Paul's Passing Thoughts

LIVE LINK: Sunday 10/27/2019 @ 11am

“The proof of my theses can be found in the movement that was spawned in the exact same year that began biblical counseling, 1970. Pay attention, this ends the argument.”

The internet is a wonderful thing. Right now, I am only writing articles that are low-hanging fruit because I am building a two-story apartment at the end of the Potter’s House. And trust me, what trends in the church is a bounty of low-hanging fruit. But the internet is also a wonderful thing for catching up on people you haven’t heard about for a long time. This morning, I wondered if Jay Adams was still alive. If he wasn’t, though a prominent church figure, you wouldn’t necessarily hear about it because the church threw him under the bus circa 2008.

Why? Well, he actually helped people as the father of biblical counseling and that is bad for church business. To whatever degree you help church people, that means they need church less, which means less power and control over people by the church and we can’t have that. Adams made the mistake of implementing too much commonsense in his theology and found himself in the middle of the two primary church camps: one driven by control-lust, and the other driven by Quietism. In reality, Jay Adams could have saved the church because for the first time since its conception it was living up to its billing: people were actually being helped. Look, historically, there has never been a true church revival. The so-called Great Awakening was spawned by Enlightenment thinking and Gnostic shills (church pastors) rode in on their horses and took credit for it. Name one so-called “revival” that had any lasting affect at all. You can’t, by the church’s own admission, it is presently a “train wreck” according to the lead singer of Casting Crowns, Mark Hall, and many others. I contend that the only real revival in the church that had real-life substance was Jay Adams’ biblical counseling movement.

The proof of my theses can be found in the movement that was spawned in the exact same year that began biblical counseling, 1970. Pay attention, this ends the argument. That year is absolutely monumental for the church. In a recent email account set up to receive notes to Adams on his 90th birthday, we find, jayeadams1970@gmail.com. Indeed. But what else happened in 1970? Answer: the beginning of the “gospel recovery movement.” Say what? 2000 years later the very gospel had to be recovered? “Yes” according everyone in the church who is anyone. Name them, including John MacArthur Jr., they were all part of it. And by the way, no true gospel…no true gospel fruit.

Do you want to talk about a “scandalous gospel” touted by the movers and shakers of the second movement? The true church gospel of the Protestant Reformation was re-discovered by a Seventh-Day Adventist named Robert Brinsmead and he was invited to the hallowed halls of Westminster Theological Seminary to bring the who’s who of Protestant orthodoxy up to speed on what the true Protestant gospel is. That’s just fact, and fact alone. This resulted in professors at Westminster packaging this re-discovered gospel into a counseling program that contended against Adams’ program. This resulted in a Calvinist civil war within the church.

What was the crux of this civil war? Two different gospels…period…end of fact. The recognized leader of the contra movement (David Powlison) even stated such in no uncertain terms while doing a seminar at John Piper’s church. So, let’s call on our commonsense to draw some logical conclusions in the form of a rhetorical question. There were Protestant revivals prior to 1970 when the Protestant brain trust didn’t even know what the authentic Protestant gospel was? Calvinism? Which Calvinism? 1 point? 2 Point? 3, 4, or 5? No, which gospel? is the question.

Adams doesn’t have Calvin or Luther right either, but the key here follows: Adams is half right and half right is the best the church is ever going to get. Adams, while being a staunch Protestant, counsels people based on the abilty of believers to do things (as in, they are really the ones doing it), and a separation between Justification and sanctification. That was NEVER Protestantism. Calvin’s “two-fold grace” is really two-fold salvation; sanctification is just as much about salvation as justification. The church had problems prior to 1970, but was right enough about the gospel to maintain its billing that Churchians are good people who can really change. A return to the authentic Protestant gospel has plunged the church into something that doesn’t even make a bad joke. Is there anyone out there who will deny this with a straight face?

Adams would agree that believers are literal co-laborers with the Spirit in sanctification, and the key to that co-laboring is a practical application of a historical-grammatical understanding of Scripture to life. That was NEVER Protestantism either. But for the first time in church history, people were really being helped, and in areas that secular psychology was unable to help. That’s another fact and I witnessed it firsthand. Fact is, Adams’ biblical counseling saved my life. And by the way, I was openly mocked by the elders of the church I last attended for saying so.

Only thing is, I could have been cured a lot sooner with a dual perspective on the law; this is where Adams’ counseling is lacking. The law for those under law (a call to be justified to escape condemnation) is different than the law for those who are being sanctified by their own obedience while helped by the Spirit. Because I only had one perspective on the law like all good Protestants, I never knew for certain what my motives were while applying Adams’ practical application to my life. Was I doing it to love God and others, or was I doing it to justify myself? This doubt hindered my recovery time. With a proper Romans 8:2 perspective on law, one knows that it is impossible to justify yourself through obedience using the law because the law that condemns has no jurisdiction over you; you literally died with Christ.

The other law, the one for sanctification, not the one that convicts the world of sin and the judgement to come, is what we use to aggressively love God and others with no fear of condemnation. It is the law that we are under after being resurrected with Christ; it is “faith WORKING through love.” The other law is our manual for loving God and others, and that is done by applying God’s wisdom to our lives in how we think and what we do. In contrast to the New Calvinist anti-gospel now endorsed by most evangelicals (rediscovered by the true father of the movement, Adventist Robert Brinsmead), it IS about what we do, NOT what Jesus has done and is still doing as a second substitution for our love. If you conflate justification and sanctification, that also conflates love and works making both the antithesis of faith. That necessarily denies the new birth and how it changes our relationship to the law.

Nevertheless, what Adams has right about the gospel is much better than the authentic Protestant version and its rotten fruit. I witnessed what the Adams revival did in people’s lives and especially when it peaked during the 90s. What the New Calvinist movement has done to the church since 1970 is abundantly obvious. Who will deny that our secular society has a totally different view of the church? Who will deny the mass exodus that is taking place? And, all since the “gospel recovery movement.”

Jay Adams will never agree with me on Luther and Calvin, and he will certainly never agree that he is the best thing that ever happened to the church. But that’s where I stand. The church should at least try to recover its former glory prior to 1970 when it functioned on biblical generalities, and especially its testimony of the 90s that caused the secular realm to take note in a positive light. During the 90s, I was proud to be connected with church. FACT: I witnessed, firsthand, secular psychologists sending their “hopeless cases” to the church. I witnesses, firsthand, people being weened off of psychotropic drugs after being told by psychiatrists that they would need those drugs the rest of their lives. What was the response by the “gospel recovery movement” that started the “second generation” counseling movement? Supposedly, Adams’ counseling construct was only making people in the church, “better Pharisees.” In my mind, Randy Patton, David Powlison, Paul David Tripp, and others, were/are the real Pharisees who in the same way attributed the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan.

Yes, I know, if they looked at what the first generation biblical counseling did and attributed the fruits to Satan, what hope is there for them? Not much, and the same goes for everyone else who threw Adams under the bus with their silence and capitulation like Dr. John Street. But I see where Adams still has some who have bought into his counseling construct. And he still lives. For those who can’t make heads or tails out of what New Calvinism is doing to the church and wail about it nonstop, here is a chance to at least return to the 90s. It’s a single perspective on law which is a hindrance, but because of its separation of justification and sanctification it will yield much better fruit than you have now. Remember this if you forget everything else in this post: the present insanity propagated by TGC, SBC, and T4G is totally driven by the “second generation” counseling construct that waged war against Jay Adams. Oh, I know, they claim fruit as well, but let me tell you what it is: it is a stoic indifference to life based on all reality being a gospel narrative. They have the demeanor of complete inner peace with a silly grin on their faces while the testimony of the church can be likened to a septic tank in total disrepair.

Adams would totally disagree with me on one more thing: I believe the church is a hopeless case. Its very beginning is the institutionalization of Christ’s assembly. “Church history” is just that, church history and nothing else. That’s why I believe one of the few shinning momments in its morass of political intrugue, confusion, and religious wars is the first generation biblical counseling movement. If you want some hope for saving the church why not call someone who also has hope for the church and proven results? Since I love you and want to give you the best advise I can give you under the circumstances, I would advise the following:

Call Jay Adams and listen to him.

paul

1. Total Depravity pertains to the unregenerate only. No, they mean the saints also.

2. Sola Fide (faith alone) only pertains to Justification. No, it pertains to sanctification also.

3. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) means “alone” and not other “subordinate” truth that also has authority though “subordinate.” No, creeds and confessions also have authority; it is not Scripture “alone.” What does “alone” mean?

4. Solus Christus (Christ alone) only regards the way to the Father. Not so, Christ is the only way to understanding all of reality. This was the crux of Luther’s Theology of the Cross.

5. Progressive sanctification sanctifies us and is separate from justification. No, they say, “never separate” but “distinct.” Then why not call it “progressive justification”? Why not clearly say that we are sanctified by justification?

6. Election predetermines our eternity. No, the elect have to persevere. The perseverance of the saints is not a characteristic of the saved, it is something that the saints have to add to their faith to complete their justification. They call this, “already-but not yet.” The promises of God are “conditional.”

7. Proponents of synergistic sanctification are mistaken. No, Calvinists think they are lost and promote a false gospel.

8. Spiritual growth is about change. Absolutely not. Calvinists believe we experience manifestations of Christ as we live by faith alone.

9. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is only imputed for our justification. No, they believe it is imputed to our sanctification as well.

10. We should learn what the Bible teaches and apply it to our lives. No, they believe we should look for the cross in every verse which results in Christ manifestations in the Spirit realm. They call this, “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.”

11. Calvinists don’t believe in absolution. Not so. Calvin believed Christians need a perpetual forgiveness of sins that can only be found in the church. Augustine and Luther propagated this as well.

12. Christ works within us. Only BY faith, and faith only exists in the object that it is placed in. Calvinists believe that when the work of Christ moves from outside of us to inside of us that it makes “sanctification the ground of our justification.” The contemporary doctrinal term for Calvinism is “the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us.”

Furries claim to be a mere fandom. That’s it, move on, nothing to see here. What is a fandom? 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.

Furries like to compare themselves to other fandoms that focus on animation characters and art. “Hey, we are no different than any other club that has a common interest in something; nothing here, get a life and move on.” In the Furries’ avid defense of their sect against my criticism, they are fond of bringing up the Bronies.

Who are the Bronies? Well, they are men who are big fans of the movie, My Little Pony. And, they are very weird. And, they are big into My Little Pony art and other things Pony, but they are not the only fan club that is weird. But, they are a legitimate fandom, and an excellent opportunity to further understand Furryism by comparison and contrast.

As you might suspect, anything that can make a connection of interest between adult men and little girls is bound to be exploited by some, but you have to look hard for actual cases. Most Bronies are young males of the Millennial generation age, which makes sense because the Millennial generation is opposed to what they call, “toxic masculinity.” Many in this fandom tout the benefits of finding their “inner feminine.” In this regard, to some degree, you could argue for Brony ideology, but it isn’t an ideology that drives adverse behavior to any significant degree.

In contrast, decadent, criminal, and adverse behavior by the Furry sect can be found everywhere you point a stick while blindfolded. Bronyism is all about the ponies, but Furyism is about many other things normally not discussed in open settings. Furyism has more baggage than an Amtrak train.

Also, Bronies may use internet handles, but hidden identities are rare. Furries, for the most part, hide their identities. The excuse for that follows: it’s a good idea to hide your identity on the internet because of identity theft. So, if something is a good idea, the motive for doing it is completely irrelevant, right? If the police catch you burglarizing a business in the middle of the night, they should forget the whole thing because you used a penlight to see what you were doing which is a good idea. Hardly. At the beginning of my journalistic journey provoked by a change of leadership at the church I attended years ago, their silly answers and lame excuses told me that there was much more going on than the eyes could see.  Once again, I find myself in the same situation.

Nether do Bronies believe they are ponies. In addition, Bronies don’t believe their true identities are found in ponies. As we will see in future posts in this series, Furism has been classified as a mental dissociative disorder by many psychologists.

Unlike church, which is the marriage of authority and faith, and before America the marriage of faith and force, the Furry fandom does not seem to mix authority with its ideology. There is a Furry hive that is discussed from time to time, and there seems to be a community shunning from time to time, but the jury is still out regarding my conclusions on the authority issue. This is the difference between a sect and a cult as explained in a previous post in this series. Apparently, in a community where anything goes and the only sin is criticism of one’s fetishes, there are some standards as one Furry was shunned for raping his dog and posting the event on YouTube.

Yet, all of the verbal defenses for this “community” are exactly the same ones used by cults. Regardless of the temperature determining the damnation of any given information, if the source is not a descendant of Mother Teresa, and later adopted by Albert Einstein, the information should be rejected out of hand. Like the narrative spun by all stripes of control-lust, online sources are dismissed as coming from a Cracker Jack box. Whether a cult, bad sect, or some sort of fascism, information is the primary enemy because information empowers the individual. Hence, the source of the information must be attacked. By invalidating the information or the ability to obtain information the individual is stripped of empowerment. This is where Expertism seeks to control: the only valid source of information is its approved certification process which guarantees that you will agree with the traditional narrative. This is why doctors don’t like to be questioned. They are perhaps the best example. However, regardless of the fact that many firsthand experiences and testimonies clearly illustrate that doctors can be wrong, the information should be rejected because the victim of malpractice doesn’t have a medical degree. And so it goes.

Likewise, Furry proponents try to invalidate any information that doesn’t come from their peer-approved sources. No, they don’t have seminaries; so, what is their source for valid information about the Fandom? Answer: experience as a Furry, and knowledge of “online communities.” Yet, they are fond of mocking Wikipedia as an information source when Wiki is based on a collective effort of those who have firsthand experience regarding any given subject. It reminds me of a well known Calvinist who wouldn’t debate me because I am not educated in Greek and Hebrew. But, neither was Calvin himself. And again, so it goes. Furthermore, the primary information for how to become a Furry is, well, online. And it is also an, “online community.” Yet, God forbid that you would get any information about Furryism online.

This brings me to a very popular religious argument for dissuading people from taking part in the present-day mass exodus from church: “Church hurt.” Yes indeed, the only reason this person is bringing attention to child rape in the church is because said person had a bad experience at some church. Therefore, the fact that children get raped in church is totally irrelevant because the whistleblower has experienced “church hurt” and wants to “destroy all the good that comes out of church over a bad experience.” And as we know, there is a bad apple in every bunch, right? Here is a whiner that fell victim to a rare occurrence at church, and now wants to paint the whole church with a “broad brush” blah, blah, blah.

Thank God for the internet. Yes, a whiner got on the internet and started exposing what happened to them at church, and this resulted in other people acknowledging that they had the same experience. This alone finally exposed life-destroying trends in the church. The internet also reveals worldwide trends as well. Let’s be clear: the concern isn’t a few bad apples; the concern is an ideology that leads to a trend within a cult or a sect. Take golf for example. That is truly a sport and a hobby. In that regard, there will be a few bad apples that partake in behavior unconnected with an ideology that drives golf—golf doesn’t have an ideology. This is what separates a hobby from politics, religion, movements, sects, cults, and statecraft: the ideology drives action. People know this, and people are leaving church because they have figured out that church is driven by a particular ideology that is unhealthy, not because of a few bad apples. Golf has a few bad apples, the aforementioned are trees that are known by there fruit. When Christ said a tree is known by its fruit he wasn’t talking about hobbies.

The arguments are all the same, and lo, I get an email insisting that I am only writing this series for purposes of publishing a book because I am a former Furry who was hurt by the movement. Presently, in regard to our longtime readers who know me, I hear the collective laughter.  If LOL is “laugh out loud” and ROFL is “rolling on the floor laughing,” this is ROFLOL.

So there you have it, “Furry hurt.”

paul