Protestantism – Redefining Reality By Reinterpreting Scripture
Protestantism is more than just a false gospel. It is a redefinition of reality itself. When God created the world He used words to describe it. Words are the product of a rational mind. Since Man is made in the image of God, he also has a rational mind. Man uses the power of language to define his reality and communicate that reality to other individuals. Therefore, if one desires to create a new reality, the most effective way to get another to accept that reality is through the use of words, the redefinition of words, or in some cases the omission of words.
The meme at left is a perfect example of this because it fits the Protestant metaphysical assumption of reality. The verse is well known. Many of us were probably taught this verse in Sunday School as children. But if you look closely, something is amiss with this verse as it appears in the ESV, favorite bible of Reformed theology. Here it is in the King James, the way most of us learned it:
“We love Him, because He first loved us.” ~ 1 John 4:19
The ESV subtly leaves out the word “Him”. The question is, does one little word really make that big of a difference? Before we explore that answer, consider how the verse appears in the original manuscripts. Here is an excerpt from my interlinear Bible program which shows the Greek from the textus receptus manuscript.
It is clear from the Greek that the word “Him” appears in the manuscript and is the direct object in the first clause in this verse. God is the object of our love. Notice how the omission of the word “Him” in the ESV completely changes the meaning of the verse! There is no longer an object of our love. Instead the context of the verse is now about our ability or capacity to love in general.
So the question remains, does one little word really make that much difference in the grand scheme of things? Does it really matter that the ESV left out the object of our love: our Heavenly Father?
To answer this question we must first answer another more important question: Why? Why would Protestantism seek to marginalize the love a believer has for his Father? The answer is simple: Man’s depravity. The metaphysical assumption of Protestantism is that man is depraved and unable to love God. And since the false gospel of Protestantism is based on perfect law-keeping, this keeps believers “under law”, which means according to Protestantism, believers are no different than the unsaved. In other words, believers are just as totally depraved and unable to love God as unbelievers are.
If you think that is farfetched, then please explain to me why a word, which is clearly the manuscripts, was left out for no good reason whatsoever? Would it not seem contradictory, on the one hand, to have a philosophy rooted in the depravity of man and his inability to love God and, on the other hand, have a Bible that definitively states that man indeed loves God?
When this meme from Our Daily Bread showed up in my Facebook newsfeed the other day, the post used this verse in the context of forgiveness and loving others. But understand this, the metaphysical reality of Protestantism makes it impossible to love others because of Man’s depravity. The point according to such orthodoxy is this: unbelievers cannot really love because they don’t have Jesus. But here’s the rub. Believers can’t really love either. Any act of love they do is only experienced subjectively as Jesus does the loving for them.
Thus the omission of the word “Him”. Forget trying to love God. The assumption is that the only reason we love at all is because God had to first love us, and only those whom God sovereignly elected to salvation can show love as they subjectively experience love through them by Jesus Christ.
In fact, even Protestantism’s erroneous perspective on Law circumvents love. Believers are not only unable to love, they don’t even have any means to show love. Keeping the law is the way we show love to God and others. But the Protestant gospel says that we are to live by “faith alone”, trusting Jesus to keep the law for us. So if we aren’t supposed to keep the law, then not only are believers unable to love because of their pervasive depravity, but neither do they have the means to love even if they were able to. Double whammy!
~ Andy
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“If you think that is farfetched, then please explain to me why a word, which is clearly the manuscripts, was left out for no good reason whatsoever? Would it not seem contradictory, on the one hand, to have a philosophy rooted in the depravity of man and his inability to love God and, on the other hand, have a Bible that definitively states that man indeed loves God?” Indeed, I will try.
Many do not adhere to the ‘textus receptus’ and the Kings James Version. Every other major translation translates the verse as you have stated, without the direct object because the critical text (the greek manuscript basis of most other translations) only includes it as a possible not probable variant. So your argument, though compelling, may fall on many deaf ears. Besides, 1 John 4:19 does potentially refer to our love for God the Father, without the original greek object, because of the context.
Without the object supplied the context limits ones love to either God (v 20 and 21) or fellow believer (v 20 and 21) and not “our ability or capacity to love in general.” Who knows why John left out the direct object. My stab at it is that the context bears witness to his intention to heighten the concept of a believers ‘love’ both toward God the Father and by extension to fellow believers since they, too, are members in the household of faith (Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:19; 1 Timothy 3:5).
If so, believers can love God according to 1 John 4:19 without the ‘textus receptus’, making your argument a not so sneaky way for Reformed, Covenant, New Calvinist theology to support its fallible propositions. I am no fan of New Calvinism or any other version of it. I have read much of your material and have often wanted to collate ALL of the quotes and facts you put forward to expose their views of ‘believer depravity’ and ‘believers inability’ to love God. Its just that the 1 John 4:19 argument did not ring true to me (and possibly others) due to the way your case was made.
Jerry
LikeLike
Such a comment could easily get us sidetracked onto the issue of “modern textual criticism” which would distract us from the issue at hand. I will say this much; Westcott and Hort, whose manuscripts form the basis for every modern English translation, were more interested in casting doubt and dispute over the source of scripture than they were in its preservation. In this they clearly succeeded.
Ironically, doesn’t “modern textual criticism” in and of itself make the case that there are those who seek to reinterpret scripture to their liking under the pretense of “scholarship”? I think your comment makes the point for me.
I am no fan of the KJV, for it certainly contains similar Protestant theological biases. One needs to be a good student of scripture and the historical evolution of western thought and use proper discernment. In any case, the point remains that scripture has been twisted and reinterpreted in order to support a particular orthodoxy. And they have a bible which conveniently lends support to it as well.
LikeLike
…like removing the past tense context for salvation in many, many verses.
LikeLike
And I keep forgetting: any assertion that we can’t keep the law perfectly also denies that we can love God and others. So now let’s think about the theology that John was refuting in 1John; clearly, a theology that labeled Christians “sinners” leading to hatred among so-called believers. The context fits.
LikeLike
Right, which goes with my point being that if we can’t love God and others because we can’t keep the law perfectly, then the only way their version of 1 John 4:19 makes any sense is if any so-called “ability” to love is subjective experience only.
LikeLike
Jerry,
Verse 20 clearly shows that “Him” was removed from verse 19. Here is what we have: “19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar” (NIV). ALL translations have verse 20 the same way: “Whoever claims to love God…” Love for God is the subject. “Him” was left out for no good reason whatsoever.
LikeLike
Yes it was left out but by the Apostle John not by Westcott and Hort. My point is still valid due to context. The ‘love’ we have in v 19 is controlled by v 20. We can genuinely love (give to another for their greater good without reciprocity) because we have been loved by God first (v 10). The most important manifestation of a truthful relationship with God is ones love for God and the believers (a bunch of people one otherwise would have had no relationship with or love for) v 20-21. Actually the manifestation of ones love for God is his or her love for the brethren. This seems the be the argument John is making here, namely, we can love one another BECAUSE we have been loved by God.
LikeLike
No, you are dead wrong. John’s point is the new birth into God’s family and those who have a love for God the Father accordingly love their siblings. There are no cause and effect conjunctions in verse 19 or verse 20. The beginning of verse 20 is a contrast and comparison to 19 validating that “Him” should indeed be in verse 19.
LikeLike
We had a day in Sunday School where the kids teacher wasn’t there and we had to combine the kids and adult class, and this being a super-stealth neo-cal takeover operation, we were using The cough (False) Gospel Project. One of the boys in the class asked something about God’s loving us conditionally -I forget the exact question, but the answer was this precise verse. I piped up and said the Bible says that “We love Him, because He FIRST loved us”. Again I forget the exact question, but I remember the relieved look on this little boy’s face upon reciting this verse.
There is power in the Word. I marvel at people who don’t think that Satan wouldn’t jack around with the Scripture, when in fact, it’s the only trick he really has. I’ve always been drawn to my KJV churches because they emphasize the New Birth as in, you have to have a testimony about the time and place of your New Birth. If you don’t have one, then you are not born again. Also, I like the grammatical interpretation they emphasize. This Gospel Project historical redemptive garbage had a lot of the older Baptists scratching their heads as to what it was even talking about.
I believe that God cannot lie. He says he will preserve his Word in Psalm 12:6-7. It blows my mind that Wescott and Hort are more of a subject of conversation in churches. Their published letters read as such (dramatically summarized for TV):
Wescott: This Codex Sinaiticus is just what we’ve been waiting for! We’ll just take out the parts out we don’t like!
Hort: Won’t people notice the missing and changed words?
Wescott: We’ll just leave stuff in and put brackets and footnotes in to put doubt into minds of the people.
Hort: Excellent! (Monty Burns accent)
Wescott: Bwahahahaha!
Hort: Catch you at the next seance/necromancy meeting Bro?
Wescott: For sure, let’s see what else the Spirit World tells us to do. The occult is the bomb!
Here he is admitting “turning tables”
https://books.google.com/books?id=oxc3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA33&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
LikeLike
RM
Yes, Westcott and Hort were vile men. It is well documented for anyone who has the courage to research the matter. And the link you provided to Hort’s letters I am sure would prove interesting reading!
LikeLike
Yes Westcott and Hort are the boogeymen for those wanting to authenticate the textus receptus. Vile men with ulterior motives! Erasmus most likely did not have the purest of motives himself when he collated that document. Plus he stayed middle of the road with the Roman Catholic Church and disliked Luther earning the ire of both. Neither the textus receptus or the critical texts yields a perfect copy of the original greek manuscripts of the New Testament but it is reasonable to conclude that what we have is extremely close to what the New Testament writers originally wrote. I also think it is unreasonable to conclude the KJV is an inspired english translation.
LikeLike
No one here is doing that; the Bible contains its own checks and balances and is by no means enslaved to single verse interpretation. Verse 20 shows what translations have it right.
LikeLike
Excellent comment, Republican Mother. Ferious (funny and serious).
LikeLike
Oh boy. Andy, you have hit on one of my major peeves. My view changed on so much when I started reading interlinears as what seemed insignificant in translations became quite significant. There are many other examples like Ephesians and Paul claiming he is chief of all sinners (perpetually), etc, etc.
I once read the long preface to the KJV while researching its historical trajectory. What an eye opener. It’s almost like some of them knew they had sold out in some areas. The fact remains that many translations are political. The KJV, for example, was born of a state church mentality and a Monarch who needed to consolidate power. It has to be read with that as the backdrop.
Then you have the money angle. Lifeway did not want to pay more royalties to NIV so the SBC commissioned their own bible, The Holeman. Crossway made a fortune off the ESV promoted by the Neo Cal resurgence. And so on and on.
I read them all as comparisons. But in the end, the idea that Saints remain perpetual sinners is the most disgusting of all interpretations. My view is if you are perpetually sinning then stop it. But don’t call yourself a believer who is walking in the light.
Do what is right. And that takes practice and fortitude and not bring popular. It’s simple but NOT easy.
LikeLike
Lydia,
We just covered that passage at home with our family. Interesting the word that’s translated “chief” is the Greek word “protos” which means first in order or first in importance. The same word is translated “first” in the very next verse. Careful exegesis of the passage shows that Paul was not talking about him being the worst sinner of all time but rather his position as being “first”. He was saved first (before all of them) so that he could have his ministry to the Gentiles. It could also be taken as a play on words since the Jews thought of Gentiles as worthless sinners, so Paul calling himself the leader (chief) of sinners could be Paul’s way of throwing it in the face of the Jews. And why not? Didn’t they also accuse Jesus of dining with publicans and sinners?
LikeLike
Thanks for that insight, Andy. I had mistakenly focused on tenses instead of context and word choices. It never made sense to me how it was taught.
Another one that is actually ignored because it doesn’t fit the “we are all saved sinners” meme is Matthew 5:48. I did some research on teleioi a while back because everyone around me was into the whole “sinless perfection” accusation toward people. You can’t swing a dead cat in Christendom without someone trotting out that Christians are sinners. I just want to scream: well stop sinning! Do we know right from wrong or not? And not every little uncomfortable thing or negative truth is a sin, for crying out loud!
It’s interesting how it’s translated but my research showed it means complete/mature in all areas. Something to strive for as we walk in the light, perhaps? Be interested in your view.
RM,
Thanks for that link. I shudder at what kids are being taught. From the horror stories I hear from the Gospel Project, it’s mass confusion even for the adults. Never mind the kids. But it was designed to indoctrinate from cradle to grave.
LikeLike
And that’s why just about every Calvinist has some sort of Pauline fetish. When some of them are struck down and ill, they would tell me “they are in good company…Paul’s, so it is great.” Well, kill me a bear, won;t you? And truly, many of visit Paul’s places (Turkey, or wherever he went), Mars Hill, and then they “imagine” they are him and some even “feel” him. Creepy or creepy, or perhaps creepy?
To many Calvinists, Paul is right up there with the devil Calvin and another prop in the great cosmic story, a guy called Jesus.
At one stage, when I was still in the Calvinist cult, EVERY sinner/saint/split personality had a “thorn in the flesh.” (From bunions to epilepsy; from bad breath to athlete’s foot…)
Protestantism is indeed more than a false gospel; it is downright evil.
LikeLike
“like removing the past tense context for salvation in many, many verses.”
Yes!!! That was my reference to Paul above. People trot that out to prove Paul continued to view himself the same sinner AFTER salvation. As if he was still breathing fire and throwing innocents in prison.
LikeLike
Yes, a lady I knew used that very same comparison, Lydia, and she used it to justify her extremely carnal and worldly lifestyle even though she was one of the imaginary “elect.” I simply adore your comments!
LikeLike
Believers are called specifically “sinners” in James 5:20 and the context of both the book and the passage make it clear that believers are in view. Of course, the point is to confront the sinning believer so he or she gets back on the correct path from which they have wandered. Its an issue of spiritual growth and maturity not one of salvation. So we can call believers sinners as well as saints.
LikeLike
Jerry, you are dead wrong again and basically full of boloney. Here at TANC ministries we reject Martin Luther’s Simul justus et peccator with prejudice. No, we cannot “call” believers both sinners and saints. People are either one or the other. However, Luther, and subsequently the Protestant confession, NEVER stated or states that a sinner is actually a saint. The saint part is only a legal declaration while the “saint” remains unregenerate as a state of being. See Luther’s “alien righteousness.” Luther, and subsequently Protestantism, rejects the idea that a “saint” is righteous as a state of being. Protestantism’s standard for justification is perfect law-keeping; ie., one who breaks the law is therefore a “sinner.” The standard for justification is the new birth, not the law. That’s why “where there is no law there is no sin.” No, believers cannot sin because we are not under law and for sure we cannot be called sinners. What law is there that we could sin against? So, what’s going on in the book of James? We are not saying that a few places cannot be found in the Bible where Christians are said to be committing sin, but this would not be in reference to sin that condemns. What is Protestantism saying in general and what did Luther say in particular about Christians who violate the law? We must return to the same gospel that saved us to be forgiven of “present sin.” That means, and stated such by John Calvin as well, that present sin removes the believer from salvation and salvation continues by ongoing repentance. If you will, “re-justification” or “progressive justification.”
At any rate, nice try, but the assumption that run of the mill Protestants come here who don’t really know what Protestantism is will not play here.
LikeLike
Paul:
I am not dead wrong here. Believers are described as sinners in James 5:20. James 5:20 specifically does describe believers “My brethren” as “sinners.” It also declares that the “multitude of sin” that they do will be “covered over” if they choose to “turn back”, after being confronted about that “sin” they are doing. Theology must grow out of exegesis and always be the controlling factor of it not vice versa. So, as I said earlier, confronting the believer who sins is a ministry we have within the body of Christ. It is a spiritual growth and maturity issue and not a salvation issue.
We agree that the sinning believer is not sinning with reference to sin that condemns. James point in the book is that believers must live in light of the judgment for rewards. So a believer who is sinning and turns back from that sin is putting himself into position to not lose rewards. If you help turn your brother from wandering from the truth, you help him get rewards in heaven. We could say believers are sinners when they violate the commands of Christ or the character of God embedded within those commands, or the instructions of the apostles and the consequence is the danger of losing reward at the Bema and not anything to do with the veracity of their salvation.
LikeLike
Sigh. Really didn’t have time to get into this, but now I guess I will have to. “Brethren” in James does not refer to the one body of Jews and Gentiles, but the Jewish community at that time dispersed after the execution of Stephen. The letter’s theme addresses the ambiguous life testimonies of Jews claiming the name of Christ. The sins mentioned are error concerning “the truth” and not general bad behavior. Anyone who led a fellow Jew back to the truth saved a soul from death which has salvific implications. Throughout the letter James is questioning the validity of their salvation and using “brethren” or “brother” in a manner of speaking or giving benefit of doubt. AGAIN, we don’t say that the Bible never uses the term “sin” to describe the actions of a believer who is failing to love, but I would certainly hope you can make your case with more than one verse from the book of James. You want to use a few, if not only one, biblical reference to “sin” in context of a failure to love to indorse the wholesale use of the word in describing Christians which feeds into the Protestant false gospel of progressive justification. Funny how you focus on the acceptance of the term as an acceptable description of believers while not acknowledging the sobering accusation against Protestantism launched by this ministry. Describing Christians as sinners without qualification is ill advised and supplies a continuing segway into the Protestant false gospel. All sin is against the law, and we are not under law, calling saints “sinners” has strong connotations that deny the new birth. The few references that refer to Christians sinning when they fail to love do not warrant a wholesale description of Christians as “sinners” perpetually re-saved by salvation.
LikeLike
Paul:
We disagree on the message of James. Actually, I am surprised that you take the liberty you do to support your argument. You seem to say the use of ‘brethren’ in James is basically only a literary device rather than a plain meaning of ‘fellow believers’ without any contextual support for that. That James message is salvific rather than sanctification in nature. Nonetheless, I do want to acknowledge TANC’s critique of the Protestant false gospel in regards to 1. the reality of the new birth being an actual state of being; 2. the fact that imputation of alien righteousness is a Protestant construct without biblical support; 3. the fact that justification is a once for all act not requiring the preaching of the gospel to ourselves daily to be perpetually saved; 4. the understanding that the only authority in the church resides in Jesus Christ and no one else or nothing else; 5. that perfect law-keeping is not a standard of either salvation or sanctification for the believer; 6. that a failure to love rather than failing to keep the Law perfectly is the concern of sanctification. My original comments about James and 1 John still hold for me but I do agree with the points made here from TANC’s teaching.
LikeLike
I highly recommend focusing on the “saint” part. .
2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? (1 Co 6)
🙂
LikeLike
Both Tullian and CJ Mahaney bragged about what horrible sinners they are. People should have believed them. 🙂
LikeLike
I love it when Jesus says that those who do the will of the Father are His Family.
LikeLike