Paul's Passing Thoughts

This post concerns the latest trending drama in the Southern Baptist Convention. A Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor was fired for his position on LGBTQ. By the way, the cultural debate/discussion is underway that argues for the “P” to be added to that as well. That would be pedophilia, and I assume zoophilia (Z, [bestiality] since there is already a “B” in there) will also be forthcoming in the near future. Hey, a sexual preference is a sexual preference; who’s to judge, right?

The SWBTS official statement says that Dr. Lopez was laid off because of curriculum changes but no one is buying it. Apparently, Albert Moher, President of Southern Seminary, the flagship seminary of the SBC, has been trying to sensor Lopez on issues of LGBTQPZ for some time. 

So, when are those trying to save the SBC going to talk about the elephant in the room? And what is the elephant in the room? Answer: a concise biblical definition of the new birth. Lopez got fired because he is a confused Protestant, which is a good thing; church was a good place to be when Baptists were confused.

Albert Mohler et al are part of a movement that returned the SBC to authentic Protestant orthodoxy. Founders Ministry is an organization that was founded by Earnest Reisinger for the sole purpose of doing such. Reisinger was a Presbyterian who became an ordained Southern Baptist minister for the express purpose of infiltrating the SBC with “The Centrality of the Objective Gospel Outside of Us.” Thomas Ascol is a disciple of Reisinger who died in 2004.

I get it; those who want to save the SBC don’t want to admit that while debating Calvinistic predeterminism for all of these years, they didn’t really understand what Calvin and Luther believed about the very gospel itself and the new birth in particular. Nevertheless, EVERY woe taking place in the SBC right now boils down to what one group believes the new birth is, and the assumption of the other half that everyone believes the same thing about it despite overt public statements by Mohler’s clan.

The good guys are not paying attention. Words mean things. When John Piper states openly that Christians still need to be saved; you really ought to stop for awhile and think about what that means exactly.

Full stop: Lopez got fired because he believes in a biblical new birth as applied to the LGBTQPZ issue. Mohler et al do not believe in a biblical new birth; they believe in the Luther/ Calvin new birth. What is that?

It denies that the new birth is a transformation of a person’s actual state of being. Instead of the new creature being righteous as a state of being, or being holy as God our Father is holy, we are only “declared righteous.” Hello, please pay attention; they say it all of the time. Also, according to Luther and Calvin, the new birth does not change the believer’s relationship to the law. In other words, the “believer” remains “under the righteous demands of the law.” Hello, the Bible calls that being “under law” and that is the biblical definition of a lost person. Now you know why John Piper states that Christians still need salvation; please start paying attention. Also be advised: being under grace does not abrogate the law, but being under grace does remove the condemnation of the law and makes it our counsel for loving God and others with all of our heart, mind, and soul.

In the gospel of Luther and Calvin; in fact, its cardinal point, is that “believers” remain under the condemnation of the law and this is the very crux of double imputation soteriology. Since the “believer” remains totally depraved, Christ’s fulfillment of the law must also be imputed to our lives. The legendary RC Sproul even stated that Christ obtained His righteousness through perfect law-keeping and clarified the statement by saying Christ would not have been righteous without it. Regardless of the fact that such a statement is outright blasphemy, no one even blinked.

Please start paying attention.

So, what is the Luther/Calvin definition of the new birth? It’s merely a perception, or ability to see righteousness, but not perform it. ALL of our (who is the “our”?) works are like filthy rags, right? Hence, we must merely preach the gospel, but we cannot perform the gospel. “Sanctification is done TO us, not BY us as the progression of justification [salvation].” “Sanctification is justification in motion” because there is no real transformation in the person other than their ability to see “our sin as set against God’s holiness.” Faith is merely a perception, not an actual change in state of being.

Therefore, as they say, “our gospel is confessional” Get it? We cannot actually practice what we preach, we can only confess it. “It is our mission to preach the gospel, not be the gospel.” Get it? In the SWBTS statement denying accusations concerning Lopez, they affirm their stance that homosexuality is sin and not biblical, while also adding that they are “confessional.” They probably think it’s cute that they can say what they mean without most SBC parishioners knowing what they are really saying by saying that. In essence, they are saying:

“We deny that we don’t think homosexuality is sin; of course it is sin! But on the other hand, if you have that orientation, you are enslaved to it, and the church is a hospital for the sick. If you deny slavery to sin, you are saying you have no need for a doctor! The gospel is for those who need a doctor, not those who have no need for a doctor (Luther).”

And after all, “We are all just sinners saved by grace,” right? If a lie is sin, and you are afforded the full rights of church, why wouldn’t LGBTQPZ be afforded the full rights of church as well? If you break the law at any point as James 2:10 says, you are guilty of breaking all of it, no?

Yes, if the biblical new birth doesn’t change your relationship to the law and completely transform your state of being from sinner to saint. You, in contrast to what Luther stated, are not both saint and sinner simultaneously, you are one or the other: you are either under law or under grace; under grace is NOT a covering for remaining under law. Sinning as a true born again believer is NOT the same as sinning as an unbeliever. One is a failure to love and is a family issue between you and your Father while the other is sin that remains under the condemnation of the law. Fact: Calvin and Luther’s soteriology maintains that ALL people lost or saved remain under the condemnation of the law.

I am still the only one to date able to keep Dr. James White from running his pie hole a split second after someone says something. During a conversation about justification on a UK radio program,  White was doing the usual Protestant word shell game with everything I was saying until I asked this question: “Is justification an actual change of being from unrighteousness to righteousness and not merely a declaration? In other words, are we merely declared righteous, or are we righteous as a state of being?” Ironically, they even state that justification is a “legal declaration.” How is that a righteousness manifested apart from the law?

The real problem is not Lopez’s position on LGBTQPZ per se, but what his position states about the new birth.

Dr. Lopez’s testimony of deliverance from homosexuality and full restoration to heterosexual norms is counter to Albert Mohler’s ownership of the myth of “unchanging homosexual orientation ” which he embraced in 2014 at the ERLC conference on “The Gospel. Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage”.

Right, because Lopez believes that believers are no longer enslaved to sin, but rather enslaved to righteousness. Being under the “law of Christ” is a totally different reality than remaining under the “law of sin and death.” The law of the Spirit of life has set us free from that law (both are “nomos” in Roman’s 8:2).

Look, let me help here. For you good men of God being driven crazy by this stuff, I have a story you can use to save face. It might go something like this:

“Now fellow Baptists, there is a reason we are all not attending the Lutheran church down the street, right? [Those who have not yet broken their necks from nodding yes so much will do so]. And as you know, I have always had a problem with Calvin, and even though I have always known he had the new birth wrong [it’s alright to lie because you are no longer under law], it is high time we start talking about that.”

You then begin to broadcast the fact that the problem with church is Calvin’s false gospel, not the election debate. NOTHING well change until the elephant in the room is discussed. Personally, I believe the problem with church is church, but if you are going to save church, you might want to start with its false gospel.

paul