To All Women Preachers: Rise Up and Stick It to John MacArthur By Preaching Justifcation By New Birth
The sanctified rape of women in the church flows directly from the doctrine of Double Imputation
As one who lived the Protestant lie for 30+ years, and rethinking much of what I was brainwashed with, I really don’t know where I stand on women preachers. This I do know: God has used women throughout history to accomplish things while men were asleep at the switch or immersed in the role of sycophant. So, the issue of women preachers is trending in the church right now, and of course, the Bible is the authority for all the arguments. And once again, the lofty John MacArthur is at the center of the kerfuffle.
Who might disagree with this? Church is a perpetual drama of theological debate and scandal with something new under those headings trending weekly. And all under the guise of “standing for the truth.” Gag. It’s a religious soap opera. And where does all of this confusion come from? Well, but of course, “sin.” That was easy. But, could the confusion be coming from distorted information? Perish the thought.
I contend, as well as the others involved in this ministry, that the absolute train wreck called “church” is driven by a false gospel. How interesting it would be for women preachers to stand up and bypass the whole dramatic mess by simply preaching the true gospel of justification by new birth. And apparently, men are not going to do it, so…. Yes indeed women, reverse the narrative and start calling out John MacArthur for preaching a false gospel.
The argument is simple. MacArthur believes in “double imputation.” What’s that? It’s the idea that Jesus had to do two things to obtain our salvation rather than one thing. Supposedly, Christ came to live a life of perfect law-keeping AND die for our sins on the cross. And even though he did that once, the “redemptive event” is reapplied to our “present sin” through the “ordinary means of grace” (think, “sacraments”) that can only be obtained in the church. So, Christ died for our justification, and lived a perfect law-keeping life for our sanctification. In other words, all of our works in sanctification must be substituted as well. This invalidates anything that any “believer” would do that is the product of their own NEW life. Now you know why church is a mess. It’s a double substitution.
However, worse yet, is how this belief reinterprets the biblical new birth. It negates a belief that the new birth changes a person’s actual state of being from under law to under grace. The so-called believer remains under the condemnation of the law. Since the “believer” remains under the condemnation of the law, he/she must continually return to the cross for re-justification, and Jesus’ perfect law-keeping must be perpetually applied to the “believer’s” life. If one does that through “participation in Christ,” which of course can only be obtained through church membership and “submitting to the authority of godly men,” one remains “declared righteous.” In fact, justification is defined as a “legal declaration” according to the doctrine of Double Imputation. Question: how is a legal declaration a “righteousness manifested apart from the law”? Trust me, the argument against Double Imputation is theological math 101. The error is stunningly elementary.
In contrast, according to the true gospel of justification by new birth, you are not merely declared righteous, you are righteous as a state of being. Double Imputation does NOT change a person’s relationship to the law per Romans 8:2. Double Imputation defines a believer as still being under law which is the biblical definition of a lost person. Justification by new birth insists that the literal new birth changes the believer’s relationship to the law; condemnation is completely gone, and the law is fulfilled by the loving acts of the believer, and not a substitutionary imputation of Jesus’ perfect law-keeping which is not a righteousness apart from the law…obviously. Salvation is NOT remaining under law and having our sins covered by being under grace. You are not under grace and under law both; you are one or the other. Salvation is not a coverup, it’s an ending of condemning sin.
When the Bible talks about Christians sinning, that’s referring to a failure to love according to the law, not a reference to being re-condemned by the law requiring perpetual re-justification found through church sacraments. This “sin” can result in God’s loving chastisement. In other words, family sin refers to being under grace while the need to re-apply the redemptive works of Christ clearly points to remaining under law. We are righteous as a state of being because God’s incorruptible seed is inside of us (John chapter 3) not because Jesus’ perfect law-keeping is perpetually imputed to us through church sacraments; the Lord’s Table, sitting under gospel preaching, tithing, obeying the elders, etc., etc.
And as an aside, that gospel totally explains why John MacArthur and Rick Holland treated this rape victim the way they did. Why did the victim have the right to condemn the rapist when she is just as big of a sinner as him? Why would a victim have the right to seek justice under the law when both remain under the condemnation of the law? And why would the “believer” go to secular authorities who don’t understand the doctrine of total depravity? This is exactly why Holland kept referring to her “fault” in the matter; to remind her that she was no less a law-breaker than the rapist. In fact, the rapist was more spiritual than her because he recognized such. The only plausible justice for anyone is hell, and anything more than that is grace. She wanted present justice while being guilty of breaking the whole law as much as the rapist. He raped her while that morning she thought a bad thought; what’s the difference? Do you see now why the church handles these situations like they do? It all flows from the gospel of Double Imputation. Holland was then forced to defend the rapist over her due to the moral equivalency of Double Imputation. And besides, if the church is harmed, how will people get to heaven?
Women should stand up and preach the truth to not only stick it to the most confused pastor who has ever stepped foot in the “sacred desk,” but to save souls and women from being open season in church. God isn’t up with sanctified rape.
Can women preachers save the church? In the least, they should stand against the false gospel that gives license for their rape and abuse in the church. I can’t think of two endeavors more worthy. Perhaps TANC should start a school for women preachers.
Andy, John, and Susan, call me.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
The controversy over “women preachers” is just stupid. I come from a scholarship position based on context and interpretation and have done a ton of research over 15 years. My conclusion? The formal institutional church structure is bogus and plays into false hierarchies that are meaningless. Scripture describes gifts with verbs not titled nouns. And woman can be just as big of charlatans as men can be when it comes to Church. Women can be just as evil, too. As we can see daily as they also gain more power. But then, my maternal grandmother who went to Moody after college, back around 1910, wrote an analysis of Romans I still have. She was also a Baptist-civil rights-suffragette-temperance leaguer and had 8 children. They don’t make them like her anymore. She wasn’t a cuddly grandma but quite formidable and no nonsense. Now women are oppressed and should be handed power.
And I do not think it’s my job to demand other people accept my conclusions.
I don’t focus on gender when researching or studying scriptural scholars. I don’t focus on gender when it comes to politics, either. I don’t understand why people do. But then, I never focused on color or ethnicity. I am now told that sort of approach is racist. Sigh. But I will admit that on a daily basis more and more public “oppressed” women are starting to embarrass me. I can imagine it’s the same as soy boys embarrassing you guys.
LikeLike