Paul's Passing Thoughts

On the one hand being very busy right now, and on the other hand being sent article links of what’s trending and personal emails of interest, I have decided to write a post here that speaks to all subjects. Article one is this piece by Answers in Genesis aka Ken Ham. The next is this one promoting the idea that church membership is efficacious for salvation. The third is this one here which is indicative of massive concern of late among evangelicals that Marxism is taking over the church. And of course, everything President Trump that is constantly dominating the news feeds. And lastly, an email that I received this morning.

By the way, thanks to all for keeping me in the loop as I have a lot going on right now and little time to serf the net.

As predicted some time ago by this ministry, the church crazy train, by virtue of its gospel and history, will continue to race down the track at faster and faster speeds. For those left in the church still able to think for themselves, the time of decision is looking to be near. Will you capitulate to the authority of men, or be a Hebrews 11 believer? Will you have courage and believe that your true reward is in heaven, or will you continue to be a cowardly lazy servant who will return to the Lord only what was originally given when He returns? You know, the same gospel that saved you originally lest you have a “righteousness of your own.”

Don’t be like John MacArthur Jr. who was confronted with this decision in circa 2008. He had a choice: the Protestant gospel of progressive justification via a bunch of dead Gnostics, or the truth; he chose the former—too much to lose otherwise. Sadly, had he chosen the latter, I believe he could have changed church history. He screwed up big-time, and lost an opportunity to impact Christianity just short of the Apostles. He clearly chose the traditions of men instead of God’s truth. I believe the following; had he stood up and said, “Through the admonition of several notable church leaders responding to my book, ‘The Gospel According to Jesus,’ I now see clearly what the Reformers really believed, and though their persuasion is for the affirmative, I must reject it with prejudice. We have it wrong and must change how we see the truth and how we apply it.” I believe many, if not more than ever, would have followed his leading.

That which is presently trending would have been rejected out of hand by the vast majority of churchians 10 to 20 years ago. But again, when authority is truth, the latter takes a backseat to what the academics say. In other words, when it gets right down to it, anything the academics say goes, and this will continue at breakneck speed. And dear discernment bloggers, there is no saving the church; give it up. It was run of the mill tyranny in the beginning until tempered by the American Revolution, but will most certainly return to its basic roots which is what we are witnessing in our day. In regard to what we see trending today, where will it end up? Read the book of Revelation; it’s all there.

First, know this: you cannot separate politics from church because church has always been a political party. Remember this, the John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion is a political/philosophical document written to the King of France. Remember this, the Pilgrims, who were Puritans, who were Calvinists, came to this country as political refugees, not the boloney you hear about risking life and limb for religious freedom. The Puritan Calvinists thought they could do church-state better than the Church of England, so they set sail to where they could have the freedom to do church-state better, or so they thought. Your first clue should be that the American colonies were a full-blown theocracy modeled after Calvin’s Geneva fraught with a religious caste system not even rivaled by Hinduism. In fact, Puritan rule of the colonies was probably the match that set fire to the American Revolution.

Hence, Ken Ham, in his article, takes separation of church and state totally out of context. The true context follows: America was the first non-church-state government in the history of the world. That’s the context. Before America, religion and government always ruled over the great unwashed together. On the one hand, church leaders say they don’t want an American theocracy, but on the other hand they say, “God’s law is higher than man’s law.” Why did I pull my son out of “Christian” school? I didn’t want to pay for the Bible classes that are predicated on progressive justification and the false gospel of justification by faith. I didn’t tell the counselor that, but said, “We teach our boys the Bible at home.” The counselor’s response? “These classes are mandatory because the average Christian is not qualified to teach the Bible at home.” At that point, the meeting was over and I told her why.

Article 2 is merely good ole fashioned Protestant orthodoxy, viz, salvation is progressive through submission to church authority. In the article, the author uses Bible terms that refer to Christians as, a family, a body, a priesthood, ect. to make his point, but the church is an institution and is none of those things, especially a family. Like any other institution, when you are there you are called family, but that’s as far as it goes. And an institution is not a body nor does it operate like one. He refers to meeting together for “accountability” and cites the go-to verse for that in Hebrews, but that verse says nothing about “accountability” but only “encouraging each other unto good works” which the church denies we can do to begin with. And of course, our intelligence is completely offended by the “there is no perfect church” mantra. Hello, NO church has ever separated itself from ANY denomination, or even withheld funds in the face of cover-ups for kidnapping, child rape, murder, embezzlement, and obstruction of justice. If you go to church, you are putting your children at risk with no legal recourse. No perfect church indeed. In truth, going to church denies the new birth which speaks to, at least,  individual ability through new creaturehood.

Thirdly, the church’s Total Inability of Man doctrine necessarily requires a Marxist political solution. When Americanism broke up the marriage between church and state, Communism filled the void. The introduction of Communism in the historical timeline is no accident or mere happenstance. Total Inability is a core ideology of the church and Communism and a strong primer for the two to be intimate. Hence, while Susan was surprised to hear about professors at Cedarville University voting for Obama at a dinner party we went to, I really wasn’t surprised at all. While there may be many disagreements between church and Communism, the core value is belief in man’s total inability.

Fourth, this is why the entire political apparatus is against Trump who is a populous movement in and of himself. He believes in the ability of the individual. He wants to empower dumb hicks who like to hunt and drink beer. This is not going over well. Why, in the face of proven history, are Democrats against tax cuts? It makes no sense, right? But remember, money empowers people. That’s what it is all about. In everything, follow the money, but also follow the presuppositions concerning mankind. In both cases, government and religion are always in bed together.

Lastly, a trend I have seen for a long time, but never commented on, and was brought to my attention once again in an email I received this morning. While parishioners are proud to be under the authority of “godly men,” and not Christ, it’s funny how they think they have authority over the unchurched because they are higher in the caste system among the great unwashed. A friend of mine shared, in the email, how she was lectured and demeaned for not being a churchian.  When churchians  comment here at PPT, they don’t offer a counter-argument based on the points made in any given article, but merely argue from a position of authority. In other words, because they go to church and you don’t, their opinion supposedly has authority over your conscience. So, you could also say that this is an argument between those who have clearly relegated their conscience to the authority of men versus those who have kept their own conscience and insist on being persuaded with the truth.

This is all coming to a head more and more, and decision time for many. My advice is to cut your loses and return to a true Christian fellowship that is the true family of God and functions like a real body.

paul