Paul's Passing Thoughts

Statistics show the following, and have for some time: there is no measurable difference between secular lifestyles and those who faithfully attend church. The attitude that answering God’s call is a commitment to be different carried some weight in the 50s, but overall, I am not sure it was ever realty.

Let’s talk about two different perspectives; from the secular to the church, and from the church to the secular. From the secular viewpoint, church is a place where you go to get the tools to be a better person in the eyes of God. Intuitively, because of being under condemnation and the conscience’s response to that, some people want to move away from condemnation to a clear conscience before God. They think church is the place to do that.

But it’s not; that has never been a tenet of church orthodoxy ever. However, the church allows this pretense as a form of false advertising. Those in the church who believe that being a Christian is about change have not yet been fully indoctrinated. In fact, in weekly church sermons, deliberate terminology is used to play on assumptions and use these assumptions to indoctrinate “converts” to a “confessional” soteriology. In essence, you are saved by NOT practicing what you preach. In contrast, you confess that you can do no good work and are saved by the imputation of Jesus’ loving works to your church account.

Those being gradually indoctrinated move from thinking behavior matters to realizing that salvation (supposedly) is determined by a “growing knowledge of grace.” Knowledge saves you, not behavior, according to the church. This idea, to begin with, implies that salvation is a process instead of behavior being the mere result of a changed state of being, while the idea of a changed state of being implies that salvation is a onetime finished work by God.

In other words, church discussion of the Christian life (sanctification) is grounded in the false premise of sanctification being a salvation process that can only be found in church authority. Yet, those who don’t get that are allowed to assume the former until they are assimilated into the latter. So, after hearing sanctification being spoken of in a justification way week after week, subjects are indoctrinated into the idea that the Christian life is a salvation process. Curiously, but understandably, this results in Churchians denying salvation by church sacraments intellectually, while functioning that way in life.

In more words yet, the secular understand more about salvation going into the church than they do going out. When it gets right down to it, the knowledge of new birth is intuitive. People who seek out the church know that salvation is a supernatural act of God that changes their state of being. For most people seeking God initially, they seek to be changed by God for the better; they want to be better people. To the church, this is an ignorant notion that offends God. The church seeks to lead such misguided individuals into the “true” knowledge that no person can do a work pleasing to God. Therefore, Christianity is all about confessing the inability of man whether before or after salvation as set against the “sufficiency of Christ.”  To confess that you can actually do something pleasing to God is to proclaim that Jesus needs your help in finishing your salvation. Of course, in reality, your salvation is already finished if you are really saved.

You should be able to plainly see why such a doctrine would lead to no ascertainable difference between secular lifestyle and church lifestyle. The goal is to have a deeper understanding of how far we are from God the Father, and thus increasing the gratitude for our salvation, instead of trying to become more like our Father.

And then there is the church cognitive dissonance that goes along with all of this reality. There is a great controversy presently trending in the church about the acceptance of LGBT while things like people living together out of wedlock, gluttony (and bragging about it at every Baptist potluck dinner), drunkenness, racism, and adultery have been commonplace in the evangelical church for years.

Furthermore, church uses its own decadence to wave a banner calling for a return to pure orthodoxy. The orthodoxy causes the bad fruit, and then the church claims that the cause is a departing from the orthodoxy. It has to be the only scam in human history that supplies its own supply and demand.

This is exactly what happened with the New Calvinism movement (1970 to present). The movement pointed to the failures of the church, and posed itself as the answer via the “gospel recovery movement” when authentic Protestant orthodoxy was the cause to begin with. In doing so, who did they make the enemy? Answer: the aforementioned who are in doctrinal transition and had some fuzzy idea of new birth. The blame was placed on them. One early mover and shaker in the New Calvinist movement even wrote an article bemoaning what evangelicalism had done to the church titled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” The article protested the idea that the righteousness of God is infused into the believer. In case you believe this guy represents the fringe element of the movement, you might note that he was invited to Southern Seminary in 2009 to lecture on the Protestant Reformation followed by John Piper extolling the lecture.

Some idea of radical transformation is going to be a belief walking into the church via new converts because it’s what they know intuitively though they wouldn’t know how to frame it theologically. Remember, even though unbelievers are under the condemnation of the law, they still have the works of the law written on their hearts with the conscience either accusing them or excusing them. They know what the crux of salvation is; they know that salvation equals a new life radically different from what they have. Protestant orthodoxy rejects this belief with extreme prejudice, and hostile covert takeovers of churches by the movement demonstrated such. New Calvinism peaked in 2009 resulting in a mass of upstart discernment blogs and “survivor” blogs.

1970 is a pivotal year in church history. It represents two movements that took two separate views of the church’s overt failure to be different. The New Calvinism movement bemoaned the efforts of the church to “be the gospel rather than preaching the gospel.” Too much sanctification that isn’t justification.

Enter in Dr. Jay Adams and his biblical counseling movement. Adams represents those who never transitioned from new birth soteriology to authentic Protestantism. His view of the problem? Not enough sanctification that is separate from justification (salvation). When Adams began to travel around the country promoting his aggressive sanctification expressed in a counseling construct, he was continually met with perplexity from those claiming that he was teaching a “strange new doctrine.” The way he explained it to me follows: “They were perplexed by the idea that Christians could actually do something.” This is telling. The only virtue in the church is what people know intuitively walking in; they do not understand what the church really stands for. Even Adams toes the line that justification is a mere “legal declaration” rather than a change in state of being, but that is not the functionality of his life and counseling construct. His intellectual version of justification is a contradiction to the intellectual statement of his biblical counseling program and individual behavior is strongly emphasized. That is, at least dating back to 2011; I assume it remains the same today.

The time has come. Those who truly follow Christ must now obey his mandate to make disciples that are truly a peculiar people in this twisted generation. We uphold God’s law because the new birth changed our relationship to it—it no longer condemns us but is our manual for loving God and others. It’s time to get busy. We are not merely declared righteous, we ARE righteous, and it is high time we act like it with all zeal.

Let that be our new year’s resolution in 2020.

paul

“Caste is the tie that binds; the Iranian government is moral because they understand the total depravity of man. But what about the elephant in the room? That is, they execute gay people. Well, we can’t talk about that right now because caste isn’t done using victimhood to obtain socialism.” 

Today, we see the massive infatuation with totalitarian regimes by young people, primarily Millennials, and the liberal press. The core of this infatuation is grounded in fear of pure individualism; the idea that you sink or swim based on the sum and substance of your own life. The only safety net is you.

Why is America the most giving country on earth? First, gaining satisfaction from helping others is a natural attribute of most people because we are created in the image of God. So, in a country where the individual is free to build the best self possible, giving is going to be greatly facilitated; people are going to have the means to feed their natural desire to gain satisfaction from giving.

Ironically, religionists reject evolution while touting the idea of human total depravity. Both ideas create an antithesis of individualism. Are you totally depraved or a mere animal living by pure instinct? Yet, individualism is a very strong force; in spite of all of the forces against it in religion, education, politics, etc., it remains the most influential mentality in this country. At least presently, that is. America is the home of the free and land of the brave because individualism demands freedom and requires courage. Individualism overcomes the fear of failure and seeks its self-esteem and dignity in self-accomplishment.

The total inability of mankind philosophy always walks with a telling fatal flaw in its ideology, and it goes something like this: “Hark, all of humanity is totally depraved and enslaved to its animal instincts, what to do? Alas! Surely God or whatever power runs the universe has appointed a ruling class to save humanity from itself!”

That, on its face, is immediately suspect. We call that a caste system, and caste has ruled the world from the beginning until Americanism showed up. Please understand, caste defines moralism as knowing that humanity is totally unable and totally depraved.  That belief defines everything pure and moral. The decadence of the elite has nothing to do with their right to rule over the great unwashed; what they supposedly know about humanity gives them that right and nothing else. To be unwashed means you don’t understand how depraved you are. Hence, Trump is the most immoral president ever, while Bill Clinton is as pure as the white wind-driven snow. This narrative perplexes you because you don’t understand how total inability defines moralism. Also note that this ideology transcends politics and religion…

…and statecraft. Caste is the tie that binds; the Iranian government is moral because they understand the total depravity of man. But what about the elephant in the room? That is, they execute gay people. Well, we can’t talk about that right now because caste isn’t done using victimhood to obtain socialism.

So, meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Democrats are in a race to see who can advocate for the most categories of victimhood. One category is reproductive rights for transgender men. Of course, the goal here is divide and conquer. What is your identity? Well, whatever it is, we need a law that protects your rights and anyone who doesn’t sign the law is a racist…and so it goes.

But historically, socialism and its kissing totalitarian cousin communism have never protected the rights of those off the beaten path. NEVER. Complex individual issues do not aide the state. Remember, in socialism et al, the primary purpose of the individual is to support the state, and a person’s value is determined by their ability to do so. And by the way, as a practical matter, homosexuality is not seen as something that increases the population of a state and governments need people to thrive. No personal right that does not benefit a socialist state will ever be defended or upheld and you can certainly include reproductive rights as well. For example, in China, the number of children you are allowed to have is mandated by law. There is no so-called “right to choose.”

Civil rights advocated by any socialist mindset is a total sham. Historically, victims are useful idiots until socialists obtain power via division and chaos. Socialists believe the masses are unable and stupid, and unfortunately, lazy thinking by the masses enforces that theory. In their propaganda, socialists seem to mock the people they are claiming to defend with the likes of, “The Peoples Republic of China.” China is a people’s republic? Though laughable, billions of people fell for it.

In November, we will see how many in the U.S. are still falling for this scheme that has been around since the dinosaurs. A landslide for Trump would be historic for the following reason:

For only the second time in human history, the people voice a resounding “NO” to the lie of statism and its use of victimhood to gain power and destroy real freedom.

paul

This article reminded me of what both Protestantism and Catholicism boil down to: perpetual re-salvation through church authority. It’s not just the idea that professing Christians still sin, it is the idea shared by both that sin committed by professing Christians is the same sin they committed before they were professing Christians. That is, any sin is still condemning sin; anytime you sin, you are once again condemned to hell and must seek re-forgiveness and for all practical purposes re-salvation that can only be obtained through church sacraments whether Protestant or Catholic.

These two argue that the other’s gospel is false based on the sacraments, or “means of grace,” not the premise. With both, salvation is not a onetime finished work by God. Catholics, at least, are honest about it while Protestant scholars lie about it. This leads many Protestants to believe that their sin is different from condemning sin; their sin as Christians merely disrupts their “fellowship” with God that must be restored through repentance with or without church authority. But, that is not Protestant orthodoxy at all, and not the way Protestants function. However, I must say, since the Neo-Protestant movement (1970 – present), Protestantism is more open about it with slogans like, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”

Until recently, Protestants only functioned according to Catholic progressive salvation (progressive justification) while denying it intellectually. Now, they are more open about it because Protestants, of late, have a better understanding of their own gospel because of the Neo-Protestant movement, or if you will, the New Calvinism movement.

The basic problem with a salvation that is not a onetime finished work by God follows: you must do something, or not do something with intentionality to keep the process going. This makes living a new Christian life a fallacy; Christian living is really about keeping your salvation through the church. Hence, good works are all about promoting the means of salvation, not the natural result of being born anew from above.

This shouldn’t surprise us. Catholicism and Protestantism both came out of a church state and for the express purpose of a church state. An individual that is literally God’s offspring is a poor candidate for state submission. The true biblical gospel bolsters individualism, not collectivism.

So, how should we function as God’s literal offspring who are no longer under condemnation? Since we are members of God’s family, we simply function like a family. Find likeminded believers and fellowship together and function like a real family functions. It’s not that complicated.

paul

This article struck me, and is indicative of many other life improving and life saving technologies that come out of Israel. The world, out of pity after WWII, gave the Jews a plot of worthless desert which they turned into a paradise but now they are “occupiers.”

On the one hand, Islam wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, but on the other hand, few countries contribute to the world more than Israel. It begs the question: how does Islam promote quality of life? Where are the Islamic cancer research facilities? Where are the Islamic mental health research facilities?

Does Islam do anything other than invest in killing people through terror networks? Do their schools do anything to advance technologies that improve life? If they do, how does that investment compare to their investment in hate? When the Obama administration sent Billions of dollars to Iran, they had to know the bulk of the investment would be invested in terror; what else does Islam do?

And when their terror compels the world to give them things, like land, technology, or whatever, what do they make of it? Always, without exception, a bigger hot mess of poverty and death. Now, you might point to Saudi Arabia as an exception, but what life improving innovations have ever come out of them? In all cases, in regard to Islamic countries, and for that matter communist countries, improvements are imported.

And curiously, one asks why Islam is so mad at the world; what awful thing has the world done to Islam that causes them to be in full-blown revenge mode all of the time? Answer: the world refused to bow down to Mahammad. That’s it. Islam is a focus on world conquest and little else.

What has the world done to the Jews? We could understand Judaism being a revenge-driven religion in that regard, but what do we see instead? A world leader in improving life.

Hell is something I ponder a lot and struggle with. Though I love God, and totally trust Him, I wonder if hell is a little extreme. Jesus said that hating your brother can land you in eternal torment forever. Remember, historically, Islam and Judaism come from the same family. But pondering this issue seems to draw me closer to understanding; does this boil down to either loving life or hating life?

Hell is referred to as an eternal death versus eternal life. If you hate life so much, why would you have a problem with spending eternity in the belly of its enemy, that is, death? And the torment part, well, hatred for life always results in some sort of torment, no?

Maybe the most important thing to know is that there is no middle ground between heaven and hell; you are either on the side of life, or death. You must choose one side or the other.

In these musings, however, there can be no appeasement for terrorism; it has set its face against life in all quarters.

paul

I understand that until recently, church has been a safe place, or so we thought. Church was a place where you always felt welcomed and loved. However, apparently, the whole child sexual abuse thing was going on behind the scenes for a long time, even in Southern Baptist circles.

Aside from that, Church was a place where you were free to come and go, and if you hadn’t been there for awhile the folks missed you. There was some notion of a biblical new birth and church was primarily for encouraging each other to be better Christians while enjoying close friendships.

Any notion that church membership is efficacious for salvation, that the church was out to control you, and is a political party vying for societal influence, where not thought valid by any stretch of the imagination.  Asking you to sign a church covenant, and the idea of church discipline for non-attendance would have been met with dismay.

Of course, those former 20th century church ideals are a post-Revolution-America thing. Until Americanism came about, church was always married to the state and compelled people to obey its orthodoxy by force. Shortly after the Reformation, many Protestant movements had their own standing armies. Politics and church were hand-in-glove. The church was not only seen as God’s appointed authority over salvation on earth, but God’s standing army to take over the world to pave the way for Christ’s return. Church was represented almost entirely by Dominion Theology.

Presently, we are seeing a massive return to medieval church theology and the application of it. If you walk into any church, you better be all-in because church now plays for keeps. It is no longer, “Hey look! A visitor!,” but rather a sizing up and an evaluation protocol. Welcoming committees are no longer welcoming committees, they are trained individuals who evaluate visitors and report to the elders. Of course, terminology that describes their “ministry” is couched in soft terms. In these evaluations, those who can think for themselves are immediately deemed a threat to the “church family.”

Church campuses are the big thing now. These are groups of churches that are really one church and occupy a large geographical space. Unofficially, these campuses often have their own in-house police departments run by real police officers or retired police officers. At John MacArthur’s church in California, they are known as the “Temple Guard” and have been known to escort people to their cars for asking too many questions in Sunday School. They are also heavily armed.

Look, I know as Christians we care about the truth, but church is no longer a place where you stand for the truth or fight for it; they will totally destroy you. Church is now the wrong venue to stand for truth. Church has become just another political party and all of the political intrigue that goes along with it. Let the dead bury their own dead.

Based on this ministry’s firsthand experience in helping people, Susan and I can tell you how churches are now functioning as church-states in an open society. First of all, politicians and people running for office are members of these churches and actively work towards passing laws that further enable churches to function as shadow church-states. When you hear Churchians say, “God’s law is higher than man’s law,” you should be very afraid. By no means at all should churches in our day be tax exempt. Clearly, churches are now split along party lines and promote party and social platforms. Laws will subtly empower churches to get back in bed with the state. And by the way, the church could easily open a box of instant church-state by reuniting the Catholic and Protestant churches. That’s what the ecumenical movement is all about to begin with.

Also remember that IRS agents, police detectives, police chiefs, prosecutors, psychiatrists and children’s services people go to these churches. Would these people be used to bring bogus charges against people who are causing a church problems?

It’s already happening. It is totally already happening.

Stay away from church unless you are ready to run with the big dogs of political intrigue. Church is not what it used to be…at all.

paul