Paul's Passing Thoughts

Church is a business, and if you are selling protection from the wrath of God, that’s bound to be a booming business, and it is. For this reason, week after week, churches preach a lot of fear, while reminding the parishioners they are safe because they are participating in the “sanctuary.” And yes, it is critical to come to the sanctuary to “participate in Christ” who saves us from the wrathful Father.

Rick Holland, the onetime rumored to be heir apparent to the John MacArthur thrown, wrote a book titled, “Uneclipsing The Son,” which included a glowing forward by John MacArthur. The predominant theme of the book is the idea that God the Father is an angry wrathful God, and our refuge is in Christ. On page 23 of the book, Holland has a heading that reads, “Saved,” with a hyphen following to emphasize the idea of being saved, and then adds, “From God.” This is the subtle and very problematic idea propagated by Christocentric theology and endorsed by MacArthur in his latter years; the idea that God the Father is a god of wrath, while Jesus is the god of grace. Actually, in my book, it’s blaspheme.

Per the usual, Holland, and his ilk, write and preach these things in a way that provides intellectual deniability; but be sure of this, it’s how they want the church to function mentally. And to go along with Christocentric theology, they promote the Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic, which presents the Bible as a narrative used to perpetually return to the cross. Yes, we search the Scriptures for a deeper and deeper understanding of how depraved we are as set against how holy God is, which drives us back to the cross for more and more Jesus. Then, at what John Calvin called the “final tribunal,” we find out if we have enough Jesus.

Please note: if justification of the individual is not progressive, what do we need church for? This takes the church from a very important place to fellowship and encourage others unto good works, to a place where you must go to maintain your salvation. And that is stated in no uncertain terms. In the Protestant church, you must go to church to obtain the “ordinary means of grace.” What does “means” mean, and what does “grace” mean? Of course, the deception is masterful because it enables Protestants to proclaim an intellectual assumption, while functioning in a contrary way. Intellectually, it can be said the ordinary means of grace is merely going to church for experiencing fellowship with God, while it is really functioning progressive justification. In the same way, Protestants will claim intellectually that the new birth is a one-time act by the Spirit that seals us for eternity, but that is contrary to what Protestant soteriology states in all its historical documents.

Also note that ALL systematic theologies created by the church are for the express purpose of you reading the Bible through a prism that always leads you to their tenets. Here is what the Bible is: it is a historical account of who God is and what he does. It is a multifaceted account that does not depend on any particular systematic order. Since you are reading a historical account, any person can draw logical conclusions from the narratives, or research deeper meanings through myriads of different approaches. The Bible can be studied systematically, but should not be interpreted systematically. In other words, topical studies and word studies should lead you wherever they lead you rather than predetermined outcomes via the “Five Solas” and other prisms that demand particular conclusions.

As one who read through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and took the historical narratives at face value, I encountered massive contradictions with what I heard in church. I would hear something in a sermon that would cause me to think, “Wait a minute, in Leviticus God was having a conversation with someone and He said something that contradicts that idea entirely.”  Or God did something that contradicted an idea entirely.

When you ditch church orthodoxy and read the Bible with your own mind, you discover amazing things about God. Like, did you know, that in the end during the new heavens and new earth, God leaves heaven to dwell with mankind? Huh!? Right, God leaves His abode in heaven and makes His dwelling with mankind on earth. Obviously, this turns a lot of church orthodoxy completely on its head and causes us to see God in a different light.

A patient and loving God is not good for reoccurring monthly revenue because the church is selling protection from an angry wrathful God in the name of Jesus.

Please stop listen to so-called theological experts who have degrees that are useless in the real world and start reading the Bible with the mind God gave you…

…and find the assurance the Bible says you can have.

paul

Secular movies can often be metaphysically instructive. Last night, I watched the movie, Match Point (2005) starring Scarlett Johansson. The movie presents a sound illustrative narrative about elements of sin, salvation, assurance, and even predestination.

The movie starts with the introduction of Chris on his way to a job interview in London. A former tennis pro who walked away from the profession, he lands a job as a tennis pro for an upscale tennis club. One of his students is Tom, and they become fast friends. Tom invites Chris to the opera with Tom’s family, and during the opera, it is apparent that Tom’s sister, Cloe, is smitten with Chris. Chris and Cloe form a romantic relationship, and Cloe uses her influence to land Chris a high-profile job with the company owned by her father, Alec Hewett.

Hence, Chris is swept into a luxurious lifestyle with all the trappings of a life that most people can only dream of. He has wealth untold, a flat overlooking London’s skyline and the Thames river, the utmost respect of Cloe’s parents, and is overtly adored by Cloe who is attractive, intelligent, and charming.

Undoubtably, he is endeared to Cloe and loves her to some degree, and they marry. Then, he meets Tom’s girlfriend, Nola, who is a sexy, stunning blonde. He immediately becomes obsessed with her. Here, the film does a good job distinguishing between love and lust through the narrative. According to the Bible, the unregenerate cannot say “no” to lust. The Bible states that the unsaved are enslaved to sin. Primarily, this means they cannot say no to sin because they are enslaved to it. When sin implements lust in the unsaved, they effectively lose their minds and will follow the lust at all cost. Of course, once the lust is fulfilled, regret soon follows along with a condemning conscience that couldn’t be heard while lust was filibustering.  

The Bible describes it this way: sin drags a person away against their will, and once the sin is fulfilled, death follows. Please note: a saved person may not know (via bad theology) they are no longer enslaved to sin and empowered to say no to sin, and may allow lust to drag them away like a lost person. At any rate, when lust is in full swing, the person will completely disregard consequences to fulfil the lust—lust is completely irrational. Love is much more practical and utilizes reason for the benefit of others.

We have a real-life example in the Bible. Amnon was obsessed with his stepsister Tamar to the point of making him bedridden with depression.  Even though Tamar’s brother, Absolom, was a noted vicious warrior, he fulfilled his lust by raping Tamar. Unsurprisingly, Absolom had assassinated him. Also, once Amnon fulfilled his lust with Tamar, he despised her. And culturally, since she was no longer a virgin, she could not marry and was relegated to singleness (loneliness). When sin is done dragging the enslaved person away via lust and the lust is fulfilled, all kinds of death is the result.

In the movie, Tom and Nola separate, and after marrying Cloe, Chris successfully pursues an affair with Nora. The movie does a good job of depicting Chris’ conflation of love and lust. As the affair drags on, the fulfilled lust gives way to thinking, and Chris begins to realize the dilemma that he has been dragged into. Basically, a death situation. He confides in a friend during a private meeting. Nola wants more than a fling and is pressing Chris to leave Cloe. Not only that, she is pregnant with Chris’ baby and refuses to get an abortion. Nola also gives Chris an ultimatum: “Either tell Cloe or I will.” Chris confides in the friend by stating, “Leave Cloe for Nola and for what? What kind of life would we have?” In other words, his relationship with Nola had no substance other than lust. She was a failed actress, and he was a failed tennis pro. Sin dragged him away into a choice between everything and nothing. In the same way, sin seeks to drag us away from life and to death.

At this point in the movie, death goes into full swing just like the Bible describes it. Chris is desperate for a way out. The sin he is enslaved to has dragged him into contemplating things that he would have never considered previously. He devises a murder plot. The superintendent of Nola’s apartment building lives across the hall from her. He will set up a meeting with Nola at her apartment, gain entry into the superintendent’s apartment and kill her, and make it look like a robbery. He steals several pieces of jewelry including a ring with the superintendent’s initials scribed on the inside of the ring. When Nola arrives in the hallway, he shoots her to make it look like the burglar encountered her unexpectedly while leaving the superintendent’s apartment.

After the murders, Chris is surprised to be contacted by the police for questioning. On the way to talk to them, he throws all the stolen jewelry into the Thames river, but he doesn’t notice that the inscribed ring falls on the sidewalk as he walks to the police interview. At the interview, he learns that Nola kept a diary and he is exposed regarding the affair. The police see no need to expose the affair to Cloe and her family, but inform Chris that he is a suspect.

The next day, police investigate the murder of a drug dealer and find the superintendent’s ring in his pocket. Apparently, he found it on the sidewalk by the Thames river before he was murdered. In this lucky twist for Chris, he is no longer a suspect. In the final scene, Chris is interacting with the Hewett family who are oblivious to everything, but he is clearly guilt-ridden for what he did. The condemnation of the conscience is, of course, a slow death process.

This brings us to another element of true salvation. When a person is saved, they forfeit one life for the new one. Though Chris will not suffer legal punishment for the murders, to escape the condemnation of his conscience, he would have to give up the life he murdered others to hang on to. He would confess to God, cry out for salvation, and turn himself in to the authorities. He would lose everything but gain eternal life. Everyone has their own death tolerance that leads to repentance. Note that Chris was willing to do anything to save the present life he had because he saw no other alternative. He was lucky to find Cloe, and another opportunity like her was unlikely.

Even though a fiction-based movie, we know like scenarios take place throughout human history with their own twisted plots. As far as God being “in total control,” we doubt he orchestrates plots that vindicate murderers. Even if He did so to let the conscience do its work, His plan would unlikely include innocent parties and leave the Hewett family in the dark. He is much more inclined to expose evil rather than cover it up for any length of time.

Hence, the book of James states, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;  but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire [lust] and enticed. Then, after desire [lust] has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”

But the main point of this post follows: biblical wisdom concerning walking circumspectly and the ability to say, “no to sin” is evidence of being born again. As long as we are in these mortal bodies, we will be oppressed by sin and temptation, but what is our response to it?

What we see in the church week after week are those who lose everything because, clearly, they are/were enslaved to lust. The examples are myriad with new examples weekly, but look at what Steve Lawson lost over a fling with some girl 40-plus years younger than him. If that isn’t slavery to lust, what is? For 15 years I have stated that the church possesses its present testimony due to a false gospel and denial of the biblical new birth and I will continue to say it. Furthermore, like Chris, look at what churches are willing to do to keep what they have? On the one hand, “Christ builds His church,” but on the other hand, consider all the exposed coverups and godly people who have been thrown under the church bus.

The mark of an unregenerate person is an inability to say “no” to some temptation even in the face of colossal loss for themselves and others. It’s because they are enslaved to sin. And there is no venue where the examples are more abundant than church leadership. And before you counter by pointing to those leaders who haven’t fallen, as you would have pointed to Steve Lawson at some point, it begs the question, “How many haven’t been caught yet?”

Well, we know more about that on a weekly basis.

paul