The ABCs of the Protestant False Gospel: Law; Romans 3:21, Life; Galatians 3:21, and Curse; Galatians 3:10
The American church isn’t impressive? Maybe a false gospel is the problem.
A challenge to all pastors; this Sunday, pass out a slip of paper to all your congregants with this question: “Christ obeyed the law perfectly so that we could be saved, true? Or false?” I am willing to bet all slips will be returned with, “true.” If we don’t even know the gospel, how can we communicate it to those who don’t?
A. According to the Reformation gospel, salvation/justification is predicated on a perfect keeping of the law. Hence, Christ’s death and perfect obedience both are needed to secure salvation. This means justification must progress through the Christian life to glorification via the same way we originally obtained it: by faith alone.* This contradicts a justification that is APART from the law.
Romans 3:21, 28
The Calvin Institutes: 3.14.1-21
B. The Protestant gospel therefore propagates a law that can give life; who keeps it is not relevant. A fulfilled law paves the way for salvation. This completely contradicts Pauline apostolic doctrine (see Galatians, particularly 3:21).
C. This means we are all under a curse because we are still under law. Again, who keeps the law is not relevant—we are still UNDER it as justification’s standard for righteousness (Galatians 3:10-14). In the book of Romans, the very definitions of the lost versus the saved are, “under grace” and “under law” (Romans 6:14,15). If the perfect keeping of the law by Christ brings life, life is not imparted separate from the law, and we are still under the law, and therefore under a curse.
Christ became that curse for us and eradicated the law as a standard for our justification (Romans 10:4). Christ is the end of the law “FOR righteousness” (ie., justification) to everyone who believes. Those still under the law will be judged by the law at the great white throne judgment, but the law has NOTHING to say about a righteous standing to those who are under grace (Romans 3:19). Christ didn’t fulfill the law for our justification, he paid the price for its penalty. By that one act we are saved, not that plus multiple acts of obedience (Hebrews 10:12, 14).†
*Like the Catholicism that it came from, perpetual forgiveness of sins to remain saved is efficacious and can only be found in the institutional church, and administered by elders (or priests) and the sacraments.
The Calvin Institutes: 4.1.20-22
Timothy J. Wengert: A Contemporary Translation of Luther’s Small Catechism; Augsburg Fortress PUB 1994, pp.35,49
† This gargantuan problem hasn’t been lost on many Reformed thinkers. New Covenant Theology was created in an attempt to reconcile this problem. It posits the idea that Christ FULFILLD the law by His perfect obedience and replaced it with the “law of Christ.” Depending on the type of camp in this theology, certain parts of the Old Testament law were abrogated, and replaced with new laws that Christ ushered in. Others teach that the law was replaced with the single “law of love.”
However, the results are exactly the same: some law is still the standard for our justification, and the role of the law (or some form of it) remains the same in pre-salvation and post-salvation resulting in antinomianism. The Reformed definition of antinomianism follows:
The law is NOT the standard for justification (the Reformed disagree, but believe Christ keeps it/kept it/fulfilled it/ for us).
The Biblical definition of antinomianism follows:
The role of the law does not change in regard to justification and sanctification.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“So, it isn’t punishment. It is a necessary sacrifice (the animals used in Torah law weren’t “punished” for sin…they atoned) by God’s mercy to save man from universal death in service to a law man asked for when he listened to Satan in the garden. ”
Very good point. There are many problems with Penal substitution which I only started thinking about 5 years ago. Amazing how ingrained it can become even though I was not raised with it. But it has been all the rage for a while now and cries of heretic if you don’t buy into it.
For one thing, penal substitution logically demands that Jesus be a lesser god of sorts in that construct. As in: God kills His Son for our sins. It fits perfectly with ESS which I believe is a horrible heresy and promotes a sort of polytheism.
But Jesus IS God. It should be seen as a sacrifice that God Himself endured FOR us.
LikeLike
Paul –
Not intending to change the subject, but would sincerely like to know what the status is of the YouTube/HBC situation. How are you dealing with this issue? Fee free to answer off line if that is appropriate.
LikeLike
Bridget,
Unfortunately, You Tube makes these kinds of unqualified accusations very easy while refuting it is very difficult. You are guilty until proven innocent. Waiting to hear back from our attorney.
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
Thanks for another excellent article. I’ve been very busy at work to comment at length. Thanks Lydia for your kind comments as well.
LikeLike
Ryan,
Thanks–trying to kick this awful cold. First I have been sick like this in years.
LikeLike
Paul,
Thanks for the update. “Not Acting Like Men” is a more appropriate definition for what is going on at HBC.
LikeLike
Ok, sicker than a dog right now, but wrote this little post this morning to kind of throw some pennies in on this. http://wp.me/pmd7S-2yB
LikeLike
Hi, Paul-
I have been reading through your posts for a few months. I am on a truth quest, and have been awakening over the course of the last 15 months to the amazing amount if deception in the American church. I must say I am greatly dismayed–it seems that any teacher of note is a fraud of some sort. We spent years in the SBC, then went looking for something “real.” After escaping the mindless crush of Stepford Christianity (seeker driven/church growth), and awakening to the underlying dogma (courtesy of Peter Drucker), I began looking into the various reformed denoms. Early on, we discarded the YRR/ Driscoll crowd. After some investigation and disappointment, Piper was out. Then, I began to look at the differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism. That is about where I came across your blog. You make very compelling arguments against Luther, Calvin, Protestantism as a whole, and virtually ever remaining pastor I hoped had something helpful to teach. I am not saying I think you are wrong, but I have a pretty good idea of what you DON’T believe, but no clue what you DO believe. What is left? Help!
Thanks!
Lisa
LikeLike
https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2013/10/18/an-answer-for-lisa-and-jane-doe/
LikeLike