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