It’s not a huge stretch; after all, the former primary defendants are Calvinists, and even in light of the horrific accusations, CJ Mahaney continues to be supported by the Calvinist community at large via speaking engagements, and silence. I understand that Kevin DeYoung, who has been silent on the issue, was quick to announce the dismissal on Twitter. The case also exemplifies the hilarious notion that these are men of the Word. The Bible states that accusations against an elder should only be heard by two or three witnesses; in this case, there were eleven, and on the record. Yet, NO Calvinist anywhere will take note of the accusations. Besides, the Bible states clearly that elders are to be beyond reproach, and CJ is hardly that.

The contemporary Calvinist resurgence movement known as New Calvinism has been getting massive press on its spiritual abuse for about ten years now. How bad is it? There are now two organizations formed for the express purpose of keeping Reformed churches out of court, and paid for by the sheep through donations! I will make this as simple as possible by once again commenting on a popular Neo-Calvinist illustration, published by them—not me:

Click on to Enlarge

This illustration is Calvinist epistemology. This is a visual description of Calvin’s first sentence in 1.1.1 of the Calvin Institutes: wisdom is deducted by knowledge of God and man; i.e., the top and bottom trajectories. That makes the cross bigger. That’s a good thing, right? In Luther’s epistemology, this illustration is known as the Theology of the Cross or the Cross Story as opposed to the glory story. Any possible contribution of good by us makes the cross smaller. That’s a bad thing, right?

Now think about this epistemology as set against these horrific abuses. Do I really have to do the math on this? How are people with this worldview going to look at the subject of justice? If we deserve justice, our trajectory goes up and the cross gets smaller. What about the victims? If they were totally innocent in the situation the trajectory again goes up and the cross gets smaller. What about any pure outrage concerning the actions? Why outrage? That’s a deeper knowledge of how evil we are which makes the cross bigger.

And to a Calvinist, that’s a good thing.

paul

In a recent interview, John Piper discussed a few [!] faults that Calvin had; namely, his idea of integrating church and state. Piper then proceeded to propagate the outrageous idea that Reformed Baptists were responsible for reversing that concept. Funny, no matter how many times you read James Madison’s Memorial Remonstrance Against Ecclesiastical Establishments the Reformed Baptists don’t seem to be mentioned. Last year, Piper announced his post-retirement plans to spread “the light” of Calvinism—on location in Geneva as a way of presenting Calvin’s Geneva as a model for the renovation of humanity. If you believe Piper thinks the marriage of Church and state is a bad idea, I have an oceanfront property in Dayton, Ohio I would like to sell you.

CJ Mahaney and company may not think too much of what their pedophile friends have done, but to them, a bigger issue is at hand here: the preservation of their theocratic subculture. Mahaney et al don’t think that they should be subject to civil law. The way they state it: “The church should be free to shepherd their people as they see fit.” And the way they prefer to handle these situations should be evident by now and is directly linked to their Reformed ideology.

I have written on that extensively, and frankly, I am too lazy this morning to rehearse it all. It’s just exhausting: this behavior, though shocking, should not be surprising when their gospel is understood. Calvin and Luther considered the whole concept of Justice to be a joke and part of the “glory story” and not the “cross story.” These are people who function from a total different reality than normative metaphysics. If you believe that you are capable of interpreting your own reality you are living the glory story; if you trust them to interpret your reality for you according to the cross story, you are living in the gospel meta-narrative.

But back to my original point. New Calvinists have simply improvised and built a theocratic subculture. Again, I have written extensively on this and am weary of it. New Calvinist churches are ruled by elder law and have various ways of enforcing that law apart from the state. They would prefer the state, but the likes of James Madison, whom they despise, messed that plan up big-time on this corner of the globe.

Yawn, ugh, let me repeat a few improvisions: in-house security forces; control structure; covenants; church discipline; brainwashing; networking with likeminded government officials willing to operate off the record; etc.

Hence, the New Calvinists see this as an opportunity. If they win this case based on separation of church and state, the implications are staggering. Don’t miss this: that is why the rest of the New Calvinist community is watching this in silent, anxious anticipation. If you think they see this as a bad thing, if you think this puts New Calvinism on the ropes—you are dead wrong—they see this as a grand opportunity to set precedent and further strengthen their theocratic subculture.

paul

The church was in a dark age. And the Reformers saved mankind from Catholicism. Then the children of the Reformers came to America and established its religious roots. But American capitalism and individualism has become a god and is destroying the piety that the precious Puritans brought here from Europe.

Hardly. First, the “church,” more correctly, “assembly of Christ” which adds Christ to the unbroken concept of “assembly” in both Testaments continues to be built by Christ and no darkness has ever prevailed against it—not even temporarily. The whole Dark Ages thing and its relationship to the “church” is a Western perspective. The world is bigger than Western culture.

Secondly, the philosophy of Socrates and Plato continues to dominate Western thought and culture to this very day. From Plato’s Academy, and his magnum opus, The Republic, Western thought moved forward in two directions: secular and religious. In the secular, it took the form of communism. In the religious, the identical ideology formed the foundations of Catholicism and Protestantism. The Reformers were merely “moral” philosopher kings.

And Plato didn’t come up with anything original. The cradle of humanity only had two religions: Friends of God and Spiritual Caste. And when you are God’s friend, He copies you on everything because you are morally responsible for the sum and substance of your own life, “the life that bears your name” (John Immel: TANC 2012). God doesn’t have an elite minority that rules over the unenlightened masses on his behalf. If the enlightened philosopher kings tell us to sacrifice our firstborn to the sun god, we protest because we didn’t get the memo.

And though we are to serve others, the sum and substance of our life is not defined by our contribution to “the group.” The Bible tells us to bear our own burdens as much as we possibly can. Individualism is not a sin. The demonizing of individualism is where New Calvinism and Communism play together in Plato’s sandbox. Don’t take the words of others for it, study history for yourselves; European religion has always been in bed with Fascism and Communism. Their like ideology spawns their common lust to control the masses.

And together, they despise the children of the Enlightenment that saved the American colonies from the tyranny of European religion. The Salem witch trials were a miniscule remnant of the bad seed. No country has ever flourished like America nor done good to the world in the same degree. Europe has never been a friend to God’s elect nation, but Israel has never had a better friend than America. America has never been a Christian nation per se. But there is immense power in even implementing God-given common sense….

….upholding individualism.

paul

Perhaps the only book in existence that challenges the Protestant Reformation gospel in regard to doctrinal soundness. This book presents its case that the Reformation gospel is progressive justification, and that its major tenets such as total depravity extend to sanctification as well as justification. The total depravity of the saints? The book also explores the Reformation’s impact in regard to understanding the new birth.

Available on Amazon by these sellers:  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616588438

“The Reformers take their place in human history as those who throw the gauntlet down at Christ’s feet when He warned to not take away or add to the word of God. Nothing affords the ability to do that like a meta-narrative. There has never been a more formidable onslaught against the truth of God than the Reformation’s meta-narrative.”  

Calvinist’s don’t often know their right hand from their left hand because Reformed theology communicates from an entirely different metaphysical construct than the norm. Calvinists live in a world that is comfortable with contradictions because Calvinists reject literal grammaticism as a tool for interpreting reality. Calvinists have replaced literal grammaticism with meta-narrative, and the central theme of the meta-narrative (reality as narrative) is “Christocentricity.” Luther laid all of the foundations for this in his Heidelberg Disputation. This is a really, really big deal because Christians are people of The Book. Christianity lives or dies based upon what method interprets the Bible. If we can’t properly interpret truth, there is NO abundant life.

This is my primary theme at this year’s TANC Conference. Christ called on us to interpret the Bible laterally within a grammatical construct. Allegory, etc., are communication tools that aid us in understanding objective truth that is to be applied literally. We don’t apply elements of allegory (i.e., pluck out your eye or cut off your hand), but we do apply the literal applications. Christ gave us brains so that we can think for ourselves: “it would be better” should indicate the point Christ was making; God is extremely offended by sin.

Christ propagated grammaticism in no uncertain terms when He annihilated all arguments against a resurrection by pointing out the verb tense of “I am.” The exchange is well worth reading in the full context:

Matthew 22:23 – The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”

29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

The Reformed method of interpretation is not that of Christ. The Reformers take their place in human history as those who throw the gauntlet down at Christ’s feet when He warned to not take away or add to the word of God. Nothing affords the ability to do that like a meta-narrative. There has never been a more formable onslaught against the truth of God than that of the Reformation’s meta-narrative. Hence, the Reformers of our day state that grammar is merely a “guardrail for communication” but actually “hinders” the Bible’s true meaning (propagated by John MacArthur confidant Rick Holland). Throughout the book How People Change, Paul David Tripp concurs that the Bible states many truths laterally, but to take those truths literally circumvents the “saving work of Christ” in the believer. As an aside, note also that Christians still need to be saved.

So, no wonder that contradictions abound within the Reformed community. The ONLY objectivity is the gospel narrative. But narratives are open to a plethora of interpretation. Instead, the apostle Paul called for the “one mind in Christ.”

The most notable contradiction is disagreement on double imputation. To effectively argue against double imputation is to drive a dagger through the heart of the Reformation. Because the Reformed definition of righteousness is a perfect keeping of the law to maintain our just standing, the idea that Christ’s perfect obedience was imputed to our sanctification (and continues to be on the basis of us living out our sanctification by faith alone) is efficacious to the Reformed gospel.

The meta-narrative is that Christ died for our justification and lived a perfect life for our sanctification so that we can secure our just standing by faith alone in sanctification. In contrast, the grammatical approach sees sanctification as totally separate from justification, and double imputation being: our sins imputed to Christ and God the Father’s righteousness being imputed to us. A two-way double imputation versus a one-way double imputation. In the latter, Christians remain totally depraved, in the former they are new creatures because they now bear God’s seed within them. Hence, they co-labor with God in sanctification completely separate from justification. In the latter, progressive justification is made possible by progressive imputation; in the former, all imputation is a finished work before the foundation of the world.

We inherited the fullness of the Godhead before creation; we appropriate its power in the present through obedience, and will be redeemed by God (when He comes to collect what belongs to Him) in our glorification.

Nevertheless, some in the Reformed camp lodge par excellent argumentation against Reformed double imputation; the right hand doesn’t know from the left. With all of the above said, I would like to present a right-handed apology against Reformed double imputation. In the classic tradition of orthodoxy, a Reformed term for academic truth repackaged for parishioner mantraism, the following articles are predicated on the opinions of men. Regardless, the quotes that argue against Reformed double imputation couldn’t be better stated. Without further ado, here is the list of links:

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-2/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-3/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-4/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-5/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-6/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-7/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-8/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-9/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-10-2/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-11/

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection-12/

Page with all links:

http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/?s=IAO

“The future of Israel is far from being a ‘non-essential secondary issue.’ If you don’t understand Israel’s election, you don’t understand your own election.”

 ”Works do not flow from justification—they flow from the new birth. They flow from the surviving spouse that is no longer under the marriage covenant of the law.  Two different things entirely are pursued in each: justification is pursued by faith alone; in sanctification, fruit is pursued for the purpose of pleasing God.”

The first eleven chapters of Romans are about justification and its contrast to sanctification. We have learned that the express purpose of election is to remove all 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.”

Election is not something that we should take and mold into a doctrine of fatalistic determinism. Many times, such doctrines translate into “Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” Or, “Who is God to find fault for who can resist His will?” I find agreement in statements that I have heard from other pastors: “God’s offer to the lost is a legitimate offer,” and “I don’t understand how God weaves His sovereignty together with our will.”

Election, as clearly stated in Romans 9:11, is for the purpose of completely removing any element of our works in justification. The purpose of election is not endless debate; the sole purpose is clearly stated. Nothing that we do in sanctification can affect what God chose to do before the world was created. We are free to pursue righteousness in sanctification freely and without fearful introspection. We have one motive; to please God. Paul said that we MAKE that our motive:

2 Corinthians 5:9 – So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.

I also find it interesting that in context Paul is talking about this life and our afterlife, and in our afterlife, it will still be our goal to please the Lord. In eternity, we will still have goals. So, how important are GOALS in this life?

But all in all, I believe election creates a radical dichotomy between justification and sanctification. In fact, in one respect, those who teach that we can’t lose our salvation even if we deny the Lord are technically correct. But as we have learned in the book of Romans, there is a hitch called the new birth. Once born again, we are enslaved to righteousness:

Romans 6:18 – and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

We have also learned that to be set free from sin is synonymous with being set free from the law. Paul called this the law of sin (ROM 7:23). How can this be? How can we be free from the law and enslaved to its righteous requirements at the same time? That’s where the radical dichotomy between justification and sanctification must be true. For the believer there is no righteous requirement of the law in justification; we are justified by a righteousness that is apart from the law. In sanctification we are enslaved to the righteous requirement of the law. We don’t keep the law perfectly, but that doesn’t have any effect on our justification. If we don’t act like we are enslaved to the law by a willing spirit it brings our salvation into doubt. We may still be under law and not under grace. We cannot review the following too often in our day:

Lost = under law = will be judged by the law + provoked to sin by the law + and enslaved to sin.

Saved = under grace = will not be judged by the law + declared righteous apart from the law + provoked to righteousness by the law + enslaved to righteousness + able to please God by law-keeping.

We are now going to talk about the election of Israel as a nation and how that relates to this very subject of justification and sanctification, and the difference between the pursuits thereof. First of all, be sure of this: Israel was elected as a nation and all of God’s desires that Israel will be a holy nation before Him will be realized because God has determined it. Paul closes out his subject of justification, or the gospel if you will, with Israel as the context in Chapters 9-11. Chapter 12 begins instruction regarding life application in sanctification. Sanctification will not be successful without a proper understanding of justification. What’s wrong with the American church? Few Christians understand the difference between the two. They even understand less about how Israel fits into that understanding.

Just because national Israel was rebellious doesn’t mean that they weren’t elected, nor does it mean that election offers an opportunity to be saved, but then you have to do something to keep yourself in God’s family. Or, NOT do something to keep you in God’s family. If you have to not work in sanctification to keep your salvation, that’s working at not doing anything. In so-called “do’s and don’ts” the “don’ts” are works as much as the “do’s. “Living by a list” of such requires both. What we do in sanctification is a natural result of the new birth and totally separate from justification.

Listen, your attitude towards Israel reveals what you believe about justification. The future of Israel is far from being a “non-essential secondary issue.” If you don’t understand Israel’s election, you don’t understand your own election. Israel is the head and not the tail. They will always be prominent in God’s plan to reconcile himself to man. As Christ said to the woman at the well, “Salvation is of the Jews.” This is why Paul tells the Romans the following:

Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed.

Paul also stated the irrevocable position of Israel in redemption and what “belongs” to them (present tense):

Romans 9:1 – I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

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.

Anyone who is saved belongs to the commonwealth of Israel. Israel’s identity before God has not been diminished by the engrafting of the Gentiles:

Romans 11:28 – As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

So, national Israel is elected, and then there is a remnant within Israel that is elected, but the non-elect within Israel doesn’t mean Israel is not elected. This is because the general offspring of Abraham, (national Israel) are divided into children of the flesh and children of the promise:

Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 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.”

In the first case, if the promise came through Ishmael rather than Isaac, that’s a problem because Abraham and Sarah tried to help God in producing the offspring. Remember, Hagar gave birth to a nation via Ishmael (GEN 16:10). The offspring would come through the promised miracle, Isaac. Then when Isaac’s wife Rebekah became pregnant, the Lord told her that there were “two nations” in her womb (GEN 25:23). Look, there is only salvation through one nation, Israel, and not multiple nations. Muhammad didn’t come out of Israel. Buddha didn’t come out of Israel.  Sun Myung Moon didn’t come out of Israel. I find it curious that you never hear of a false Christ being rejected on that fact alone.

And in Israel, there is a single “seed” not “seeds.” This is the offspring from which Christ was born and was sustained by God’s work alone and many miracles. This offspring (singular) is also associated with “the promises” and “promise” as opposed to law. Hence, Paul states the following in Galatians:

Galatians 3:16 – 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.

Those who don’t pursue righteousness by the promise alone are under the law which is synonymous with being enslaved to the flesh….

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.

Paul also refers to the fact that those under the law, and in slavery to the flesh, will also be judged by the law:

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.

In Romans, Paul refers to being under the law as a marriage covenant in which the old us that was under the law has died, as is represented as a spouse under that covenant:

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.

You can also tie this back into Galatians 3:10 ff. in that the old spouse (the former us) died with Christ when He became a curse for us and bore our sins on the cross. We, and our sins, died with Christ:

Romans 6:1 – What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Below is a chart that organizes the preceding thoughts visually:

Let me move on to the primary point I want to make with the following verses in Romans 9:

22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” 26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.”

Paul’s obvious point is that without God’s election, calling, and promise of the seed, neither Jew nor Gentile would be saved, but salvation is still of the Jews. There are many Israelites that will not be saved because they pursued righteousness by “a” law, and not by faith. Here is an important point: when Paul states that many pursue righteousness by the law, he is not speaking of a sincere effort to truly keep “the” law, it is always “a” law of their own picking and choosing; primarily, the traditions of men. In Galatians, I believe a doctrine was being taught that propagated the idea of salvation by circumcision along with a loose commitment to the rest of Scripture (GAL 4:2-6).

This brings us to the last point:

Romans 9:30 – What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Justification is pursued by faith alone, but once it is obtained, we are free to pursue fruit in sanctification. In fact, we are commanded many times to do just that in sanctification. This is a primary difference between justification and sanctification. Salvation can only be pursued by faith, but once saved we are to pursue fruit:

 Romans 14:19 – So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

1 Corinthians 14:1- Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.

1 Timothy 6:11- But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.

2 Timothy 2:22 – So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

1 Peter 3:11- let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it.

Now, in our day we must consider that most churches teach us that we must pursue justification, and that fruits will flow from justification as we continually pursue a deeper and deeper knowledge of justification. See the below illustration:

CLICK ON TO ENLARGE

So, a pursuit of fruits directly makes “the fruit the root.” Others call it “fruit stapling” because it doesn’t flow from the roots of justification. But election makes justification a finished work. Works do not flow from justification—they flow from the new birth. They flow from the surviving spouse that is no longer under the marriage covenant of the law.  Two different things entirely are pursued in each: justification is pursued by faith alone; in sanctification, fruit is pursued for the purpose of pleasing God.

The Holy Spirit is not an inept communicator; if He wanted us to primarily pursue justification in order to properly produce fruit, why wouldn’t He simply state that rather than stating in no uncertain terms that we are to pursue the fruits directly instead?