Paul's Passing Thoughts

In the following clip, notice that Calvinist Todd Friel includes Christ’s “perfect life” as being part of the atonement. Problem is, God was “pleased” with Christ when he was baptized by John and lived about three years after that. If God was pleased with Christ at that point, obviously a perfect life wasn’t required. Christ didn’t have to prove that he was the perfect Lamb of God—He was the Perfect Lamb by virtue of who he is. Since when does God prove that He is God?

Furthermore, if Christ had to live a perfect life as part of the atonement, that’s not a righteousness manifested apart from the law (Rom 3:21), and posits the idea that there is a law that can give life (Gal 3:21). These are the two 3:21s that decimate the blatant false gospel of Calvinism. It doesn’t matter who keeps the law, “apart” means apart, and the law can either give life or not give life…for justification.

But the error goes deeper than that. This is the double imputation version of Calvinism. Supposedly, we (Christians) must live life in such a way that our sanctification (Christian living) is by faith alone in Christ’s perfect obedience to both the cross and the law. IF we do that, Christ’s perfect obedience will be imputed to our Christian life, and we will REMAIN justified. It’s salvation by Christ plus antinomianism.

That’s why Calvinists redefine antinomianism as a belief that the law is not needed at all in the Christian life, and they are supposedly “friends of the law” because they believe it is the standard for justification. However, in the final analysis there is no difference; either way, the law isn’t for us to keep (“uphold” Rom 3:31) for any reason. An obedience supplied for us must be applied to our Christian lives by faith alone; the same way we were saved.

Since living by faith alone, as opposed to being declared righteous by faith alone is really tricky business, assurance of salvation is ambiguous and their verbiage reflects this. Salvation finality is usually framed in the future tense, or at least implied that way. Freil states, with an added tonal emphasis, that like unbelievers, “WE” don’t have to die either (versus we will not die). Following the Friel clip, I have a visual illustration from a Piper video clip that also reflects the uncertainty of salvation.

No John Piper; He has already taken our place; no John Piper; His righteousness already counts for me; no John Piper; He is already my solid ground.

Which Jesus do you believe in? The one who has already taken your place? Or the Calvinist Jesus that might take your place IF you do something this way, that way, or the other way?

paul