Paul's Passing Thoughts

John Allen Chau had a fervent well-intentioned zeal for God, but unfortunately, according to Protestant cognitive dissonance. More than likely, Chau is in heaven because motives do count with God. He is a good example of how people who love God often trade too much trust in Protestant academia for God-given logic. Praise God he is in heaven, and has probably met my theological mentor, the apostle Paul who might have said to him, “Dude, what were you thinking?” If Paul did ask him that, I have an answer: unfortunately, he was thinking Protestant thoughts.

Theory: people who often love God deeply, but sense that something is missing with church, will often put everything at risk to prove to themselves that they are the real deal. Primarily, what haunts every Protestant who has an individual thought left in their bodies follows: the church’s single perspective on the law. Protestantism, clearly, has a single perspective on the law as the standard for justification; this, in and of itself, makes Protestantism a false gospel and assurance impossible.

If perfect law-keeping is the standard for being justified (saved), how can we know what our true motives are in any work we do that is perceived as a “good work.” The Reformers would answer this way: our motives are irrelevant; NO human being lost or saved can do any work that fulfills the righteous demands of the law. NO Protestant scholar has any qualms whatsoever in stating that Christians are under the “righteous demands of the law.” Only problem is, that’s “under law,” no? Um, refer to your Bible in regard to the ramifications thereof.

Here is how we, as true born-again believers know that our motives are pure in our acts of love: because we are NOT under the righteous demands of the law, because there is no law, because the us that was under the law died with Christ, and because we are resurrected with Christ, our relationship to the law is different. Since we know that any obedience to the law that we WERE under is gone along with the old us, obedience to the law cannot gain any righteousness or favor with God. It’s impossible since that law is abolished. Side note: when Jesus said He did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill the law, we must ask; how did He fulfilled the law? Answer: with the ultimate act of love. According to Romans 8, how does He presently fulfill the law? Right, through US. Those under grace fulfill the law with love because its demands for righteousness and subsequent condemnation is vanquished; the “written code being nailed to the cross.” Jesus was referring to the total abolishing of the law in any form; He didn’t come to do that, but rather to fulfill its intended purpose.

Since we know this about the law, we know that the only motive left for us in obedience is loving God and others. Earning justification through obedience is impossible because that version of the law is gone along with the old us. This is where assurance is found: there is no law to judge us according to righteousness and subsequent condemnation; we are only judged according to love which is a family matter (Hebrews 12). Yes, God’s seed in us, infused grace, if you will, is what makes us righteous resulting in a willing spirit though the weakness of our mortality will cause us to fall short of love at times.

“Oh, so that means we can just live any way we want to.” That is a typical under law mindset response. Not only does the new birth change our hearts and attitudes about law, which means we would have no desire to use under grace as a cloak for unrighteousness, there are family and practical consequences for doing so (not regarding the law).

This cannot be denied: a single perspective on law cannot free anyone from the fear of condemnation and subsequent doubt concerning one’s standing with God. Those who are zealous for God will often seek some other way to obtain assurance. In letters written prior to his death, Chau, the honest young man that he was, stated that he feared death. The Bible states that perfect love (mature love, or love that fulfills the law which would be perfection for all practical theological purposes) drives out fear while fear has to do with judgment. The question we don’t know the answer to follows: how much of his fear was a practical fear versus fear that comes from an under law mindset resulting in doubt? Again, my theory is that many like Chau will overcome their misguided fears from an under law mindset with misguided efforts to prove who they really are.

In contrast, those who have a proper understanding of the new birth know who we are: we are literal children of God who are free to pursue love aggressively with no fear of condemnation. We are also free to interpret the Bible for ourselves and find the following: we, and we alone, as individuals are culpable before God, and though teachers are a help, they are not mediators in the final analysis of how our lives end.

And per the usual, Protestants are apt in capitalizing on the efforts of goodhearted people to find a way out of a single perspective on the law from an emotional standpoint. The newest Protestant craze trending in the venue of missions is an altruistic approach to oversees missions. A good example of this is To All Tribes missionary society that was previously headed up by nut-job David Sitton. He was sent packing a couple of years ago for undisclosed reasons. While with TAT, he used to perform an initiation of sorts with its missionaries that involved a ceremony in an isolated area while he preached beside an open casket. The ceremony was an agreement that if the missionaries died in an isolated area fraught with various and sundry dangers, that no attempt would be made to recover their bodies.

Curiously, we find this same request by Chau in one of his letters prior to his endeavor to convert the Sentinelese people. Sitton published a highly acclaimed book among evangelicals titled, “Reckless Abandon.” Right, some sort of reckless abandon is needed to prove that your devotion to God is the real deal because the only thing you have to offer to God is an effort under law which according to Protestant orthodoxy is precarious to begin with. You can kinda obey God, but then again you can’t. You sorta obey God, but it’s really Jesus doing it…everything is kinda, you know, sorta, or in theological terms, a “paradox.” As Chau was paddling to the island to create a huge mess for many to cleanup afterwards, how could he know for sure that he was doing it for God’s glory or his own? He couldn’t, to know such is impossible under a single perspective on the law. Paul tells us in Romans 12 to outdo each other in love. Unfortunately, the institutional nature of church often encourages people to outdo each other in folklore; for God’s glory of course.

Being free to love with no fear of condemnation according to God-given reason is much better, and easier.

Moreover, what Chau was trying to do makes no sense according to church orthodoxy to begin with, other than the orthodoxy of “reckless abandon.” The Sentinelese people speak an unknown language. Communicating anything to them would be virtually impossible. Secondly, Protestantism is NOT a one-off, one-time, new birth, once saved always saved gospel. Protestantism is a progressive justification that requires church membership to remain saved through the “ordinary means of grace.” Since perfect law-keeping is justification’s standard, and no one can keep the law perfectly, and we therefore still sin against the law, Jesus’ ongoing double substitution must be re-applied for “present sin” which can only be applied through church membership. If you are a Protestant, I dare you to argue the point for I will merely read Luther and Calvin to you in order to immediately end the argument. So, what did Chau think was going to come of  his endeavor even if it was successful? Church planting on North Sentinel? A formation of church authority through elders? What? Dude, what were you thinking?

Unfortunately, the thoughts of other Protestant men you trusted. And all along, you had more love for God than they will ever know. But this I am sure of: the day will come when such men will preach the true gospel of Justification by New Birth, NOT the false, irrational gospel of Justification by Faith.

paul

PS, Dear Father, thank you for the opportunity to write two articles about this awesome young man, and I look forward to meeting Him in our kingdom. Father, please, send many like him to preach the gospel of Justification by New Birth. And thank you for setting us free from the law of sin and death through our brother Jesus to serve under the Spirit’s law of love. We serve love, not fear. And our work is love, not a works righteousness that supposedly fulfills the law by substitution.

Amen.

You have probably heard about the young American adventurist and Christian missionary, John Chau, who was recently killed by natives on an isolated island near the coast of India. His first attempt to contact them for the purpose of sharing the gospel was met with a flurry of arrows which caused his retreat. Unfortunately, he made a second effort that did not turn out well.

His situation is indicative of problems I have had with church missionary endeavors for years even while I was devoted to church. As a former church pastor, I was always anti-foreign missions for a plethora of practical reasons.

First of all, as a former church pastor, it was evident that the American church didn’t have its own act together, so why would we be arrogant enough to think the rest of the world needs our brand of Christianity?

Secondly, the motives of most missionaries from my perspective was suspect at best. Most presented their mission construct from a personal interest or a lifelong dream to live in a particular region of the world.

Thirdly, vast amounts of money was spent for preparation before the mission ever started.

Fourthly, families had no break from ministry at all and no life apart from ministry. The missionary families barely knew each other. When they did get a furlough, the time was spent dragging their families all over the country to raise or keep support. Missionary children, consequently, and from my perspective, where just plain weird and maladjusted.

Fifthly, actual conversions on the missionary field were far and few in-between.

Sixthly, missionary endeavors were/are according to an institutional construct. Hence, missionary endeavors are limited to regions where the socioeconomics can support institutions, viz, “self-supporting churches,” complete with public buildings, and of course, an ability to support the missionary organization that supported the church planting effort to begin with.

Seventh, many of the missionary plans of action involved breaking foreign laws, which is problematic to begin with, but the way around that was to send the missionary over to the country under the false pretense of a special visa. I was never comfortable with that. But what made it ok? Well, but of course, church authority and the whole, “God’s law is higher than man’s law” and “We must obey God rather than man,” blah, blah, blah. On the one hand, God is all powerful and sovereign, and predetermines who is lost and saved, but on the other hand, we have to break foreign laws because though God is the author of all kinds of other evils in the world, certainly He is totally unwilling to accept laws that ban American missionaries. In elders meetings, I would actually say, “Wait a minute here, we are Calvinists. Is this not God’s way of shutting the gospel door on that country? Whatever happened to, ‘God will have mercy on whomever He will have mercy, et., etc., etc.'”

By the way, Indian law strictly forbids outsiders from visiting the island where Chau was killed, and those he paid to take him there are being prosecuted for being complicit in his murder. His endeavor was a horrible decision and a misadventure that will now have a negative effect on the lives of those who helped him. Which brings me to…

Eighth, in all of this missionary foolishness, missionaries are deemed to be a higher spiritual class among Christians and are often declared spiritual heroes for their foolishness. Stupidity is the gift of faith, and lawbreaking is fearing God more than man.

Ninth, as one who dealt with many, many missionaries, I can tell you, that for the most part, they are basically lazy and think they are spiritual elites that are above being among the working class.

Tenth, Protestant missionaries take the gospel of Justification by Faith with them which is a false gospel to begin with. That’s the only reason one needs to reject church missions to begin with.

This hits on an issue that is very close to home with me. My daughter who was a missionary to remote parts of Kenya for years is presently divorcing her missionary husband for reasons I will not get into here. Per the usual, and as illustrated by a pastor’s conference I went to in Kentucky, none of the pastors of their sending churches had a clue as to what the gospel is. This is the literal horror I lived with for years: the possibility that my daughter and grandchildren would be slaughtered in some third-world banana republic for a false gospel.

On one missionary trip to Kenya with another pastor, my son-in-law held a pastor’s conference where they taught the pastors over there how to do baptisms and the Lord’s Table. Yep, that would be the church’s “means of ordinary grace [read, salvation].” In other words, my family’s lives were being put at risk over progressive justification. Not good times. As I have shared in the past, I am not much of a prayer warrior. If I can fix something and get it done with the gifts the Lord has given me, I have a strong tendency to thank God for the gifts and not wait around to get something done. That was an exception, I did a lot of praying about that situation.

Don’t get me wrong, lots of Protestants are confused enough about Protestantism’s rejection of a literal new birth via Justification by Faith to be saved. While professing Justification by Faith according to pithy truisms, they function more according to an intuitive belief in Justification by New Birth. I trust this was the case with Chau as he seemed to be a free independent spirit though obviously cursed with deadly church ideas.

At any rate, I am sure we all agree that before we put our lives on the line, it should be for a true gospel that we thoroughly understand with our own minds. Once that is the case, missionary work is pretty simple. You go to the country as a legal citizen, you get a job, and you live among the people in a way that glorifies God. If they are drawn to your life and testimony, you break bread, pray, and share the apostle’s doctrine in someone’s home. Basically, you are making another family of God in another part of the world, not an authoritative institution that is an additional mediator other than Christ. You can point to Him alone, not some name brand.

paul

It is well documented that church discipline no longer addresses congregants behaving badly but instead parishioners questioning the “authority” of a church’s leadership while decadent behavior among the congregants and leaders alike is ignored.

~ Andy

This realization was the straw that broke this camel’s back. 8 years out of the institution now – HalleluYah!

Absolutely. And here was another shocker for me: church discipline is not for public misbehaviors of the baser sort, but rather for ANYTHING that the elders deem, “sin.” The other shocker: church discipline, according to church orthodoxy, is a declaration by the elders concerning one’s salvific status that heaven will bind. You are not only declared an unbeliever, YOU ARE AN UNBELIEVER while under church discipline. Yet another shocker: church membership equals church discipline on different levels. A member in “good standing” is under “instructive discipline” as in “raise up your children in the way they should go.” If a member doesn’t follow the “instructive discipline” they fall under “corrective discipline” and ultimately, if necessary, “redemptive discipline.” Any kind of counseling is considered corrective discipline, so, many, when they seek pastoral counseling, are unwittingly bumping themselves up to the next level. Furthermore, the information gathered in counseling is often used for the redemptive discipline (excommunication). In regard to those who are living in open sin, but not questioning church authority over their salvation, well, we are all just sinners saved by grace anyway, right?

It took me a while to understand all of that even after we left the institution. I knew what I knew but couldn’t quite piece all of it together to make a lucid assertion. You and Andy actually helped me to do that very thing and I am grateful for it.

And we are still learning how it all fits together, and early on you suspect certain conclusions, but you hold off from drawing conclusions because of the absurdity of it. It’s awful tempting to write off Churchians as stupid nitwits but then I must remember that I fell for it for 30 years though I will give myself a little credit; I knew all along that something wasn’t right…something was off, but could never put my finger on it.

EXACTLY!!!

Nevertheless, do a survey of Churchians and you will find that 98% of them think church discipline is for those flaunting sin of the baser sort in public. There isn’t a cult in the world that can even hold a candle for Protestantism. At least Catholics are in the open about their church authority.

As you always point out, most in the institution do not know what the “leaders” actually mean. The same words and phrases are used by “clergy” but they are not saying what the “laity” thinks they are. I experienced this very early on in my church going. I did not understand why we weren’t living and acting (as a congregation) as if we were born again new creations. We kept hearing we are merely saved sinners; saved, being saved, and will be saved. I knew nothing of progressive justification back then, I just knew that what was being taught didn’t seem to reconcile with Holt Writ, but the “powers that be” were saying salvation so we must be speaking the same language? 2 denominations and 20 years and we finally left the institution for exactly what Andy posted in his OP.

Yes, we didn’t know why, but the what becomes enough to know something is seriously defective…we will figure out the why from a safe distance.

Link to pdf book “New Calvinism and Church Discipline”

I have nothing against the home church movement per se.

Well, that’s gracious of you, but we do. A church in a house is still church. We are a home fellowship movement driven by Justification by New Birth, not Justification by Faith. Pretty radical, but we welcome challenges to our position.

I read the article, and chapter 11, and I didn’t find much that I thought I disagreed with, other than it seems the Corinthians were already meeting in an established “church” and it wasn’t the homes of Christians, and you seemed to infer that it wasn’t until after the passing of the Apostles that the “church” was organized outside of the home and that this was the “falling away” in part, mentioned by the Apostle. Also, Paul preached in building with at least two stories because a young man fell asleep and fell down, and was revived by Paul. Seems to me that the “church” was meeting in other places than the home and that there was an authority structure in place as well as described to Timothy.

All, or at least most residential homes of that era were multiple story dwellings.

Were the Corinthians not meeting in a “church”, that is, a building outside of their homes that the Apostle Paul refers to as a church? It seems to me that the Apostle Paul is indicating that the Corinthians had a place of meeting where they came together for worship, other than their homes.

Right, it’s a good point. But “church” is not a biblical word and does emphasize a place where authority resides. Ekklesia is a gathering that might take place anywhere for a specific purpose. “Church” denotes institutionalism and was used in the Bible to replace ekklesia when the assembly of Christ was institutionalized. Without lodging a scriptural argument that explains why these passages shouldn’t be understood in the traditional way, let me jump directly to the historical argument. It was against the law for any religion to have purpose build locations that were not state sanctioned religions.

A slightly different rendering, but still, the Apostle asks the question, “Do you not have houses to eat in?” Intimating that where they were meeting was not the homes, but in a single, separate location, as the church…the ecclesia. NASB

The letters to the Corinthian “church” were incited by other “household[s] of faith” tattling on what was going on in some of the other home fellowships. Paul’s second letter to them included the “church’s” expansion into Archaia. This would suggest an expansion of multiple purpose build locations which is historically impossible.

Some were gathering outside the home…that “do you not have houses to eat in” infers that they were not in their “homes” or the home of anyone else. They were wealthy, in Corinth. They had the means, where many Christians did not. I’ll have to do some more research of my own, either way, it’s not a hill for me to die on. I see no prohibition in Scripture that says we cannot gather in a single building, other than homes, or that home gatherings are necessarily superior.

Actually, that verse kinda makes the contrary point. Paul isn’t saying, “Hey, don’t you guys live in homes where you can eat?” He is saying, “Don’t you have your OWN homes to eat in?” The word “have” denotes possession which is why several translations have it,  your “own home” rather than A HOME as opposed to some institutional structure. When you observe how this word is used in other verses such as one regarding a woman with child, the baby is her own possession, not just some [other] baby somewhere…So, this particular verse actually makes the contrary argument. However, to your point, in many English translations it comes out as a house as opposed to something else other than another house.

Can’t find the comment you made regarding the issue not being a hill to die on…that’s true, so if both have merit, why not go with the one that has no massive infrastructural overhead and will work in every political and socioeconomic condition?

That and the synagogue was very much part of the Jewish tradition, so it would be a natural for Christians to imitate the structure for the church. I don’t see it as necessarily wrong.

There were institutionalized synagogues that were run by the Jewish religionists and sanctioned by the local government. Indeed, “The Way” ended up doing some business in these places (evangelism), but there are no archeological findings regarding purpose builds for the movement. However, several residential homes with baptismals built inside of them have been discovered dating back to the 2nd century [furthermore, the book of Acts states that Christ’s first century assembly had dramatic global impact which means that archeological evidence should be ample if they used public buildings. Also, traditionally, synagogues were, in fact, for the most part in private homes].

There can, and have been abuses in gatherings of any type, whether in the home or in a “church” building.

True, but our primary dichotomy is family, leadership, gifts, fellowship; not institution, authority, progressive salvation, and membership.

I think you’re reacting to the same “mega church” apostasy that I am. What I see you describing is the apostate “seeker sensitive” “purpose driven” heresy that pervades so many churches, together with the New Calvinists that are bringing in the rock and roll “Christian” music. I think if you watch that video I posted, you could find some things about it that you identify with.

We would also say that home fellowships speak to the confession of our gospel, that is, a new birth into God’s literal family as opposed to an institution where justification is a mere “legal declaration” obtained by submission to an authoritative religious institution. Not passing any judgments here, just stating our position.

No problem. But no church I’ve ever been associated with has ever asserted such things, either from the pulpit or in their church covenants.

Hmmmmm, sorry for my skepticism on that. Nevertheless, let me also say this: there are many people in church who have a proper intellectual idea of Justification by New Birth and also function that way. However, unbeknownst to them, that’s NOT Protestant orthodoxy which denied the new birth in no uncertain terms. Church has totally rewritten its history and uses language that plays on the proper assumptions of parishioners while [slowly] indoctrinating them with Progressive Justification.

I have the Spirit of God, and I know Christ as my Savior, I can tell you I in no way have ever been taught these things “unawares” and if I had, I certainly would have objected. You have a “one size fits all” view of the institutionalized church, and I think it may apply in some areas, especially Catholicism and some Lutheran circles, but not in every case, in every gathering that meets in a “church”. Not by a long shot. The Lord knows those that are His…and they don’t all worship at home…My problem is that you seem to throw the baby out with the bath water. I understand your rejection of organized religion today. It is repugnant in a lot of facets, but there are a great many local gatherings of believers where the Spirit of God is present that you simply are not, and cannot, be aware of that truly do worship God in Spirit and in Truth, and i hope you can at least acknowledge that I am speaking the truth.

That’s what I just said, but here is the problem: Justification by Faith, is, what it is. As far as a “one size fits all,” name one church that would deny Justification by Faith. The problem comes in when somebody like myself is a Berean about bibliology, but then extends that to actually reading the Protestant soteriological documents. Ooops. Houston, we have a huge problem.

I think you are getting into semantical hair-splitting which many hyper Calvinists do. I will post for you what I post for them many times. You are fully persuaded that you are correct, and nothing I can say will ever move you, so I don’t wish to continue. You’ve made your position clear, as have I. Here is what I answer to hyper Calvinists, about their arrogance.

When John Piper states that “Christians still need to be saved,” When Matt Chandler states that “Christians are wicked sinners who still need the cross of Christ,” they are in fact stating Protestant orthodoxy. In regard to Protestant soteriology, they are SPOT ON. How is everyday progressive justification “semantical hair-splitting” [?]. Salvation is either a finished work in the believer or it isn’t. The New Calvinists are right and have done the church a great service in making the church wakeup to what it really believes.

He’s an apostate, as is Chandler, and sadly John McArthur has fallen in with these as well. You’re preaching to the choir, please understand. “The Spirit speaks expressly that in the last days some shall DEPART from the faith…” They’ve departed from the faith they once held, if Chandler ever really held to it at all.

Let’s not get the cart before the horse. Show me an institutional church that rejects Calvin and Luther’s gospel and you are showing me a church that I just might fellowship with. And unfortunately, the New Calvinists are the best thing that has happened to the church because what the Reformers really believed is being brought into the light [in regard to what Justification by Faith really means].

Wrong. John Piper is a New Calvinist, you do realize that, right? As is Mark Driscoll and Al Mohler, et al. Apostates all…These men are seducing the church with “another gospel”.

They are right about what Protestantism is which was confused with people reading the Bible for themselves after the Puritan Theocracy was sent packing. The New Calvinists claim that they are recovering the true Protestant gospel and indeed they are.

And it’s a lie…the New Calvinists are ushering in liberalism into the church and seducing many young people into error. Read the book I posted. Its short and to the point.

The New Calvinists are recovering authentic Protestant orthodoxy, and though they are right, I don’t like them and that’s putting it mildly while I like you, but you are wrong about them.