Paul's Passing Thoughts

Note: teacher’s script does not follow video exactly. The following is not transcribed from the video.

Greetings truth lovers and welcome to our first study in Galatians. Again, we are sticking with our focus on justification and the book of Galatians is a perfect book to top off our study after finishing Romans. From here we will be going to the book of Ephesians, and hopefully a focus on sanctification moving forward. This ministry has focused mostly on justification in our first ten years, but we are really looking forward to a sanctification focus starting with the book of Ephesians.

It’s not my custom to do a lot of geographical and historical background study unless it is absolutely necessary for some understanding in a given book, and the case with Galatians follows; what is being said is pretty clear as stated.

Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— ² and all the brothers  who are with me,

To the churches of Galatia:

The best I can tell from what background study I have done on this book, Paul is writing this letter from where he wrote Romans, and around the same time. So, this letter is probably written from Macedonia which was a spiritual stronghold for Paul. Note that the letter is not only from Paul himself, but “all of the brothers who are with me.” And in most cases the letters address everyone in the assemblies. Biblical truth was never dissected according to some theoretical ability to understand or an authoritative strata.

This is because the assemblies were and are bodies, not top-down hierarchies. Assemblies are bodies with various members defined by gifts, and working together cooperatively. The bond of unity is working together for the “one mind of Christ” (1Cor 2:16, Phil 2:2) as each is convinced in their own minds and aided by those who are apt to teach, or in other words, have an extraordinary (extra ordinary) gift for teaching. Such should be recognized as elders, but this is a gift and not an office of authority. It is leadership as opposed to authority. Again, where there is authority, leadership is completely unnecessary. Even the gift of apostleship was a leadership position. Note here that Paul uses persuasion throughout the letter rather than declaring some sort of divine edict.

Nevertheless, Paul emphasizes his validity as an apostle. Why does this matter? Because the New Covenant was predicated on the “apostles’ doctrine.” We are going to take some time this morning to drive some deep stakes with no apologies to anyone. DOCTRINE matters. The one mind of Christ is articulated in the apostles’ doctrine. This ministry does not go for the “Jesus is a person not a precept” mumbo jumbo. Our unity derives from being individually persuaded about the apostles’ doctrine.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (KJV).

This was the total mindset of the “1st century ‘church.'” With all of the talk about getting back to the glories of the “1st century ‘church,'” this will not happen unless recognition of the apostles’ doctrine is taken seriously. Agreement on that as each is persuaded in their own mind (the mind of Christ given to every born again believer) is key to unity and life more abundantly. It centers on a mutual love for THE truth, not A truth.

Hence, Paul begins by validating his apostleship.

Before we get into that, a couple of other mentions. The letter is to the assemblies (not churches) located in Galatia, that’s in the plural, and this would have been assemblies meeting in private homes. Secondly, another stake we will drive here totally without apologies is on a Trinity. What’s the Trinity all about? Well, excuse us, but so far this ministry has been busy carrying all of the water on justifcation by new birth, so, we aren’t there yet on a developed position on the Trinity. Yet, we see it here. God didn’t raise Himself from the grave, He raised Jesus from the grave according to The Promise. What is The Promise? It is the heart of the gospel; it was a promise to Christ and Abraham that Christ would be raised from the dead and thereby establish the baptism of the Spirit which baptizes Jew and Gentile into one body.

Is the Trinity “logical”? Are you talking about the concept of three being one, or the relationship between the three members? At John’s baptism was God really talking to Himself and calling Himself the Son while being the Father? Which answer is the most illogical?

This is an aside, but a good place to mention it because of the claim that the Bible contradicts itself in regard to the Trinity. Justification is both simple and very complex. In regard to the complexity of justification; once you understand it and see its consistency from the beginning of the Bible till the end, you know that the Bible is clearly validated as being true in regard to one way of salvation and godly living. The idea that the law is ended in regard to us being judged because Jesus ended the law through the new birth is pretty simple. Being able to use the law to love without any fear of condemnation is pretty simple, but as we will see here in Galatians justifcation can be very complex as well. The consistency of Scripture in that complexity is what validates it.

³ Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, ⁴ who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, ⁵ to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

So, even in Paul’s initial greeting we have a bunch of gospel theology and doctrine that he unpacks as we go along. One emphasis is Paul’s validation as an apostle apart from the credentials of men. How do we receive our gifts and salvation apart from men, and how are we to apply our new life apart from man’s authority?

⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

¹⁰ For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant  of Christ.

Full stop. Clearly, who does Paul designate here as judge, jury, and authority regarding the discernment of truth? That’s right, the assembly of God’s people at large. This assumes the individual is able to ascertain truth, and in the end, the only one culpable before God. What is a major theme in this letter? The authority of men and their lofty credentials that they use to intimidate. Look, even if an angel appears to you and preaches a gospel, you are responsible to pass judgement on the truthfulness of that gospel according to what you yourself understand about the Bible. Clearly, the point Paul is making here is that even apostleship is not vested with an authority that supersedes personal conscience. Paul makes this clear in the strongest possible way and repeats it for emphasis; let ANYONE no matter who or what be accursed if they teach a contrary gospel. And in my book, that includes those who take away from God’s truth by failing to teach what Paul called, “the full counsel of God.”

¹¹ For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.  ¹² For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. ¹³ For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. ¹⁴ And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. ¹⁵ But when he who had set me apart before I was born,  and who called me by his grace, ¹⁶ was pleased to reveal his Son to  me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;  ¹⁷ nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

¹⁸ Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. ¹⁹ But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. ²⁰ (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) ²¹ Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. ²² And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. ²³ They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” ²⁴ And they glorified God because of me.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. ² I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. ³ But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. ⁴ Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— ⁵ to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. ⁶ And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. ⁷ On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised ⁸ (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), ⁹ and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰ Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

This is the big picture of Galatians in a nutshell: Jewish academia and all of its supposed authority was intimidating the Gentiles to come under its authority. We need to stop right here and define what Paul means by a justifcation through law. Obviously, the big tradition that was in the law is circumcision, and the Jewish academics were making this a condition of salvation. Circumcision, and other traditions, were posed as acts that justified the individual. This is little different from the idea that we are justified by the act of water baptism. Hence, when Paul speaks of a justification by law he is talking about stuff in the law that justifies in regard to the mere ritualistic act.

First, Paul was a Jew’s Jew in the tradition of the fathers and a Jewish academic par excellent and rejected it all for the revelation of Christ. Secondly, Paul refutes their authority by noting that he studied the gospel on his own and preached it for 15 years before he even consulted the who’s who of the Jewish faith. Thirdly, given that, even if he preaches a gospel contrary to his original message, let him be accursed. Fourthly, those with him who were uncircumcised were not required to be circumcised. And fifth,

¹¹ But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.  ¹³ And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. ¹⁴ But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

When Peter, the designated apostle to the circumcised compromised the gospel because he was intimidated by the Jewish academics, Paul rebuked him publicly. And further along, not taking note of this is to disregard the whole ministry of the mystery of the gospel that came with visible power and miracles (Galatians 3:5: sixth). Seventh,

¹⁵ We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; ¹⁶ yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

True Jews know that no man is justified by the law.

Paul begins by reminding them of what is obvious; what the Judaizers were pushing makes no common sense in regard to their own experiences and how the mystery of the gospel and the revelation of Christ unfolded historically before their eyes. And, if what they were teaching was true, Paul’s own experiences made no sense (eighth). Let’s review Paul’s initial argument:

1. Paul, as a former Jewish academic beyond those who were disrupting the Galatians rejected their gospel.
2. Paul was convinced of the truth through his own independent study apart from the authority of men, and what he had been doing for fifteen years was confirmed by those who matter.
3. Nevertheless, if he or anyone else preaches a contrary gospel, let them be accursed.
4. The uncircumcised were not required by the Jerusalem counsel to be circumcised.
5. Paul rebuked Peter publicly for compromising the gospel in regard to other Jewish traditions as well.
6.  To accept the contrary gospel is to reject the powerful and miraculous experience that came with the mystery of the gospel.
7. Even true Jews know that justification is not by the law.
8. Paul’s own experience makes no sense if the contrary gospel is true.

Now, with all of that said, Paul moves to the doctrinal or theological argument, or if you will, Scriptural argument beginning with what justifcation by the law really is: antinomianism. In justifcation by the law, as we will see, there are initial salvific acts that initiate salvation, in this case, circumcision, and other traditions that maintain salvation like what we eat and the recognition of days. What does this end up being? A dumbing down of the true spirit of the law that circumvents love.

¹⁷ But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! ¹⁸ For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. ¹⁹ For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Look, when you take a shortcut and obey a few rituals in order to get to heaven, the hard work of love goes by the wayside. Also, your primary concern is maintaining a handful of rituals to make sure you get in and stay in. Love is a nice gesture, but it doesn’t get you into heaven. Taking a little bit of the law for justifcation as a shortcut to heaven circumvents the true spirit of the law. Instead of being informed by the law as to how to die to the law so you can live for God, you attempt to find life in the law for justification through the recognition of a handful of ritualistic traditions of men.

And ironically, because the church is the same Galatians problem to a T, they love to interpret this very passage accordingly:

“See, see, we are still dead in trespasses and sins and Christ does everything through us. Yes, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. If I obey the law [actually, love], it is I who lives, but if Jesus obeys the law for me, it is Jesus who lives my life for me.”

Of course, this isn’t what Paul is saying at all. The “I” that died with Christ is the former man who is no longer under the law so Christ has no need to obey it for us. This is a thumbnail of what Paul had taught the Galatians  in-depth about the new birth. It can be seen in Romans 7.

Or do you not know, brothers —for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? ² For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.  ³ Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

⁴ Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. ⁵ For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. ⁶ But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

This is how justifcation by new birth frees us to obey the law aggressively in love without fear of condemnation. The typical church interpretation of this passage indicts it as a modern day example of law justifcation. It’s salvation by church membership, and the maintaining of it by being faithful to church ritual/tradition. This leads to a relaxing of the law for love purposes and explains every nuance of what church looks like in our day. It’s antinomianism resulting from a twisted interpretation of  justifcation apart from the law. It is not a gospel that ends the law for righteousness, but makes perfect law-keeping the standard for justifcation instead of the new birth. Hence, the believer is still legally married to the first spouse and is under law. There is no freedom to serve Christ with love as defined by the law.

Next week, we will delve into this truth further.

BOXCAST LIVE LINK

BLOG TALK RADIO LIVE LINK

Of course, even though we are no longer under the condemnation of the law, there are consequences for willful sin. Besides natural consequences, there is loving correction from our Father. However, there is no assurance of salvation until you understand how the new birth changes our relationship to the law.

via My Testimony of Freedom

Shortly after the American Revolution, the brand of Protestantism that came over the pond was integrated with Enlightenment ideas which are much closer to biblical metaphysics than Platonist ideas that gave birth to Protestantism. The result was a kinder, gentler Protestantism, but still a cultural train wreck.

Remember, Protestantism never sought to replace the Catholic Church, but only to reform it. Luther, nor Calvin, ever left the Catholic Church. Both churches still claim the same doctor of grace, Saint Augustine.

Pre Revolution Protestantism was just another version of the same old song and dance church-state that plagued humanity since the 4th century. Before then, and shorty after man was banned from the garden, it was the pagan-state. While masses applaud the Protestant Reformation, a blind eye is turned to the historical brutality and despotism of the Reformers. A taste of this confusion is seen in the adulation of the Reformers while many of their historical understudies, like the Nazi regime, are disdained.

This is why separation of church and state was, and still is a hallmark of Americanism, but not because the marriage of force and faith always yields tyranny, but because Platonism hijacked religion. Platonism completely rejects the abilty of man in general and the individual in particular. The rest is, as we shall say, history until mankind could no longer bare the misery. Enough was enough, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” The liberty of man is really the crux.

Because Platonism calls for a strict dichotomy between invisible good and material evil, predeterminism is a key factor; abilty to choose goes hand in hand with ability to control individual destiny. Enlightenment ideas more along the lines of Aristotle propagate the general idea that man can know reality and is able to obtain legitimate upward mobility in all areas of life. The founders of Americanism, when it gets right down to it, were primarily concerned with the freedom of man rather than freedom of religion. Freedom of religion was merely an element in their long list of other individual freedoms. You may also note that Enlightenment ideas are still a caste system albeit based on formal education which explains our culture’s infatuation with expertism.  Nevertheless, it beats the caste system of old that disdains individualism and sees it as the paramount root of all evil.

So, as American history moved from the Revolution, its defeated European Protestantism became confused as Enlightenment ideas were integrated into it. Ironically, this is exactly what prompted the Reformation to begin with; the Catholic Church was being influenced by Aristotlean  ideas through Thomas Aquinas. While a ready excuse was feigned indignation over indulgences, the real issue was the Catholic Church’s move away from Platonism which necessarily requires statism. As a side note, Platonism shows up in the form of Gnosticism during the ministry of Christ, and was the number one enemy of the New Covenant. On its death bed, the former Puritans who oversaw the former colonial Protestant theocracy made a push to remarry with the government, but this attempt was soundly defeated by James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in 1785. Said Madison,

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

As the church moved forward in America this integration did not eradicate the fundamental principles of what some of the founding fathers called, “Platonist Christianity.” The integration of Platonism with the Bible necessarily requires a progression of salvation found only in an institution, or the institutional church. This is the same old historical song and dance: the orthodoxy of religious philosophers is enforced by the warrier class, and the greatest threat to civilization is anti-altruism. The sole value of every individual is abilty to contribute to the whole of society as dictated and judged by the state. Now stripped of its abilty to call on the state to enforce its orthodoxy, or its ability to drown, burn, or hang those who questioned their authority with state sanction, the church maintained its progressive justification even though progressive justification goes hand in hand with Platonist statism.

Why is this? Progressive justification only recognizes a system that saves the totally depraved individual progressively as he or she obeys those supposedly given authority by God. It is a salvific caste system. In contrast, a one-time, and for all-time transformation of the individual (once saved, always saved) enables the individual and sets him or her totally free from fear and condemnation. Hence, justification is a one time act that is settled and sanctification is a progression of love exemplified by the efforts of the individual and aided by the Spirit of God. Contrary to this, progressive justification makes sanctification part of the salvation process overseen by the church; it is explicitly Platonist in principle.

What were the results of this? While giving the progressive sanctification of new birth justification intellectual ascent as part of the integration of individualism, the practice always EMPHASIZED the only thing that ever mattered in Protestant orthodoxy: salvation. As far as sanctification, people are little more enabled to affect it anymore than salvation which is zilch. Stated simply, the church acknowledged the new birth intellectually, but has always functioned according to progressive justification overseen by the church. Everything is about salvation, while real change for the better in sanctification is given mere lip service. While the church portends a moral compass for society, its testimony exemplifies libertinism resulting from salvation by church membership.

What did this look like historically? A strong emphasis on salvation, or justification, with a tacit nod towards sanctification…of which Billy Graham was pope between 1947 and 1970. Without belaboring all the details, everything was about getting people saved; evangelism itself was the primary measure of sanctification. Everything was really about the gospel while the banner over the church advertised a balance of 50/50 which was patently bogus. Sure, there were popes of everything salvation before Graham like RA Torrey, DL Moody, and Billy Sunday, But Graham ruled the roost during the aforementioned 23-year period. While some argue that his rein lastly well into 2005, his style of so-called “easy believism” began to decline with the advent of Neo Calvinism (1970-present).

Invariably, of course, an overemphasis on salvation led to weak sanctification which created a widespread discontent in the church. Unable to supply curative answers for the deep problems of life among well meaning church goers, the Neo Calvinist movement presented a “beefy” Christianity with real teeth. “You see,” posed New Calvinism, “the problem with church is,” get ready for this, “too much sanctification.” I’m not kidding. The Neo Calvinism movement pointed to the anemic efforts of sanctification in the church as indicative of the problem because sanctification was believed (by those rascally evangelicals) to be separate from justification. The problem with church, insisted Neo Calvinism, is that church tries to implement sanctification through the efforts of the believer when sanctification is really the progression of justification. Yes, insisted Neo Calvinism, sanctification is “justification (salvation) in motion.” Otherwise stated, “justification (salvation) is not a gas station that you stop at once to begin the Christian life, but rather you stop at it often on the road of life to refill your tank.” And we all know what the gas station is…it’s the church, God’s salvation gas station on earth. Supposedly.

In what I think to be a deliberate ruse to deceive by utilizing assumptions, the so-called “Biblical Counseling Movement” is really counseling on how to “preach the gospel to yourself every day” or otherwise the art of being sanctified by justification. The “change” is not increased competence in the art of living, but the art of seeing your need for more and more salvation in a deeper and deeper way. Though initially, the movement was truly intended to rectify weak sanctification by a confused Calvinist and experienced impressive results that might have saved the institutional church as much as it could be theoretically, the movement was hijacked by the Neo Calvinist movement and turned into a progressive justification Sunday school.

This is true Protestant orthodoxy that stripped away the integration of enlightenment ideas proffering human agency in sanctification, or for that matter, any human agency in any other venue of life. After all, “God is sovereign” and in “total control.” It merely redefines God as a Platonist. Augustine himself described Platonism as a pre Christianity philosophy. Augustine himself claimed that understanding the Bible without Plato’s insight is a fool’s errand. And keep in mind, Luther was a monk in the Augustinian Order, And John Calvin cites Augustine no less than 400 times in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. These facts are not mere happenstance.

Consequently, the Neo Calvinists accused the likes of Billy Graham with promoting a professionism with no visible life transformation. But how does Neo Calvinism define a transformed life? That’s an easy question; they define it as mindless devotion to the institutional church. Remember, they also accused the church of having too much sanctification, that is, a sanctification that included human agency in transformation. However, Neo Calvinism also defines transformation as an increased gratitude for salvation as we continually see our need for it in a deeper and deeper way.

Prior to 1970, the church put little emphasis on progressive sanctification. After 1970, the church began to deny that there is any such thing as progressive sanctification apart from “Phariseeism, legalism, and moralism.”

Nevertheless, in all of this, church according to Billy Graham still maintained a significant amount of authentic Protestantism shared also by the Neo Calvinist movement. Though half pregnant in progressive justification, Graham promoted religious expertism, and was guilty as anyone in human history for exacerbating laity ignorance. It isn’t enough that few Protestants know what a Protestant is, church defies common sense in every opportunity it can find.

And lastly, after being stripped of its very identity as a church-state by the American Revolution, and while claiming separation of church and state intellectually, the real heart of the church is to once again have its orthodoxy enforced by the state. According to the Charlotte Observer,

The Rev. Billy Graham will lie in honor at the U.S. Capitol next week, an honor accorded to only 33 Americans – 11 of whom were presidents. Graham will be the first private citizen so honored since Rosa Parks died in 2005. House Speaker Paul Ryan announced Thursday that Graham’s body will lie in the Capitol rotunda from Feb. 28 to March 1 so the public can pay their respects. Graham died Wednesday morning at his home in Montreat at the age of 99.

This conjures up uncomfortable thoughts on so many different levels. If nothing else, our thoughts turn to the fact that our Savior was hardly afforded such recognition by earthly government for specific theological reasons. The fact that Graham, or anyone associated with his legacy would allow this is stunning. But yet the church can do nothing without including something of steroidal cognitive dissonance. Graham had a simple wooden casket constructed by prison inmates. And undoubtedly, the typical churchian will marvel at such humbleness while waiting in line for hours to ponder his body where only the famous lie in state.

Such is the reality when authority and elitism is truth apart from individual reason.

paul

via TANC 2014 Uncut: The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism, John Immel