Paul's Passing Thoughts

The biblical counseling movement has come a long way since its beginning in 1970. What does it presently look like? It is totally geared for defining every characteristic of a “Christian” as one in total submission to the institutional church. EVERY aspect of a “true” Christian is set against their willingness to totally eradicate self in exchange for a plenary collectivist worldview regarding church.

“Faith” is defined in regard to one’s willingness to trust the church elders. “Love” is defined by one’s willingness to make church first priority in everything. “Discernment” is simply believing, or buying into EVERYTHING the church teaches. A man who “leads his home” is a man who orders his home after the dictates of the church leaders according to every detail.

This all began to come full circle about 10 years ago with how so-called “church discipline” was being practiced, and still is. Members are not brought under discipline for sin, but for questioning church authority. While other members live in open sin, upright individuals who commit the cardinal sin of thinking for themselves are dealt with swiftly and with the same amount of mercy indicative of the Salem witch trials. This ministry has received so much correspondence and documentation on this that it is now barley more than white noise in the background.

The same can be said for those presently embroiled in the biblical counseling marriage cold wars. Two people presently married legally, perhaps living in the same house, but in an unresolved standoff. The only question left is who is going to file for divorce and end the standoff. In-between is the church. One spouse is dedicated to the church; the other not.

Please note: some of these standoffs, or cold wars, drag on for years; yes, years. Why? Because one spouse doesn’t get it: this will ONLY be resolved in one of two ways; divorce, or the “errant” spouse agreeing to capitulate to church authority. The “errant” spouse may want to save the marriage and is trying to work out a compromise. NOT. It’s just not going to happen.

Newsflash to the errant spouse: you are already divorced because the church covenant has replaced your marriage covenant. Obviously, something other than death has separated you; church.

Furthermore, the “godly” spouse (viz, totally sold out to the church) may be practicing evil of every sort. The church leaders will, and do deem such totally irrelevant until the truly evil spouse submits to church authority. At that point, the “repentant” spouse has a right to be heard, but not a nanosecond before. To address the submissive spouse’s evil in any way, shape, or form, is to give aide and comfort to the rebellious spouse (viz, one who thinks independent thoughts and hasn’t completely given personal conscience to church authority).

Let me be clear: these cold wars are pandemic in the church. The church is now coming full circle to its original church-state persona.

paul

Be sure of this: what is going on in the world of religion today is no whit different from what was going on when Jesus was here. And what was going on when Jesus was here is no whit different than what had been going on in the religious world since the day Adam and Eve were banned from the garden.

And, ALL, I repeat, ALL, world religions flow from what was originally introduced to Eve in the Garden. It worked on Eve, why would the kingdom of darkness reinvent the religious wheel? ALL world religions are predicated on the gospel of authority. What you personally believe and embrace doesn’t save you, submission to a religious elite saves you.  The question of authority saturated Jesus’ ministry and that of the apostles as well; “By what authority do you teach these things?” “By what authority do you do these things?”

When we read that Jesus astonished the people because he taught as one having authority, not like, or as the Pharisees, Scribes, and others, it probably means they were shocked that he would have the audacity to teach without their peer approval.

Here we can stop the stick at this particular church error, although there is error everywhere you point the stick. While preaching the authority of God, sovereignty of God, and power of God, His kingdom is supposedly presently on earth, and He has put the church in charge of mopping-up operations. The notion is patently absurd. Here is another thing you can be sure of: if God’s kingdom was presently on earth, we would well know it.

This is not an age of authority; that is coming in the millennial kingdom when Christ will rule the world with an iron rod from David’s throne in Jerusalem. We have been given authority (every professing Christian) to be ambassadors in a foreign country. We are “aliens” in another kingdom not our own. Our home and kingdom is yet in heaven.

Presently, God himself is not even implementing authority much less delegating it to others by proxy. We are priests offering our own members as living sacrifices from a willing heart, not under compulsion.

We reject the gospel of authority which calls for the violation of our personal consciences in order to obey men rather than God. When the Bible states that there is “one” mediator between God and man, “one” means just that, ONE.

paul

The Bible is clear: there are only two people groups in the world; under law, and under grace. Those under law are under the condemnation of the law, and those under grace, for lack of a better term, are under love. When you grasp hold of this concept and become aware of what’s going on around you—you begin to see how people function within these two mindsets. By far, the world functions in an under law reality.

Marriage is probably the best example. Being married legally is what makes you married. Listen to how we talk: “It’s a bad marriage.” We, living in an under law world, accept the notion that a marriage can be bad. Why is that? Because law is what makes a marriage, not love. We readily except the whole idea of a loveless marriage because law defines marriage. You can liken it to talking about Zebras who have no stripes.

Church is the next best example. According to the Bible, mutual love for other Christians is what makes you a real Christian. In contrast, especially of late, what makes you a “real” Christian according to Al Moher, John Piper, and other “Christian” scholars et al? Yep, church membership. Yep, that would be church membership via signing a “membership covenant.” What’s a “covenant.” It’s law.

The law only condemns, and empowers sin, because according to the Bible, the essence of sin is a desire to control others through condemnation. It goes something like this: “Because you are a loser, you need to let me control you for your own good and the well-being of others because you are such a loser that you will not only destroy your own life, but the lives of everyone around you.”

Politically speaking, “winners” may even kill losers in order to save the world. In this sense, many types of mass murders are deemed virtuous. Pay attention where you work; do coworkers attempt to control you through criticism? Does management seek to increase production through fear of termination? This all comes from a law/condemnation mindset.

Also keep this in mind: if the goal is to control you through condemnation, what is the best source for a condemnation catalog? Yep, what people know about themselves. Hence, what people often accuse you of reflects what they are, in fact, guilty of themselves.

The world, and especially professing Christians, are so dominated by a law worldview that a love worldview based on a human body model (the illustration that the Bible uses) is very hard to grasp.

The human body has no authority within it; the head, and its mind, can only make decisions that edify the rest of the body. Most body functions are what we call, “involuntary.” Really, when it gets right down to it, the body is made up of cells that have a mind of their own, but are dependent on how well the rest of the body functions. It’s a matter of mutual submission to need.

That’s how love functions. Law is a guide for meeting the needs of others, not a hammer to to fulfill one’s sinful control-lust.

“If you love me, keep (hold to, protect) my commandments.” The Bible is a love manual for a love worldview, and is not a law for controlling others.

paul

I do not believe that Scripture contradicts itself. And by the way, the whole “paradox” thing is VERY dangerous territory. Paradox does not abrogate reason. When God beckons us to “reason together,” reason means…”reason.”

Protestantism and Catholicism share many things in common, but one of the primary aspects is the abrogation of individual one-on-one reasoning with God. Do you even know what “orthodoxy” is? The very concept denies the validity of one-on-one reasoning with a personal God. When the church constantly pontificates about a “personal” relationship with God, what it is really talking about is complete submission to the institutional church and complete surrender of personal conscience in exchange for orthodoxy.

Due to this tradition, Protestantism gets away with being predicated on the most simplistic theological error of the ages. And one of its deceptive modes of operation is to use mantras and truisms that represent the extreme opposite of what orthodoxy actually states, the use of terms that allow assumption on certain points until people are fully indoctrinated, and making others the supposed nemesis of the gospel who in fact better represent Protestantism itself.

The biggest laugher  is Protestantism’s demonizing of the dreaded “Pharisees” who were supposedly the sultans of “legalism” when Protestantism is an exact representation of the Pharisees. And by the way, as another example of Protestantism’s plenary redefining of reality, there is no such thing as “legalism” being gospel enemy number one. You will search the Scriptures in vain to find such a concept, as well as the word “legalism” being in the Bible to begin with.

Even when Protestants venture into personal Bible reading, they are dong so through the prism of orthodoxy which has redefined every scriptural word and term. The Bible is both very complex in order to substantiate its inerrancy, and simple to entice as many people as possibly into salvation. The depths of Scripture are for discipleship and long-term assurance, not the call of salvation. The offer of the gift is deliberately simple to be inclusive.

Hence, the Bible is NOT easy to understand and requires diligent study by everyone. It is like building structures. When you come upon something that you clearly understand, you set it aside as part of a foundation that further understanding is built upon. We may also use a picture puzzle for another example. As we fit the easier border pieces together, it leads to seeing where the more difficult inside pieces fit. In all of this, BIBLICAL definitions of all words and terms are critical. The definition of words determines your view of truth and reality as well. Those who define words define reality. So, trust me, it would behoove you to let God define the words.

In regard to some of the aforementioned points, what does Protestantism do? It constantly beats the drum of “justification by faith alone.” More recently, it is “justification by faith.” Curiously, “alone” and “apart from the law” are left out while allowing parishioners to assume “justification by faith alone apart from the law” is what is intended. Parishioners are allowed to assume that justification by faith is a onetime event that justifies the believer once and for all time. That’s NOT orthodoxy which propagates a progressive justification. This is not arguable; Protestant orthodoxy is clear on this point in all of its creeds and confessions. To one of the primary points of this post, few parishioners, if any, have read these documents for themselves.

According to Protestantism, justification is not by faith alone nor is it apart from the law. This is probably why the more recent buzz-term is “justification by faith.” According to Protestant orthodoxy, justification is defined by perfect law-keeping. Though the Bible merely states APART from the law…period, orthodoxy states that this means apart from any law-keeping by the so-called believer. One is justified by believing in Jesus’ perfect law-keeping. Shockingly, some renowned Protestant scholars have even stated that Jesus gained his personal righteousness through perfect law-keeping. Of course, this is outright blasphemy in broad daylight.

But, what does the gospel specifically state that we are to believe in?  We are to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ because that is the establishment of the new birth which baptizes us into God’s literal family. Protestantism, being a law-based justification while proclaiming to be the extreme antithesis of such, claims that God resurrected Christ as proof that he kept the law perfectly. Good luck finding that in the Bible; yet, it is a common assertion among Protestants.

In addition, according to Protestantism, Jesus’ perfect law-keeping continues to be a substitution for our law-keeping in sanctification lest we have a “righteousness of our own.” So, our sin was imputed to Christ, and he was a substitution for the punishment we deserved, but in addition, he kept the law perfectly so his perfect law-keeping can be imputed to our sanctification. This is the well-known Protestant doctrine of “double imputation” or in other words a DOUBLE SUBSTITUTION. Clearly, any righteous work that we would do can ONLY contribute to a justified status according to orthodoxy, so all of those works must be perfect. In more other words, justification of the so-called believer is not a finished issue, nor is the so-called believer MADE righteous, but he/she is ONLY “declared” righteous as long as said believer believes that they themselves can do no good work.

How does this doctrine supposedly pan-out in real life application and experience? It’s a Gnostic application which will not be addressed in this post, but I will give a thumbnail. Martin Luther did most of the heavy lifting on this subject using Augustinian Neo-Platonism which later became Gnosticism. It goes something like this: life experience, or how we experience life, is subjective. What does that mean? It means we experience life as if we are initiating all of our actions and actually doing the action. But, not so. When something we “do” is righteous, viz, nothing as all of our works are “filthy rags,” and we are presently saved because we believe exactly that, we are only experiencing the act as if we are doing it but it is really Jesus doing it “through us”…”by faith.”  Come now, let’s be honest, we hear this all of the time: “I didn’t do it, Jesus did it!” “It was the Holy Spirit, not me!” Or this one: “Sanctification is NOT done BY us, it is done TO us.”

While mainline Protestants ridicule Pentecostals and Charismatics for ecstatic experiences including speaking in tongues, it is merely a more objective version of the same idea regarding subjective reality; God is the only one that does good, and all righteousness is outside of the believer known as Martin Luther’s “alien righteousness.” In Pentecostalism et al, ecstatic experiences are supposedly a result of God acting overtly instead of subjectively as a way to substantiate that he is doing all righteousness through us. It is merely a more overt demonstration of the exact same idea.

But here is the huuuuuuuge problem with the whole enchilada; you cannot separate LOVE from righteousness. In essence, according to Protestant orthodoxy, the so-called believer does NO love, Jesus does ALL of the love through us while we are essentially loveless. Been to church lately? Does it seem a little loveless?  Well, it should, that’s orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, the true gospel of justification by new birth apart from the law changes our relationship to the law. I have written on this extensively, but suffice to say for this post that in this gospel the believer is MADE righteous and not merely declared righteous resulting in the abilty to actually perform acts of love. We are actually righteous as a state of being because we are literally reborn by the Spirit. We are not merely “declared righteous,” we are righteous. And by the way, in regard to the idea that “justification is a legal declaration,” how is a legal declaration “apart from the law”? Is orthodoxy really predicated on such an egregiously elementary error? YES.

The new birth changes the believer’s relationship to the law, and this truth has been so far removed from church that parishioners have extreme difficulty wrapping their minds around it. First, believers have been removed from any kind of judgment by the law that can eternally condemn. That aspect of the law is gone, or ended. In that respect, Jesus, as stated in several places in the Bible, came to END the law and REMOVE our sin.

The new birth is the standard for righteousness resulting in a love for the law and its instruction regarding love, while Protestantism makes perfect law-keeping the standard for righteousness. Hence, Jesus must keep it for us to maintain justification. True Christians fall short of loving and may be chastised accordingly, but do not need a substitution for love in sanctification because they are no longer under condemnation. Instead of salvation being an ongoing atonement for sin to prevent condemnation because we are still under law, we are “chastised as sons” when we fail to love.

And, the true imputation is the imputation of ALL sin to the law, and then Jesus came to end the law and subsequently end sin as well. Jesus ended the law of sin and death on the cross, and justified us with his resurrection unto the law of the Spirit of life. Therefore,  there is “NOW NO condemnation” for true believers, and consequently, no substitution for love is needed in our sanctification.

If you must say that Christians still sin, that’s fine, but we cannot receive any death wages from our failure to love. We may receive less life wages and deprive ourselves of “full reward,” but we are no longer under the condemnation of the law. The double imputation or double atonement of Protestantism necessarily equals UNDER LAW or such atonement would be unnecessary.

So, what was Jesus saying in Matthew 5 when he said that he came to “fulfill the law”? The fervent running to this verse upon hearing the above challenge has exasperated me to no end. Add to that: Jesus also stated that he didn’t come to abolish the law.

Every Protestant out there will interpret it this way: Jesus didn’t come to abolish the law of sin and death [actually, he did], but came to fulfill its “righteous demands” so that Jesus’ fulfillment thereof can be imputed to sanctification [NOT]. This clearly contradicts the plain sense of Scripture in many places and leads to abject confusion in understanding the rest of Scripture.

There are many, many, plausible alternatives to orthodox claims regarding this passage; we will discuss a few. Jesus’ introduction to Matthew 5 through 7, commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount, in context, is a point by point rebuttal of rabbinical tradition which, in fact, voided the law with its traditions (Mark 7:13, Matthew 15:6). Almost immediately following, Jesus launches into a contrast between the true spirit of the law and rabbinical tradition. Jesus is saying that he didn’t come to toe the business-as-usual rabbinical line and thereby void the law, but rather came to uphold its true meaning.

In regard to the fulfillment of Scripture, the word “fulfill” is used about 90 times in the New Testament, and in the vast majority of times refers to Christ’s fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

By the way, at the very least, this is partly what Jesus was referring to while it is obvious that all Old Testament prophecies are not yet fulfilled. Another huge problem here is that Jesus states that he came to fulfill the “law” and “the prophets.” Primarily, some total fulfillment of the moral law is not the point nor some sort of other fulfilling due to the prophesy issue already stated. To say that “Jesus meant a total fulfillment of the moral law and a partial fulfillment of prophecy” is a really big stretch.

Besides, early in his ministry, God speaks from heaven and proclaims that he is “well pleased” with Christ at John’s baptism which negates the idea that Christ yet needed to obey the law perfectly to obtain salvific righteousness. Moreover, however you want to interpret it, Christ told John the baptist that all righteousness was fulfilled by his baptism. More than likely, this is a symbolic statement regarding righteousness by the baptism of the Spirit who happened to show up for this event as well.

New birth is justification; not perfect law-keeping. Regardless of who keeps it, the law of sin and death cannot give life (Galatians 3).

paul

We will call her “Betty.” Every morning I enter into her reality; the day will be on her terms accordingly. Usually, with a smile and glimmering eyes, she will tell fantastic tales about her family, and their plans for the day. As the day progresses, reality gives way to disappointment; no family members are arriving to take her to some colossal family gathering. Such sadness runs in the background, but like most days, there will be no time for the aide to ponder on it.

As if being a nurse aide is not challenging enough, most aides are from the so-called millennial generation. For the most part, they are arrogant, entitled, heartless, disingenuous, and just plain mean. And for whatever reason, they display little respect for previous generations. And on this particular day, these savages were on the warpath for whatever reasons their agenda-driven minds were conjuring up to afflict others who don’t meet their standards, viz, everyone but their usual enablers.

And on this particular day, their nasty petulance was sucking the life out of everything in the facility and making it a miserable experience. This is where we will talk about the importance of focus and how the stinking thinking of others can cause us to lose it. We do what we do for particular reasons that result in self satisfaction, a feeling of accomplishment, and purpose. Consequently, OTHERS will be the primary joy thieves.

So, it was one of those days; I allowed others to drag me into their miserable, joyless existence. I lost my focus. I forgot why I was there, and replaced the real purpose with a purpose to merely survive the day.

Then it happened, just like that. A couple, probably in their 40’s, and conveying a very strong presence, came walking down the hallway and approached me. “Excuse me, could you tell us how to find Betty?” “Betty?” I asked. “What do you want with her?” They answered, “Well, we are her family, and we are here to see her.”

‘Oh!, I see, um, yes, she said something about going to a family party, are you here to take her to the party?’

“No, we are not able to go to the party, but we are here to visit her, others will be along shortly to take her to the family party.”

‘So, there is really a party?’

“Yes, there is really a party.”

Yet full of doubt and unmeasured joy, I led them to Betty. When she saw them, I could swear her joy set the universe on fire; at least my universe. And when the other family members came to take her to the party, and I saw it with my own eyes, I believed. Her joyful demeanor while being pushed along in her wheelchair will be forever burned in mind.

And then I remembered the purpose. It overwhelmed my soul like a powerful flood. This is why I am here. This is my reward. In an instant, the monsters who stole my purpose were revealed for what they are; insignificant stray dogs barking at the moon.

Betty’s tales of love and purpose, come true, not only reinvigorated me that day, actually, yesterday, but I wonder if I will ever lose focus again.

And if you will excuse me, I must leave for work…

Betty’s tales of yesterday await me.

paul