Paul's Passing Thoughts

The Church big-dogs have issued another statement on stuff going on in the church because, you know, they have authority from God and we, therefore, should take their opinions about truth seriously. NOT.

And of course, other church big-dogs disagree with the statement. Right, I read through it and there are ideas in the statement that Luther and Calvin would have problems with.

Here is a basic problem: the America thing. You see, and we will say it again, Protestantism was born in a church-state and for the express purpose of a church-state, and is fundamentally a political animal. Back in the day, paying the church bills and philosopher king payroll was easy because going to church, and tithing, was the law. America screwed that up. Now, paying the bills is very tricky business and demands political manipulation of the highest order.

This will necessarily demand compromise on social issues in order to keep the church in business and all the drama following. However, there is orthodox precedent for compromising; Tim Keller’s doctrinal arguments for accepting social misfits into the church have orthodox merit because regardless of what you think of Keller, he has a deep and accurate understanding of Protestant doctrine.

Nevertheless, church came forth from the womb speaking lies, and lies about everything. I will go through the major points of the document and point out the major lies.

Scripture: Per the usual, the document states that Scripture is the church’s final authority. That’s a lie. What the church authorities say the Bible says is the final authority.

Image Bearing: The document states that humanity has value because every individual is creating in God’s image. That is NOT Protestant orthodoxy.

Justice: The document states that Christians are to live justly (moral behavior) in the world and seek justice (fairness) for others. That is NOT Protestant orthodoxy.

Law: Here, the church’s false doctrine of justification by faith is revealed, so I will go into more detail.

We affirm that God’s law, as summarized in the ten commandments, more succinctly summarized in the two great commandments, and manifested in Jesus Christ, is the only standard of unchanging righteousness. Violation of that law is what constitutes sin.

We deny that any obligation that does not arise from God’s commandments can be legitimately imposed on Christians as a prescription for righteous living. We further deny the legitimacy of any charge of sin or call to repentance that does not arise from a violation of God’s commandments.

Oh, where to even begin. First, the ten commandments and the two great commandants are BOTH classified as summaries of the SAME law. Mark it, this is indicative of why justification by new birth is a false gospel that denies the new birth. The two commandments FULFILL THE WHOLE LAW; they don’t “summarize it.” This is the Spirit’s second use of the law for those born again that excludes the “righteous demands of the law” that Protestants proudly proclaim they are under (the Spirit’s first use of the law). Hence, Protestants proudly proclaim to be “under law” which is a very huge problem. Of course, how they say they are not under law while saying they are under its “righteous demands” is coming.

“…and manifested in Jesus Christ,”

Got it? ALL righteous is being performed by Christ, NOT you (although that is implied, and is deliberate deception), through realm manifestation. Like realm manifestation, “unchanging righteousness” is also a Platonist/Gnostic principle which we have written about extensively and will not revisit here. Obviously, this contradicts the previous implications in the same document that Christians actually perform good works. Furthermore, because of love, God made changes to the law for love application. The change in divorce law is one example. God’s law is NOT “unchanging.”

Notice also that the law, and a single perspective on law, is the standard for justification and not the new birth which changes the Christian’s relationship to the law. If you understand Romans 7 and 8 and 1John 3, you understand why “Violation of that law is what constitutes sin” is a view that denies the new birth.

Also note, “We further deny the legitimacy of any charge of sin or call to repentance that does not arise from a violation of God’s commandments.” Note that so-called “Christians” need to continually repent of violating the law because “Christians” of the church variety are still under law. Unlike justification by new birth, violation of the law is not a failure to love, but necessitates a revisiting of  same gospel repentance that saved us in order to keep ourselves saved. And of course, the “ordinary means of grace” (read, “salvation”) can only be found in the church institution.

Sin: No different in “Christians” or unbelievers. Both remain unregenerate. This IS orthodoxy, but note the contradiction in the initial statements.

Gospel:

We affirm that the gospel is the divinely-revealed message concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ—especially his virgin birth, righteous life, substitutionary sacrifice, atoning death, and bodily resurrection—revealing who he is and what he has done with the promise that he will save anyone and everyone who turns from sin by trusting him as Lord.

We deny that anything else, whether works to be performed or opinions to be held, can be added to the gospel without perverting it into another gospel. This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel.

Notice that the gospel is ALL about what Jesus did and is doing and NOT anything we do before or AFTER salvation. BOTH salvation and Christian living is substitutionary. You do the math. Note that His resurrection was only to prove who He was and is, not so we can be resurrected with Him.

The implication of  “…he will save anyone and everyone who turns from sin by trusting him as Lord” is that of a onetime event which is an implication that is a deliberate lie. This can be seen in the statement that Christ’s death is an “atonement” which is a mere covering for sin, not an ending of sin.

And note, “This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel.”

Viz, our works have nothing to do with the gospel, but don’t they tell us to “live by the gospel”? Right, again,  you do the math.

EVERYTHING these guys say is a deception.

Salvation: Onetime final act implied, and again, this implication is deliberate deception. Justification by faith is progressive justification which denies the new birth and applies a single perspective on the law. It can only condemn, and show us our continual need for Christ’s atonement.

Church: The only place where worship takes place and the “means of grace” are found.

Heresy: Determined by church authorities.

Sexuality and Marriage: “Salvation grants sanctifying power to renounce such dishonorable affections as sinful and to mortify them by the Spirit.”

We have written extensively on the Protestant doctrine of mortification and vivification. The implication here is that people can change. This is a church selling point that is deliberate false advertising. Church orthodoxy does not hold to real personal change. In fact, ANY sin whatsoever is an opportunity to glorify God by returning to the gospel. This is why there is doctrinal precedent to accept all manner of people groups into the church because, “We are all just sinners [continually] saved by grace [saved by more and more salvation].” Since church folks are continually referred to by church leaders as a “train wreck” and the church as a “hospital for the sick,” why would any ill behavior be denied from church membership?

Complementarianism: Seems to indicate equality, but different roles. Well, the woman’s role in complementarianism is to submit to the husband. This one also indorses the false Bride of Christ doctrine.

Race / Ethnicity, Culture, Racism, Skip.

paul

I overheard a conversation the other day that struck me. Someone was talking with another person about some guy who stated the following thesis: disprove the resurrection of Christ, and you destroy Christianity. This is true: our faith stands or falls on the resurrection.

Full stop. I want to begin by pointing out that the true faith is a remnant in many ways. I want to point out that our kingdom gets very little respect in this kingdom. A question: regarding documented history, other than the Bible, what do we know about the resurrection of Christ? Answer: absolutely nothing.
What does this tell us?

It tells us that this world kingdom under-reports news about God’s kingdom or excludes it altogether. It’s fake news before fake news was cool. It tells us that God has left us a remnant of truth in all of this called, “The Bible.” If not for the Bible, the Resurrection, for which we pin all our hope, would not only be old news, it wouldn’t be news at all. But God has not left us without a witness.

God left us with a unique witness that requires our participation in the validation of it. Be sure of this: men have distorted the testimony God mandated. Nevertheless, though I will not get into the complexity of it here, God’s testimony, for lack of a better term, “The Bible,” is written in a certain way that makes the distortions of it identifiable. The doctrine of justification by new birth is a concept that is self-confirming because of its unique elements and can even be accurately passed down from generation to generation orally. Most traditions passed down orally are subject to change, but the unique elements of justification by new birth make it immune from this fate. The written record of Scripture is a strong companion to the oral tradition. In both, unless the presentation of justification by new birth is completely reworked, error in discernable because of its foundational elements.

let me give a minute example. Sometimes I will be reading a given Bible translation and the tenses used, or the idea projected in the passage, contradicts an element of justification by new birth. In every case further study using Greek lexicons and other study tools will verify my suspicions that the translation is skewed.

At any rate, since the Bible is the only record we have of the resurrection, a denial of the Bible’s truth is a denial of the faith. Yes, a debate about inspired content included in the Bible is a valid debate because the fundamentals of justification by new birth determine what is true, not what church minions wanted to put in there. NO worthy work on the transmission of the Bible has been done to date. There is much work to do and much uncharted territory for those who believe in justification by new birth, not the false gospel of justification by faith. And, this will have to be done by the laity and not those brainwashed by church orthodoxy. Remember, the vast majority of English translations were published by proponents of justification by faith and that is a huge problem. The whole church system, whether Catholic or Protestant, are lies built upon a foundation of lies. In both cases as stated by John MacArthur sycophant Rick Holland, “…Bad Grammar Makes Good Theology.” That’s because, supposedly, the plain sense of Scripture isn’t really the plain sense because the great unwashed have no sense.

Likewise, just like the world, the church, which is just another political entity in this kingdom full of kingdoms vying for power, has created a vast documented history depicting what it wants to promote. Horrible, murdering superstitionists like the Puritans are presented as spiritual heroes. The church is rivaled by no one regarding the number of people it has murdered; not Stalin, nor anyone else. Yet, it is proud of its history. And as stated in the soon to be published “The Church Lie,” church history is truly that, church history, and has no connection whatsoever to Christ’s New Covenant assembly. So, did God leave us a remnant of true kingdom history? Yes, the book of Acts, and that’s pretty much it—it’s a remnant.

We have no excuse in being led astray. God left us a remnant to be read and considered by those who will be held accountable independently: YOU, and you alone. Church leaders who claim authority over us will not be allowed to speak on our behalf in the end no matter how much we appeased them out of fear for man, not God. The whole notion of church authority is absurd, if not laughable.

Now back to the resurrection. Christ didn’t need to be resurrected; he did it for us. Specifically, so we can be resurrected…in this life. Few religions deny the resurrection of Christ; most redefine its purpose. Christ died so that we can follow Him in death. Christ was resurrected so we can follow Him in resurrection. Christ did this to offer a legitimate life transformation to all people. Repentance, the gateway to salvation, is a sobering decision; it is forsaking the present you for what God will make you, it is a transformation of state of being. This alone is the reason many draw back from being saved; that is, other than rejecting a gospel presentation that they don’t buy into.

You can deny the resurrection, which is tantamount to denying that God has left a witness, or you can redefine it, which is what church does. Church defines the resurrection as confirmation that Christ’s life was worthy enough for Him to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind. This denies the specific reason for the resurrection. Christ wasn’t resurrected to prove anything, He was resurrected so we can be resurrected…in this life.

Problem is, this truth negates the need for church which likes to talk about “forgiveness” a lot. “Forgiveness” keeps the church in business. This word carries the idea that someone is loved rather than punished for sin. The sin isn’t gone, it is merely forgiven. It also implies that forgiveness is an ongoing need. This does not fit with justification by new birth. When it gets right down to it, the use of the word “forgiveness” in the Bible is a poor choice in the translation (probably deliberate). Because of the resurrection, sin is ended, and the saved person is legitimately holy.

The saved person is holy because he/she is a new person. The old person died with Christ. The Greek word is “aphesis” and its synonyms are very problematic for justification by faith. The word means “freedom” and “pardon.” One is not continually set free; you are either free or not free. Regarding pardon, it is a pardon based on the fact that the person is really innocent of all sin, not a pardon regardless of the person’s guilt. It’s a pardon because the wrong person was convicted, viz, the one who died with Christ leading to a pardon for those resurrected with Christ.

Failure to love as a believer is another subject that will not be addressed in this post. But suffice to say for now that if forgiveness is just a covering with a righteousness that is not our own, we need a sacrament system because we are not really free…

…and that sacrament system is church.

paul