Paul's Passing Thoughts

Live Link: Galatians Sunday Bible Study 11/24/2019 @ 11am

From tomorrow’s notes:

“Look, bottom line, if you sin, you are under the Old Covenant and yet a slave in the household who has not received an inheritance. To say that Christians sin is to say that no death occurred. Anyone who sins is under the Old Covenant. Here is the only real “imputation” in the Bible; the imputation of all sin to the Old Covenant. If you sin, you are under that covenant. Christian “sin” and everyday sin is not the same thing and to say that it is denies the cross altogether. To say that Christians are “sinners saved by grace” denies that the death of Christ redeemed us from sins committed under the Old Covenant. The only sin that can be committed against the New Covenant is to deny it by living under the old one. “

It’s difficult to watch people who don’t even know what the gospel is howl and moan over the prosperity preaching of Joel Osteen. It’s difficult to watch those who are complicit in spiritual tyranny, sexual abuse, and child rape criticize Osteen as no such scandals have ever visited his ministry. If it did, I think Osteen would take a scorched earth approach and fully cooperate with authorities immediately because it’s the right thing to do, and he’s smart.

In addition, you have Protestant Churchians attacking Osteen when the prosperity functioning of the evangelical church is covert. God forbid someone would be in the open about it. The medium income in zip codes where the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors offers its services is 50,000 and above. ACBC counselors are non-existent in income areas that are less. Go to any parking lot at any church on any given Sunday and look at the cars parked outside. Look, as a former evangelical pastor, I tried to bring the poor into the church on several occasions and at several different churches; it didn’t go well ever. Look at where evangelicals have their conferences, and check out John MacArthur’s Alaska cruise Bible study trips. Yet, he is the most visible critic of Osteen; the overt hypocrisy is stunning.

But an equally famous prosperity preacher, and close personal friend of Osteen, Joseph Prince, is avoided like the plague and appears nowhere on the evangelical “Ravenous Wolf” list. Why not?

Because he preaches the authentic Protestant gospel in unvarnished terms that people can understand and without nuance. Evangelicals don’t want to draw attention to Prince because there is a danger that he will clarify what Protestants don’t know about their own doctrine. I have written about this in detail here, and here.

As I cannot look at my Twitter account without seeing anti-Osteen material on a daily basis, I thought it was worth another mention.

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

A fandom makes a hobby out of something people are a fan of. It’s very much like a fan club. For example, people who like Ford Mustangs might join a Mustang club or some other kind of car club. I once knew a couple who owned two Huskies and were members of a Husky club. Fan clubs concerning sports figures and movie stars are myriad.

The Furry fandom is a fake fandom; it’s a cover, which is why “fake fandom” will be a major theme of the book I will be publishing on the Furry “fandom.” The introduction will preface the use of  “the Fandom” in the book with the author’s acknowledgment that it is a fake fandom.

Before we discuss what the Fandom really is, we need to pause and discuss Bridget Gabriel’s “irrelevant majority” argument. Gabriel is knowledgeable about radical Islam and called on often to speak about it at conferences and seminars. Her argument follows: most movements and ideologies are driven by the minority within. If a group’s actions are driven by the minority, which is usually the case, the virtue of the majority is irrelevant because the majority is not driving the actions of the group. For example, most Germans during WWII were good people, but the Nazi’s were driving the actions. Hence, the “good Germans” were irrelevant.

Though this is usually the case Fandom is unique because the majority of the group drives its actions while they point to the minority as a defense. True, there is a minority within the Fandom who think it is a harmless fan club. Hence, supposedly, the Fandom should get a pass lest we “paint the movement with a broad brush.” Gabriel exposes the folly of this argument because what really matters is the actions of any given group. If the minority are driving its actions, the majority are irrelavant. However, as we shall see, the majority within the Fandom is what’s driving its behavior.

What is the Fandom? We will delve into the psychological studies that have been done in the next parts.