastor of World Revival Prayer Fellowship.
The SGM Spiritual Abuse Holocaust: Wade Burleson is Not a Solution; He’s the Problem
“Really? Is that where we are? While our ravaged Christian children languish away in mental hell the big dare from another pastor is to say that I don’t like CJ Mahaney? Is that how pathetic we are?”
I really don’t have time to write this as I am preparing for a conference, but on the other hand I am both fuming and fed-up. “Trigger alert”? Oh this is way past that, hide the children.
Regarding the recent revision of the Catholicesque class action lawsuit against the New Calvinist organization Sovereign Grace Ministries, “holocaust” is not terminology that is out of line. If you have read the revision, I am sure you agree that the number of fatalities pale, but the shear degree of evil, even if half of the accusations are true, is comparable.
During WWII, a lone German pastor left the protection and comfort of his American mission and returned to the belly of the beast to cry out against the Holocaust. For his outcry, he was hung naked with piano wire. The New Calvinist beasts among us criticize Bonheoffer for being “unorthodox” and plotting against the German government while extolling Christopher Love as a godly martyr. Love was a Puritan who meddled in petty European power struggles between kings and was executed for it. Genocide was hardly the issue.
Like the vast majority of clergy during WWII, the American clergy rants ambiguously against the sin, but stands silent against the sinner. The apostle Paul rebuked Peter publically for eating sandwiches in hypocrisy, and commanded that elders who sin should be rebuked publically so that others would fear. Such rebukes in the midst of sin that the heathen will not even tolerate are nowhere to be found on the contemporary evangelical landscape. American pastors are the epitome of coldhearted indifference, hypocrisy, and lust for acceptance in the good ole boys club. They dream of invitations to the big conferences and the approval of those who best teach how to drink orthodox Kool-Aid intravenously. There are no words for the degree of contempt and disgust that I have for these pathetic cowards. Where is the outrage?
Though what I experienced pales in comparison to the SGM victims, I can speak to why victims wait so long to come forward. When things that don’t make any sense happen in an environment of trust, confusion waits for clarity before action. The confused rarely act, and the brainwashed rarely react at all. My responses are now in full gear—seven years later. Seven years. And in relative terms, I “only” lost all of my “friends,” my name, and half of my family.
But back to the hypocrites. Steve Camp, who once wrote a song about feeling the pain of others, even to the degree of tasting the salt in their tears, tweeted to me that the SGM scandal was a “local church” issue and shouldn’t be public. This also apes SGM’s defense; it’s not the world’s business. That was followed up by, “Do you not like him [CJ Mahaney]? I do.” Really? Is that where we are? While our ravaged Christian children languish away in mental hell the big dare from another pastor is to say that I don’t like CJ Mahaney? Is that how pathetic we are? And one of the most popular Christian musicians of our time boasts that he likes a friend of pedophiles? “But Paul, there is no verdict yet.” Yes there is. If Steve Camp likes CJ, he obviously believes CJ and has totally disregarded the claims of eleven people against an elder when only two are needed. Otherwise, he would wait to see if he still likes CJ. But he does, like all the other members of the New Calvinist coven.
And the likes of Pastor Wade Burleson only make the situation worse with his half- pregnant overtures. He becomes a cushion between the beasts and the ravaged. Burleson is a New Calvinist, that is bad enough, but he is passing on the opportunity to use his influence to call out these people by name—probably because he is a New Calvinist that sympathizes with those suing New Calvinists.
From time to time, groups of notable evangelicals come together and sign declarations. It’s always big news. I am still waiting for a declaration of zero tolerance for child-rapists in the evangelical church. It could be stopped. Yes indeed, no doubt. How? A declaration by notable pastors declaring that they will not tolerate it. A group of notable pastors walking down an isle on a Sunday morning and demanding that a man get out of the pulpit until certain situations are resolved. Why not? That’s what the apostle Paul did! And we are talking about child rape, not who we avoid at the diner. THIS IS A LEADERSHIP ISSUE.
Pastors are called on by God to strike fear in the hearts of sinning elders. Instead, they cover for them. One notable Southern Baptist pastor once said to a victim demanding justice, “What do you want me to do, shoot him?” Well, in my book, that would be a start, and certainly better than what is presently taking place. But all the victim really wanted is for this pastor to use his influence to protect others from her same fate. Is that too much to ask from these hirelings? Yes. Absolutely.
Wade Burleson has significant influence in evangelical circles, that’s why the Wartburg Watch slobbers all over him continually. He is a hero among spiritual abuse bloggers because he, get this, shows compassion for the spiritually abused. That’s where we are as well: any notable pastor that even shows compassion towards the spiritually abused is a hero! But we don’t need another polished evangelical celebrity in our day full of soothing words; these are times that call for the likes of Dietrich Bonheoffer.
Burleson needs to use his bogus influence to make a difference. He needs to start calling people out by name and calling other pastors to join him. He needs to stop playing both sides of the fence with compassion on one side and silence on the other. It’s not enough to call out the crime; the criminals need to be called out as well. We know he can name names in his own church when the offender is an average Joe, but will he call out the big-name pedophile collaborators? The victims of SGM are suing people and naming names, not just their crimes. As victims, they are courageously facing their abusers in court because pastors wouldn’t step up. Though Burleson is a “hero” for saying they can sue, they wouldn’t need to if he and others would fully exploit their God-given positions for the sake of victims.
If Burleson is going to play the role, he needs to leave it all on the court and stop separating the sin from the sinner. Victims don’t have that convenience if they get justice. And justice is a big part of healing. Stop playing Dietrich Bonheoffer and be Dietrich Bonheoffer who was a real advocate for victims. Victims were the real cause, not the preservation of social status.
paul
23 comments