Paul's Passing Thoughts

In this series, we will discuss several things that will inevitably lead to wholesale acceptance of homosexuality in the church at large. This will happen because the logical conclusions of authentic church orthodoxy (whether Catholic or Protestant) will open the door for such if not an outright calling for it. In fact, the process is presently in full swing.

This post will address the inevitable outcome from the perspective of Christian identity according to Protestant orthodoxy. The Reformation’s definition of sin is central. According to the Reformers, ALL sin is a violation of the law. That part is biblically correct. The error comes in when you consider what the Reformers totally missed: how the new birth changes one’s relationship to the law.

According to the Reformers, Christians fall short of perfect law-keeping, therefore, they still sin; hence, they are still sinners. Accordingly, Christian sinners still need forgiveness for “present sin.” Virtually every person who attends church will testify to the gospel fact that Jesus died for our past, present, and future sins. Therefore, even though the “redemptive event” only happened once, it must be reapplied to the “Christian’s” present and future law-breaking.

“We are all just sinners saved [continually] by grace [by more salvation].”

“We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”

Indeed, and don’t forget, according to the big three, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, ongoing salvation can only be obtained through the church and its “means of grace” [means of more salvation].

So, any violation of the law condemns you to hell. There are no big and little sins. Sin is sin. And, no “Christian” sins more or less than any other Christian. This is because, according to the Reformers, NO person, saved or unsaved, can do, or does do, a good work…ever. All of our so-called “good works” are filthy rags. According to the Reformers, no work done by any person lost or saved can escape God’s condemnation. Luther stated emphatically that the very belief that any person can do a good work is a false gospel in and of itself.

According to the advocates for accepting gays into the church, ALL those entering the church remain unchanged, so, if gays are expected to change before they are allowed into church fellowship, how could you allow anyone else in? After all, stealing, lying, or any other sin will condemn you just as much as homosexuality.

That’s just plain black and white Protestant orthodoxy… period.

What do I mean that “Christians” don’t change according to the Reformers? Saving “faith,” according to the Reformers makes participation in the “race of faith” possible, but that faith doesn’t save you. Faith, as defined by the Reformers, is only an ability to see or perceive the truth of our own evil as set against God’s holiness while unable to do anything about it. Hence, homosexuals only need to confess that they are sinners like everyone else in the world, and have no “righteousness of their own.”

All righteousness remains outside of the believer; this is Martin Luther’s alien righteousness. In contemporary terms, especially during the advent of the present-day Protestant resurgence, “the objective gospel” or “the objective gospel outside of us.” In all of this, any righteousness in the church is substituted by Christ anyway; it just doesn’t make sense to deny anyone fellowship who falls short of God’s glory by any means of violating the law.

In other words, justification by faith necessarily opens the door for gays at the very least, and to deny them entry demands that anyone who has righteousness within them to throw the first stone. Remember, Reformation soteriology even excludes the notion that the righteousness within a believer is a like righteousness of the Father via a literal new birth. When debating James White on this issue, he was able to play the justification/sanctification word shell game until I asked him the following question: “Are Christians righteous as a state of being, yes or no?” Those of the Reformed cloth, viz, authentic Protestants, can no longer play on the assumptions of Churchians if they answer that question truthfully.

So, what we see in the present “inclusion” movement is a quibbling over the context in which gays must be welcomed into the fellowship of the church; the logical conclusions drawn from justification by faith demand it.  And, the Protestant big dogs on the porch know it.

The contrast between this and the true gospel of justification by new birth will be discussed in one of the next parts. In part 3, we will discuss how Churchians became confused about the real Protestant gospel of justification by faith and made it something that it is not resulting in mass confusion and controversy.

paul

Part 1