Paul's Passing Thoughts

RC Sproul loved it. John MacArthur Jr. loved it, and this is a post about why double imputation is a false gospel. First, it is fundamentally false because it defines righteousness as perfect law-keeping. The apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians for the sole purpose of refuting this idea. His argument? Abraham was declared righteous 400 years before the implementation of the law through Moses. Why then, the law? Paul states that it WAS a guardian (not a “tutor”) that protected us until “faith” (Christ) came. Before Christ came, sin was imputed to the law, and then Christ came to end the law. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4, NKJV). Notice that Paul stated the following: Christ was the end of the law, FOR righteousness. Clearly, the law does not define righteousness, but John Calvin et al spilled an ocean of ink making that case.

So, what does make us righteous? Well, 1^st John is clear on that. We are righteous by God’s seed being within us. We are righteous by new birth, not perfect law-keeping by anyone. Who keeps the law is not the issue; the law is the issue. The second fatal error of Protestantism is a single perspective on the law; according to Protestantism, the role of the law is not changed by the new birth. Much more on that later in this post.

The fundamental premise of Protestantism is the idea of double imputation. Since perfect law-keeping defines righteousness, instead of God’s seed being within us (righteousness by new birth), an ongoing fulfillment of the law must be perpetually imputed to us through the “active obedience” of Christ. Our past sins were blotted out through Christ’s death (his passive obedience), but that is not enough for us to be declared righteous. We must have our sins forgiven, but we must also have perfect law-keeping added as well for us to be…and don’t miss this…”declared righteous.” Yes, in Protestantism, you are not righteous as a state of being, you are only declared righteous through Christ’s perpetual double imputation of his passive obedience and active obedience. And since “Christians” must be forgiven of “present sin” due to imperfect law-keeping, they must continue to “partake in Christ” through the “ordinary means of grace” (read, ordinary means of salvation) via Protestant church ritual. Hence, salvation is an ongoing “process” that can only be obtained by partaking in the “ordinary means of grace” found only in Protestant church membership.

It is an overt denial and redefining of the biblical new birth. More on that later, as well. Suffice to say for now that this one fatal flaw concerning a single perspective on the law (our relationship to the law is not changed via the new birth) causes Protestantism to redefine every biblical concept from Genesis to Revelation. It is a massive multi-layered error. To support its error, Protestantism must redefine the Trinity and even redefine how we read and interpret our Bibles.

The Bible is clear, Christ’s death, and nothing additional, ushered in righteousness.

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The law was nailed to the cross resulting in a circumcision of the heart without hands. Note that when we die with Christ, it necessarily leads to God resurrecting us. Also note that ALL trespasses are forgiven, not just past trespasses. This is because where there is no law, being nailed to the cross, there is NO sin: Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13, Romans 7:8. This negates the Protestant concept of “present sin” because where there is no law, being nailed to the cross, there is no sin, present or otherwise. Hence, Protestantism replaces God’s resurrection in salvation with Christ’s active obedience to the law, which by the way, is nowhere to be found in Scripture as a soteriological concept. Righteousness by new birth is replaced with the idea that, “We have the righteousness of Christ” as supplied by his passive and active obedience to a law that was ended for the sake of righteousness (Romans 10:4). Make no doubt about it, Protestantism replaces God’s circumcision without hands with Christ’s active obedience, and thereby distorts trinitarian salvation. Also…

Romans 5:18 So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Obviously, we were not made righteous by two acts, passive and active obedience, we were made righteous by Christ’s one act of obedience to the cross. Furthermore, I say “two acts” from a technical perspective, but Protestantism would imply that Christ’s active obedience would be a massive list of acts in obedience to the law for purposes of imputing righteousness. This is a morass of elementary error.

With all of this said, it doesn’t mean believers are not under any kind of law whatsoever. But, it does mean that we are no longer under the law’s condemnation and subsequent enslavement. Our freedom from enslavement to the law is not a mere “forensic declaration” based on Christ’s continued double imputation, but a state of being. Believers fall short of perfect law-keeping because we are “weak,” not enslaved. Our failure to love is a matter of the Father’s chastisement, not condemnation. The law plays a different role in the life of a born-again believer.

paul

Well, I guess it is official. After many years of thought and research, I am taking a position on predestination. Yes, for several years, I was a Calvinist, until I discovered that Calvinism is Progressive Justification and redefines the biblical new birth. So, I became skeptical of predestination because of the source, and the matter of priority; let’s get the gospel right and then worry about election. This is the focus of my book, It’s Not About Election; Why Calvinism is “Another Gospel”

How did I come to this conclusion? Some scripture is stand-alone truth. In other words, if a passage of scripture is absolutely objective in its context, all other scripture must bow to that plain meaning in order for us to claim the Bible is consistent and without error. If a Bible passage seems to contradict another passage that is plain in its meaning, the other passage that is more ambiguous needs more research. This is similar to an interpretive method called Occam’s razor:

Occam’s razor is a problem-solving principle suggesting that when faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest one—requiring the fewest assumptions—is usually correct. Often called the “law of parsimony,” it is a heuristic used in science and philosophy to cut away unnecessary complexity rather than a strict law guaranteeing truth.

Key Aspects of Occam’s Razor

Origin: Credited to 14th-century friar William of Ockham, though the idea dates back to Aristotle, who favored demonstrations using fewer postulates.

Philosophy & Science: In philosophy, it helps decide between hypotheses with equal explanatory power. In science, it is an abductive heuristic for model development, favoring theories with fewer entities or causes, famously used by Newton and Einstein.

With this being said, remember that good-old-fashioned commonsense is also a sound biblical hermeneutic.

Predestination is error because the gospel is good news. The gospel, according to the Bible, is intrinsically good news for everyone who hears it. That cannot be the case if some people are predestined to eternal damnation. In all fairness, the word euaggelion means “good message,” which could mean that it is a good message, but not necessarily for everyone. However, in many places in the Bible, this good message is also meant to be “preached,” which is the Greek word kerusso meaning “herald,” “proclaim,” and “publish.”

Hence, it is meant to be good news to all who hear it. Now, playing the devils advocate and totally overthinking the word, couldn’t the prefix, eu (good) merely mean, “holy” or of good moral character? No. Those are different Greek words:

The Greek prefix eu- (meaning good, well, or pleasant) acts specifically as an adverbial modifier indicating positive quality, ease, or correctness, unlike adjectives like agathos (morally good) or kalos (beautiful/noble). It often implies “happiness,” “abundance,” or “truth,” frequently serving as the direct opposite of the prefix dys- (bad/difficult).

Key Differences and Characteristics of the Prefix Eu-:

Adverbial Function: While eu- means “good,” it functions more accurately as “well” or “happily,” indicating how something is done or its state of being (e.g., euphemism = speaking well/pleasantly).

Opposite of Dys-: Eu- is specifically paired against dys-, emphasizing not just morality, but functional prosperity or normalcy, such as euthanasia (good/painless death) vs. dysthanasia.

Abundance and Ease: Eu- can denote something is “well-developed,” “thorough,” or “abundant,” such as eutrophic (nutrient-rich).

Meaning “True”: In scientific contexts, eu- can signify “true” or “proper,” as in eukaryote (true nucleus).

Common Eu- Words vs. Generic “Good”:

Eulogy: Good speech (praise).

Euphoria: Good/happy bearing (intense joy).

Euphony: Good sound (pleasing).

In contrast, other Greek “good” words (like agathos) usually describe a noun’s moral nature, whereas eu- focuses on the functional, pleasant, or fortunate state of the thing being described.

Notice the words with the eu prefix: eulogy, meaning praise. Euphoria, meaning elation. Euphony, a sound that pleases, like music that uplifts. From the viewpoint of heaven, the gospel is a message that is meant to bring joy to all that hear it. Luke 2: 9,10 brings these ideas together:

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Full stop. The message is a joyful message to “all people.” I am not going to bore you with more Greek words, but here, “all” means everyone and everything with no exceptions (all inclusive), and “people” means all of humanity, and Christ was born “unto” all people, or all of humanity. So, at the very least, you can totally reject the whole limited atonement thing. And as I have stated many times before, salvation is not atonement to begin with. Salvation is an ending of sin, not a mere covering. Furthermore, Christ came to end the law; so, who is born under law? Answer: everyone.

In addition, if Calvinism is wrong about the gospel, and it is, and wrong about limited atonement, and it is, it can also be wrong about predestination, and it is.

The gospel is meant to be a message of joy to everyone who hears it because it is defined that way and meant to be perceived that way by every human being that hears the message. That couldn’t be true if some people are predestined to reject it. How is it potentially good news for them? The end of WWII was joyful news to Americans and Europeans, but not the Germans. It was only bad news to the Germans because of the way they thought about the news and the things that formulated their thinking. I believe the same to be true about the gospel; people reject it because of the way life has formulated their thinking, not because God predetermined the news to be of a different substance to different people. The gospel is good news to everyone whether they receive it that way or not.

So, what about all of the Bible passages that Calvinists use to make a case for predestination? That will be the subject of the future parts to this post.

paul

An AI Overview gives us a good definition of Metaphysics, it is the foundational branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and being. Metaphysics has several different fields of study that all contribute to the comprehensive idea of metaphysics. One is Ontology, the study of reality and how it is perceived by mankind, while the study of man is Anthropology.

Hence, activities in the world are all driven by the prevailing presuppositions concerning mankind. In other words, because ideology drives all human action, what people believe about people determines the activities we experience in our world, and is documented as history.  

America is an idea that turned world history upside-down. Until America shows up in the 18^th century, the prevailing metaphysic concerning mankind follows: humanity is unable, and with that comes the supposed paramount problem with humanity; man does not know he is unable and doesn’t really understand reality. Therefore, mankind must be ruled by overseers that understand the inability of man, and through this rule can reduce evil in the world as much as possible. For the most part, these overseers were religious authorities.

But, there has always been a primary problem: disagreement between various and sundry overseers about the best way to control mankind based on different philosophies, and in most cases, the most powerful god. This disagreement is the source of ALL wars.

America came along and said, No, mankind is able. No, mankind is able to understand reality. No, the sole purpose of mankind is not to support governments or religions that rule over mankind, but rather, the sole purpose of governments is to enable people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Until this idea came along and took root, the world was dominated by religious wars such as The Crusades. Governments were primarily controlled by religious authorities and their competing beliefs that their god was the best hope for the world. And since the survival of mankind is at stake, these were beliefs worth fighting over.

Hence,  America’s separation of church and state. Yes, all people should be free to worship and follow the god of their choosing as part of their right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the god of their choosing does not have the right to rule over others regardless of the dogmatic belief that their god is the only hope for the world. Therefore, after the birth of America and its outrageous idea of Individual Self-Rule, religious wars all but vanished from history. However, the inability of man doctrine dies hard, and Communism filled the void in the 18^th century.

With all of this being said, lesser religious crusades will always take place. Many well-meaning Christians, as well as Muslims, believe that America would be much better off if they ruled over the American populous via their god’s doctrine, and pursue such goals politically. Of course, this is a rule by opiniated proxy until the god of their choice actually shows up.

Nevertheless, we must talk about a god who has, apparently, already taken control of American culture and its followers are incredulous that many have not received the memo. We are talking about the Cellphone god.

First, let’s examine the Cellphone god. The Cellphone god followers display devotion that Jesus and Alah can only dream of. Statistics tell us that Cellphone god followers check in with him, on average, every 5 minutes. And engagement time? Cellphone followers spend at least 6 hours a day intently focused on Cellphone’s illumined face, while the average American parent spends 1-3 hours a day with their children, while also engaging with Cellphone every 5 minutes. This devotion is only surpassed by followers of Moloch who sacrificed their children outright. And Cellphone gives new meaning to one’s god being “with them,” as you can bet Cellphone is always with his followers at any moment during the day.

But, the devotion doesn’t stop there. Studies show that followers of Cellphone sacrifice a significant amount of cognitive ability by passively receiving constant information that requires little, or no critical thinking. Studies show that this results in a reduction of cognitive capacity, focus, and memory. Furthermore, followers sacrifice sleep because the illumination of Cellphone’s glorious face effects melatonin and results in insomnia to various degrees. Indeed, no followers of any god are more willing to take up their cross and follow Cellphone daily.

Historically, Cellphone arrived in America circa 2000 through missionaries like The Church of Motorola. Before then, we can only assume that American culture was worse than the Dark Ages, as set against the dire need for Cellphone in our day. Virtually no one can imagine life without him. History documents the dearth of people being ignored in lieu of gazing into the glorious face of Cellphone.

So, what effect has Cellphone had on healthcare? Does any corner of American culture dare to be more important than Cellphone?

In the early days, indeed, the healthcare community discriminated against Cellphone followers. Hence, a crusade was necessary, primarily led by Gen Z. Shockingly, especially in Long-Term care (LTC), healthcare workers were forced to be separated from Cellphone for as long as 12 hours, while only being allowed to engage with Cellphone on 15-minute breaks and 30-60 minutes during lunch. A fierce crusade soon followed, and the reasoning for this discrimination by LTC was rejected with prejudice.

LTC facilities argued that engagement with Cellphone during care circumvented therapeutic communication and safety. One consideration under therapeutic communication touted by the LTC infidels was the idea that engaging with Cellphone, while also engaging with a LTC resident, was not active listening, which is an element of therapeutic communication. In addition, the LTC infidels suggested that Cellphone distraction was a safety issue and presented temptation towards Hippa violations. Also, engaging with Cellphone during care presents the appearance of diminished concern for the resident. In other words, Cellphone is more important, or equally important as set against the care for others.

Whatever the reasons were, LTC administrators and Directors of Nursing were conquered by the crusade in a relatively short time, but vestiges of conflict still remain where care is not compromised. Like the Japanese soldiers isolated on islands in the Pacific during WWII and did not receive the news that the war had ended, some in healthcare today have not received the memo, and will suffer the wrath of Gen Z.

This is because no human being, even those under our care, are more important than Cellphone. He alone is worthy of all altruistic sacrifices.

Paul M. Dohse, RN

REPOSTED FROM July 15, 2017

Presently, I am supposed to be completely out of the loop regarding TANC Ministries because I am preparing to take a state exam for medication certification. However, when perusing what Andy is up to while I am gone, I was made privy to this article by Kevin DeYoung.

I am 60 years old, and in my mind, of all the people I have been made aware of in my life to varying degrees, DeYoung is the epitome of the consummate lackey. While shockingly apt at thinking the thoughts of others, he is more likely to be hit by space junk in the pulpit than having an original thought in his own cranium case. DeYoung makes everyone a mind reader; just read Protestant orthodoxy and you are reading everything that is in his mind.

Anyway, the article is particularly rife with opportunity to further demonstrate why the Protestant Reformation was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. One may marvel at the audacity of elementary error being dressed up in such scholarly splendor.

DeYoung begins by writing, “The doctrine of limited atonement–the L in TULIP–teaches that Christ effectively redeems from every people “only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation” (Canons of Dort, II.8). As Ursinus explains in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Christ’s death was for everyone “as it respects the sufficiency of satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof.” In other words, the death of Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but it was God’s will that it should effectively redeem those and only those who were chosen from eternity and given to Christ by the Father.”

First of all, salvation is neither atonement or redemption. In the absolutely insane month of August coming up, I am actually going to add another project that Andy is going to participate in although he doesn’t know it yet. We are going to put together a video series to challenge a group of pastors who are meeting in August with the following: for crying out loud; you are pastors, please start using biblically correct words when talking about salvation.

However, though not New Covenant salvation according to the Bible, atonement is the basis of the Protestant false gospel; Jesus is a cloak (covering) for unrighteousness that denies the new birth.

And, salvation is not redemption either. Redemption is the saving of the weak/mortal body from eternal death in the resurrection, not the saving of the soul. Making salvation and redemption the same thing enables Protestantism to endorse progressive justification or “final justification.” While constantly feigning belief in present assurance, they constantly refer to “final justification” being future because, you know, that’s when it is final. Why is salvation on the installment plan so important to them? Well, if you are signed, sealed, and delivered, what do you need them for?

DeYoung continues: “The good shepherd lays his life down, not for the goats, but for the sheep (John 10:11). This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him, and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people, and John 15:13 says for his friends, and Acts 20:28 says for the church, and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride, and Ephesians 1:4 says for those chosen in Christ Jesus.”

Look, I could post on every sentence in this article, but I only have time to hit the highlights and I really don’t even have time for that. We let the likes of DeYoung assume “those” means “individuals.” Nope, in fitting with the rest of new birth justification and biblical election, more than likely, biblical election refers to groups of people and not individuals; particularly, Jews and Gentiles.

Moreover, another prime example of how Protestant scholars believe that “good grammar makes bad theology” follows here: “This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him…and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people… and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride.”

Read Ephesians 5:25. Where in the world therein does it say that the church is the bride of Christ? So, He loves the church like a bride, that doesn’t make the church His bride. When we say, “Let’s be like a tree and leave” to convey a desire to leave a certain place, does that make us a tree?

Like all Protestant ventriloquist puppets of whom DeYoung is chief, he uses presuppositions to deceive; “those” always means “individuals,” and the main point of election is the WHO and not the HOW. It’s all about who God decided to save, and not how He saved them. He saved them by sending His only Son to the cross to end the law. The Bible states that the righteous demands of the law were “nailed to the cross.”

So, who did Christ die for? Everyone born under the law. Who was born under the law? Everyone. End of discussion…and the end of so-called “limited atonement.”

But WHY are Protestants hellbent on this version of election/predestination? Because the church is a sanctuary city from the doctrine itself. It’s the paramount good cop/bad cop approach. You ever heard of John Calvin’s “power of the keys”? Whatever the Protestant elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven, or something like that. Bottom line? If the elders like you, you’re in. This ministry has documented DeYoung and other Protestants saying this in no uncertain terms. And they say it because its formal Protestant orthodoxy.

So, what is the why?

The essence of sin itself, a desire to control others.

paul

Some years ago, Susan and I did a lot of marriage counseling. She was doing some reorganizing in our basement and stumbled upon this letter written to a counselee. The man was a pastor amid a divorce, and Susan and I were trying to save the marriage. The letter is lengthy, but well worth revisiting. Authority has no place in a marriage, and particularly an authority based on a false gospel.

John,

This is a summary statement of the 30-minute video you have pulled down since you posted it the other day and is indicative of how you ended up where you are right now. This is why I cannot support Sarah in coming back to you because you still don’t get it. This gets back to the pastor’s retreat I went to that you hosted in 2015. At that conference I confronted the 15-20 pastors who were there; and confused about the gospel. Dismiss this out of hand if you will, and read on if you dare, but your very words, not mine, and the same words we hear often in the Baptist church, bring up very troublesome questions regarding what evangelicals believe about the new birth and using the Bible to love God and others.

Presently, in case you and others have been away on the moon for a while, even leading evangelicals such as Albert Mohler and the heir apparent to the SBC throne are admitting the church is in serious trouble and on the verge of full-scale collapse. Their reasons for this are errant; the real reason follows, we are seeing the fruits of a false gospel that is easily demonstrable by your very words in the aforementioned video. Let us examine them, that is, your words, not mine.

“On my own I am full of fear, on my own I am full of weakness, on my own I am full of pride, on my own I am completely lost.”

But in you oh God I trust! In You I surrender my life and my will again this morning. Then and only then you take my fear and give me courage. You take my weakness and give me power. You take my pride and give me faith. You take all the chaos that they cause and give me perfect peace!

You take these ashes and bring beauty!

Thank you, Father, that when the chaos of my mind is overwhelming there is perfect clarity that will guide me through!

In the midst of all of the struggles let your still small voice be heard all the louder today in my heart and mind Lord Jesus! Do the same for all those who will read these words today. In Jesus name I pray. Amen!

1 Kings 19:11-13″

Your statement here, one that plays well and often in the church, is a fundamental denial of the new birth. So, am I saying that everyone in the church believes a false gospel? Not exactly. For certain, many are lost, but many also function according to this false gospel while denying the unavoidable conclusions of the premise intellectually. In other words, they have not thought out the logical conclusions of the truisms, but unfortunately, function by them resulting in anemic Christian living.

Come now fellow pastors, let’s be honest; the church’s inability to get it together has baffled you for years. Come now, let’s face it; you wonder where the power for Christian living is and why churches go for years without seeing anybody get saved, and even when they do, they fall away at some point. By our very own admission, “10% of the people do 100% of the work.” We have gone from conference to conference, trend to trend, gimmick to gimmick, desperately looking for answers and to no avail. In fact, the church is worse now than it has ever been.

And unfortunately, all any pastor would need to do is merely start articulating  justification by new birth from the Scriptures without any hyper-drama about where the church has been wrong all of these years. Don’t make a big public spectacle of your realization, just start teaching justification by new birth and the people won’t know anything is different other than things they haven’t heard before, but make perfect biblical sense. And, revival WILL happen because the Spirit only uses truth to sanctify…period, end of sentence.

Oh, and by the way, the who’s who of evangelicalism themselves state unequivocally that the church is in the middle of a “resurgence” that is returning the church to the true gospel. Their words, NOT mine! Unfortunately, the so-called errant gospel they speak of was much closer to the truth than the present-day return to authentic Protestantism. In a recent article by Albert Mohler himself, he states that the present-day resurgence (think about the implications; what’s a resurgence?) is amid collapse. Yes, a collapsing resurgence. Again, HIS words, NOT mine!

Dear pastors, umpteen years later, there is debate about what the gospel is among the top scholars. This should trouble you and set you on your own journey for the truth. A belief that Protestants are not susceptible to mass deception like ALL other religions and cultures of the world just because you are a Protestant might be a little arrogant.

When it is all said and done, a tree is known by its fruit…period.

Now, to the main point. What is the new birth? Here is the crux: true Christians are not merely “declared righteous,” THEY ARE RIGHTEOUS…as a state of being. Secondly, justification is NOT a “legal declaration,” it is the believers state of being. Please note: while Protestants deny justification by law, they define justification as a “legal declaration.” Excuse me? Confused much?

John, in your above statement, you make your “own” characteristics something different than God’s characteristics that are infused into the true believer by the baptism of the Spirit upon salvation’s new birth. You make a dichotomy between what is truly YOU (“my own”) and the literal new creaturehood of the born-again believer. Hence, the so-called “believer” remains fundamentally unchanged (a “sinner [the biblical definition of the unregenerate] saved by grace”) in characteristics and only experiences God’s characteristics when obtained by some church ritual, subjective passivity, or prayer. It’s a denial that a person’s true state of being is transformed by the new birth.

And why must this be denied? Because no person can keep the law perfectly. But wait a minute, I thought true believers are not “under law”? Then someone says, “Oh, but we aren’t, Jesus kept the law perfectly for us.” Question: how is that a righteousness “APART from the law”? The point is NOT who keeps the law, the point is the law period. And, “under grace” doesn’t mean we are not under a law, the question is, what law? We will get to that shortly. The new birth changes our relationship to the law while Protestantism has a singular perspective on law and sin. More on this later.

But John, not only do you deny the infusion of God’s character into the believer and God’s character being your very own character as his child just like any other birth whether natural or supernatural, your statement’s deny the new birth as a onetime finished work. Your mind is not transformed into the very mind of Christ, or the regenerate mind described in Ephesians and Romans 7,  your mind is “chaos” and your state of being is “ashes.” Your state of being, as you describe it, is “completely lost.” Unlike any other gift, the gift of salvation is not something we own once given to us, it is only a gift that enables us to see the depths of our sinfulness lest we have a “righteousness of our own.” Hence, we ONLY EXPERIENCE God’s righteousness through some church ritual or prayer. Christians are not able to actually do good works because we are “chaos,”  “ashes,” and “completely lost,” but can only “hear” about who our Father is via a “still small voice.” Listening to God’s voice in our totally depraved minds keeps us saved lest we have a “righteousness of our own” and fall short of God’s glory and thus falling from grace. And more could be said about “In You I surrender my life and my will again this morning.” Again? Sounds like perpetual re-salvation/justification, which is also an aspect of Protestant soteriology.

This, in fact, is Protestant orthodoxy…and we wonder why churches are so messed up. But it gets worse; there is more bad news and not good news.

If there is only one perspective on the law; if there is only one use of the law by the Spirit, there is no way I can know whether my obedience to the law is an attempt to justify myself or purely from love. Therefore, every act of love we do must entail doubt, suspicion of motives, and morbid introspection. This is why many Christians, when they do an act of love, deny that they did it, but say God did it. Do we not hear this in church constantly? Pray tell, why is there a problem with us doing the good work as a result of being God’s child? When Susan, your daughter, does a good work, does she tell everyone that she didn’t do it, but that you really did it lest she have a righteousness of her own, or is the child’s character a glory to the parent because the child is the offspring?

The point here follows: the new birth changes the believer’s relationship to the law. In the baptism of the Spirit, the old self, what you call, “my own,” literally dies with Christ. According to you, “my own” is still alive, under law, and gets in the way of letting God do everything Himself lest we have a “righteousness of our own.”

In fact, the one who died with Christ is no longer under “the law of sin and death.” However, it sounds like you are because you are “ashes,” “completely lost,” “full of pride,” “full of “fear,” which has to do with condemnation and judgement, and so forth. This is exactly how the Bible describes someone under law. But, this is also a popular description of Christians in our day. Mark Hall, lead singer of one of the most popular Christian music bands of all time, boasts that the church is a “total train wreck.” In addition, it sounds like you must give your life to Christ every day in the spirit of, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”

The Bible is clear: where there is no law, there is no sin. I didn’t say it, the Spirit did, take it up with Him! Christ didn’t die to cover sin because we are still under law, HE DIED TO END SIN. Say that we sin if you will, that’s fine, but we cannot be condemned by it; fear has to do with condemnation. There is no law to judge us. Fear has to do with judgement. Grace is not a covering for remaining under law.

This doesn’t mean that we are under no other law; it means that we are now sanctified by the Bible, and that it’s our guide for loving God and others. Our sin is not against the law that can condemn, it is a failure to love God and others according to the Bible. This can bring loving chastisement from the Father for those Christians who don’t get it, but not condemnation. This explains Romans 8:1,2. What does this mean? It means that we never have to question our motives if we know there is no law to condemn us. It means that we deem it impossible to please God by obeying the law of sin and death because that law has no jurisdiction over us. All that is left is the “law of the Spirit of life” (Romans 8:2) that informs “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6).

Here is the huge problem: if there is only one law, or one use/single perspective on the Bible which is the standard for justification, then all valid love would have to be defined as perfect law-keeping. This circumvents the ability of any person lost or saved to perform any valid love. This is, in fact, the stated position of Protestant orthodoxy. Hence, any talk from Protestants about loving others is pretense because love is a good work. Full disclosure would state that all true love is strictly vertical (from God only).  

The whole problem with church is its theological position that all love must be performed by God through us as we partake in faith-alone passive rituals. Hence, God is loving Himself through us as we live according to a faith alone Old Covenant Sabbath. This alone explains why the church is a train wreck, and frankly, proud of it.

So, John, you want to deny that the church is under law? In our meeting with that sorry excuse for a pastor in New Lebanon, the bottom line is that God is only glorified by the keeping of covenants. That’s what he said. What’s a covenant? Yes, regardless of anything going on, even if a husband is waterboarding his wife, come hell or high water, God will only be pleased with the maintaining of the marriage covenant. For all practical purposes, that’s what he clearly stated. And despite offending his wife, a partnership in tyranny does not define a good marriage.

Of course, with any under law mentality, authority and hierarchy is central rather than love—love is defined by obeying whatever any given authority says the Bible says. The meeting was saturated with an authority mindset. That comes from under law soteriology.

For too many years Sarah has only received love from God and not you…BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION! In fact, by your own testimony, the only problem with the marriage right now is that you have attempted to love her with your “own” love! Furthermore, your inability to see her as an equal is an hourly revelation. In effect, and for all practical purposes, she is a runaway slave in your mind. Because you do not have slave ownership laws at your disposal like the Puritans did, you will endeavor to rein her in through other means…and over my dead body.

Again, no pastor who may see the light on this has to make a big drama event of it. Just start teaching justification by new birth and see what the Spirit starts doing as the congregation colabors with Him. Andy Young and I have invited pastors on numerous occasions to fellowship with us and to be challenged by this gospel perspective. What is there to lose as the debate regarding a definitive definition of the gospel rages among evangelical scholars?

paul