Paul's Passing Thoughts

The following screen shots document a very unique debate on Protestantism’s doctrine of Justification by Faith. Though painfully lengthy, I think it’s important that it’s documented.

Transcript: https://paulspassingthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/t-josiah-richardson.pdf

Listen to podcast or download mp3 audio file here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/falsereformation/2017/02/18/the-elementary-falsehood-of-the-protestant-gospel

To whom it may concern:

We have been counseling redacted for several months regarding Clearcreek Chapel’s* interference in his marriage with redacted. Unfortunately, redacted is among a long list of people we have counseled over several years who have experienced the same pattern of abusive attempts by the Clearcreek Chapel leadership to control their lives.

The pattern is the same: the Chapel leadership rejects all ability by any individual to ascertain truth for themselves and claims all authority over the lives of individual members. Redacted has been told repeatedly by Chapel leadership that redacted is “dwelling in darkness” as well as a plethora of other slanderous accusations.

If redacted believes that redacted is “dwelling in darkness,” this effectively invalidates redacted as her husband and voids any notion that an actual marriage exists apart from the marriage contract. On either wise, the Chapel has no right to interfere with how redacted perceives her husband or the marriage contract.

Therefore, we have counseled redacted that the Chapel has destroyed his marriage. If there is any hope for this marriage, it will entail the right and duty of redacted and redacted to think for themselves and pursue the wisdom of multiple counselors (Proverbs 15:22). Clearly, the Chapel leadership claims sole authority over truth and rejects all independent thinking that would seek other perspectives. Repeatedly, this ministry receives testimony of Chapel leadership rejecting the plain sense of Scripture and common sense while demanding complete obedience to their self-proclaimed authority over the lives of members.

We pray that redacted will see what is self-evident and biblical; that God has given people the ability to seek truth per their own conscience and the freedom thereof. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that we are individually culpable before God regarding the sum and substance of our own lives.

Moreover, we have counseled redacted to seek legal counsel regarding the Chapel’s interference in his marriage contract, and unless redacted ceases in her betrayal of that contract, any endeavor to remain married to her will be a miserable existence in contrast to Christians being called to a life of peace. 

Please consider; in regard to redacted desiring to be a better person as we all do, the Chapel leadership claims complete authority over that as well. They have made it clear that they will only speak well of redacted to redacted if he completely abandons every notion that he can think for himself.

We find this wholly unacceptable and the epitome of cultish ideology.

TANC Ministries

2.17.2017

*Clearcreek Chapel located in Springboro, Ohio.            

This will be the subject of tonight’s radio show: “The Elementary Falsehood of the Protestant Gospel” LIVE LINK: Friday 2.17.2017 @ 7pm

During Breakout Session

[BEGIN TRANSCRIPT]

PAUL DOHSE: I’m just trying to connect the message that I’m hearing constantly about the problem with moralism versus the practical application that you just recommended for sins like pornography. The financial stuff I understand, that once you get to a mission field you gotta be able to feed yourself, whatever, raise support. But I guess where I’m hearing conflicting messages is between the whole problem with moralism and um…but yet the tension between the practical application that you just recommended for these kinds of sins

And lastly, when we go to a mission field, what’s the gospel that we’re really trying to put out there? It seems like if you have a lot of sins issues, that’s a contradiction to the gospel, but yet this seems to be a gospel that says that whether you’re a Christian or not a Christian you’re still totally depraved, so… (Note: the last emphasised part was edited out of the audio posted by the Cross Conference on their website.  This interchange begins around the 1:09 mark of their audio.)

THABITI ANYABWILE: No, no no.  Let me give you some clarification real quick. That’s a very good question. I’m glad you asked that. I hope everyone’s clear that in this conversation here I was just setting out to give you some practical, sort of, thoughts, and points to think through in some practical areas that sometimes inhibit your participation in the mission. This was not a sort of workshop on the gospel itself. Right? So moralism is entirely different gospel. That’s the idea that by your moral behavior you earn sort of right standing or acceptance with God. We would renounce that as pharisaical, in fact when you read your gospel that’s what you see. Think of, uh, um, the man who comes to Jesus and says what must I do to have eternal life? Right? Jesus says something along the lines of go sell your all, give it to your poor. First he starts with the law, you know? He cites a couple of commandments and the young man says this I’ve done since I was a youth. That’s moralism. And Jesus says, I tell you what, go sell you all, sell all you have, give to the poor, come follow me. That’s the call of the gospel. Rich young man goes away sad, doesn’t he? So he was moral, but he wasn’t accepted with Christ, he wasn’t justified with Christ.

So, let me give two or three sort of words here. Justification and sanctification. When we’re talking about the gospel, when we’re talking about justification we’re talking about how it is we are made right with God, reconciled to him, forgiven of our sins, declared righteous with God, that is solely by God’s grace alone, apart from any works we do, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Right? It’s the work that Christ has accomplished, in His obedience to God and His sacrifice on the cross and in the resurrection that is the sole and only grounds of our being right with God, and we receive that righteousness only by faith in Christ. That’s the gospel.

However, those who are so justified with God also, if they’re genuinely converted, in fits and starts and leaps and bounds and stumblings and sort of up and down like the stock market chart, begin a lifelong process of sanctification, of growing in Christ-likeness, in growing in obedience to Christ, in conformity to Christ. Right?

And so when we’re talking about some of these questions about sin issues that keep you off the mission field, we’re talking about that area of sanctification, not justification, and we’re talking about sort of an artistic question about, in some ways artistic, in some ways Biblically clear. So for example if we’re talking about someone who wants to be a pastor in a missions context or pastor locally, 1 Timothy 3 defines that really clearly. Right? Must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, can’t be a brawler, can’t be a drunkard. Here he’s naming these sin issues and these righteousness issues. The Bible speaks to that very clearly. I think we want a similar kind of maturity in mind when we think about the mission field. So we’re talking there about maturity, not justification. Yes sir?

PAUL: So in defining justification, is justification a mere legal declaration in which the righteousness of Christ is also substituted for us?

ANYABWILE: That’s exactly right, it’s imputed to us.

PAUL: Or are we righteous as a state of being, through the New Birth?

ANYABWILE: No, I would understand justification to be, um, an imputation, um, and I would understand that there is a kind of growing in righteousness that’s a part of our sanctification. But this is where the protestant church is different from Roman Catholicism for 500 years. Right? So Roman Catholicism say the protestant view of justification is a legal fiction. That’s the language that they have used historically. Actually that’s what the Bible teaches. Romans 1:16, 17 so many other places, Ephesians 2:8-10, uh, and we could continue to add texts. So our justification is a legal declaration. It is forensic, in which Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us by faith. Right? We’re not earning it. We’re not made righteous in that sense, uh, at the point of justification, but we do grow in righteousness. Now I’m gonna pause you cause I’m already past time and we can talk further, but let me see if there is maybe just one other question from the students in the room and we can talk further.

[END TRANSCRIPT]

Follow-up in Hallway

[BEGIN TRANSCRIPT]

PAUL: Just one minute or so. In our discussion in there on imputation of righteousness, that would mean then that really the standard for justification , or the basis for justification, is perfect law-keeping.

ANYABWILE: Exactly

PAUL: Okay

ANYABWILE: Exactly, which Christ done. Matthew 5:17

PAUL: Which Christ did. I mean RC Sproul says that Christ actually gained his righteous status by keeping the law perfectly. Would you agree with that?

ANYABWILE: Yeah I would agree with that. Matthew 5:17. You know Kevin was talking about that a little bit this morning, speaking about that, I’ve not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill it. Um, and when you read the record of the sermon on the mount, when he says fulfill it he doesn’t seem to mean merely keeping the letter of the law but also the whole spirit. Right? So to fulfill it in its fullest sense. Or as to say, 1 Corinthians 1:30 or 31 where Paul says there that God made Him to be wisdom for us, that is, our righteousness, sanctification, and holiness. Um, so Christ has become all the holiness we need for justification to be fulfilled, so He is the reality [sounds like] for our justification.

PAUL: Yeah. I guess, and I understand that angle on it and everything, but then basically, as far as the gospel is concerned and missionaries, I mean, we’re there but it’s not us that’s really righteous at all.

ANYABWILE: Well that’s right. That’s right.

PAUL: Right

ANYABWILE: There’s a message that hey there’s a righteousness apart from the law that’s by faith from first to last. We’re calling other people to that foreign righteousness that’s in Christ.

PAUL: Right. So basically in cleaning up our act and going to mission fields, I mean, that shouldn’t be the emphasis, right? I mean that’s what cultures are gonna be looking for. They’re gonna be looking for character in missionaries. Okay. But the gospel is really stating that the fact that character is not in us at all.

ANYABWILE: That Christ is producing it…it’s not in us for justification…

PAUL: Right…

ANYABWILE: …but it is in us as Christians as we grow with Christ by a particular…

PAUL: But it’s really the one…Christ is really the one that’s doing it. When you say grow, it’s just an increased manifestation of Christ’s work, not us.

ANYABWILE: By the ordinary means of grace. Another phrase Sproul would want to use. By the ordinary means of grace. What’s happening is, like what Paul says in Colossians, right, Christ in you the hope of glory…

PAUL: Right

ANYABWILE: …that Christ is manifesting Himself more and more. And the normal way that He does that, right, is by the word, by prayer, by fellowship, those ordinary means of grace.

PAUL: Right

SUSAN: My question is…

PAUL: This is my wife.

ANYABWILE: How are you? Pleased to, blessed to know you.

SUSAN: When you say that Christ fulfilled the law, so when He ascended up into heaven, all law was fulfilled. What about all those he didn’t that have not yet been fulfilled?

ANYABWILE: Are you thinking of the prophesies and [unintelligible] like that?

PAUL: Yeah.

ANYABWILE: Yeah. So when I use the phrase “He fulfilled the law”, I’m mean in terms of our justification. It doesn’t mean that all of the scripture is now fulfilled. There’s still some things….

SUSAN: Right, I just didn’t know if that was something you said before…

ANYABWILE:   It’s a great question.

SUSAN: …Old Testament law (unintelligible)

ANYABWILE: Something great Paul says to them in Galatians, Christ is the end of the law for justification.

PAUL: Alright, thanks a lot. Alright. Bye Bye.

[END TRANSCRIPT]

Has our culture completely lost its mind? Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, et al, make a living pointing out the absurdity and irrational logic of the “looney left.” I have all but ceased listening to a lot of these programs because they beat the mere symptoms of the real problem like a never-ending Whack-A-Mole game. The different colors and mole versions of the gaming machines all flow from moleism.

The core logic drives everything; i.e., presuppositions concerning mankind. Man is either able or unable. Man is created with an individual ability to discern reality or he isn’t. This is where people miss it: at the core of this question is whether man can discern reality itself; not practical truth. When reality is the question, practical commonsense observation is neither here nor there.

We have all screamed at the TV during a political speech proclaiming, “Do they think we are stupid?” Barack Obama continually states things that are glaringly opposite from what is happening with a straight face and without batting an eyelash. He doesn’t think you are stupid; he thinks you are unable to properly discern reality. What you think you perceive couldn’t be the truth because you are not an elitist, and how dare you question those destined to lead the great unwashed away from ignorant self-destruction?

Farfetched? Think about the things he has said. “You didn’t build that.” Really? Is this not a complete dismissal of individual ability? You only think you built that, but that’s not reality. You are completely full of yourself, and robbed others of their fair share to enrich yourself. But don’t miss the main point here: Obama is a microcosm of this core issue that transcends history, religion, and the future of mankind.

The Bible has much to say about this issue. Ever heard of the Tower of Babel? Ironically, religion has always been the standard-bearer of the following idea:

Man is totally depraved and unable to discern reality.

Therefore, elitists must guide the great unwashed away from self-annihilation.

If the great unwashed refuse to follow, they must be forced to obey against their will for their own good and the preservation of mankind.

Wars are the necessary result of competing elitists who fancy themselves as having the best wisdom for saving mankind. Of course, there will always be those who just want to conquer other nations to gain a spoil and use said philosophy for an excuse to do so.

In contrast, we read this in the 11^th chapter of Genesis:

6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth.

Even though in this case man’s ability was being utilized for evil, the ability of mankind is plainly stated in this chapter. How can religion therefore get away with the Total Inability of Man doctrine despite the plain sense of biblical grammar? Again, it’s a case of truth being under the authority of elitists supposedly gifted (a source of your preference) with knowing reality. How dare you think for yourself and assume the text says what it plainly states oh arrogant one!

The primary tool for gaining control of the masses is condemnation. You are a totally depraved individual; therefore, you must put yourself under the authority of “godly/wise” elitists. It is interesting to note that biblically speaking the essence of sin itself is a lust/desire to control others. The best way to control someone is to rob them of self-esteem, self-confidence, and dignity. Being unworthy and shamed, they are now putty in the hands of tyranny. Do you see much condemnation in the present American political climate? That’s what it is all about; you are a fill in the blank-phobe and therefore should humbly put yourself under the submission of an elitists who doesn’t fear fill in the blank due to their infinite wisdom. It has been said that Obama was elected because of white guilt; I buy into that totally. Because we are all racist, we dare not oppose a black president and add to our shame. The same mode of operation was attempted in the past election regarding gender but the failed polices of Obama trumped what would have ordinarily worked. Also note that black conservatives are not really black. Even skin color has been redefined according to the collectivist worldview. If you really understood reality you would understand that black isn’t always black.

What compels the masses to buy into this? Probably fear of self-governing and finding comfort in the mommy-state. Behind all the absurd arguments is a fundamental fear that we will be without an elitist protector. It is interesting to note what the comedian Louis C.K. recently stated on the Conan O’Brien show. Speaking about Hillary Clinton and the past election:

I’d take her over anybody. To me, it’s really exciting to have the first mother in the White House. It’s not about the first woman, it’s about the first mom. Because a mother just does it. She feeds you and teaches you, protects you. She takes care of sh*t.

Don’t underestimate this mentality as a principle shared by those who fear individual ability. The question of individualism versus collectivism drives nearly everything we experience in history, religion, and politics.

paul