The Protestant Misuse of the Word “Grace”
The Reformed, and Calvinists in particular use the word “grace” to nuance what they really teach about salvation. Primarily, to nuance the idea that sanctification is the progression of justification, they refer to the doctrine of “duplex grace.” This is a soft term for “duplex salvation,” or the idea that both justification and sanctification are part of a single salvation process, viz, “complete justification.”
For another example, consider the expression, “We are all just sinners saved by grace.” According to Reformation orthodoxy, this is really stating: “We all remain unregenerate and need continued salvation.” Evangelical superstar John Piper is far less ambiguous than Protestant bumper stickers:
We are asking the question, How does the gospel save believers?, not: How does the gospel get people to be believers? When spoken in the power of the Holy Spirit, the gospel does have power to open people’s eyes and change their hearts and draw them to faith, and save them. That’s what is happening on Tuesday nights and Wednesday nights this summer. People are being drawn to Christ through the power and beauty of the gospel. But I am stressing what Paul says here in verses 16 and 17, namely, that “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” Believers need to be saved. The gospel is the instrument of God’s power to save us. And we need to know how the gospel saves us believers so that we make proper use of it.
“Believers need to be saved.” Any questions? However, again, most Protestant scholars nuance this falsehood with the word, “grace.” What people assume is being said follows: “Believers still need grace.” Precious few would deny that—of course we need God’s grace continually, but what do we mean by that?
The word “grace” in the Bible rarely refers to salvation if at all; it is NOT a synonym for salvation. The word is simply little different than the word “love” in the biblical sense. The two words could easily be used interchangeably throughout the Scriptures. Grace, according to the Bible, evoked God to save mankind, but is not the act of salvation.
If you want a definition of grace read Paul’s treatise on love in 1 Corithians 13; the meaning of the two words are all but identical. Salvation is one of many, many things that grace does, but it’s NOT salvation.
In yet one more example of Protestant premeditated deception, scholars will concur that grace does not mean “salvation,” but then proceed to use it that way for purposes of disguising their progressive justification gospel.
paul
Thank You for Going to the Concert
The Protestant Reformers, for all practical purposes, made every verse in the Bible about justification. Hence, according to the primary interpretive hermeneutic of the Reformers, the Bible is not God’s statement about the multifaceted state of being, but rather what we call a “metaphysical narrative.” This is the idea that God controls everything perceived in reality as a story that pleases God only. Your reality is a prewritten experience for God’s glory only.
That may mean that your life will glorify God by you realizing how depraved you are, and thereby obtaining gratitude for God’s saving acts that are in the narrative. The more you understand your depravity, the more gratitude you have, and the more God is glorified. According to the Reformers, whatever happens in life is the metaphysical prewritten narrative, and the Bible is the handbook that guides us in interpreting the story. This is the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
In Martin Luther’s doctrinal construct, this is the Theology of the Cross, or the “Cross Story.” All those who do not interpret their existence according to this worldview, according to Luther who is the father of the Reformation, are advocates of the “Glory Story.” In Martin Luther’s formal worldview, all of reality is divided between the Cross Story (the story of God for His glory) or the Glory Story (the story of man and his glory) with NO in-between objective reality. Those who are part of the Glory Story are predetermined by God as well and will suffer in eternal hell; likewise, for God’s glory and good pleasure.
This idea is what led evangelical “pastor” Steve Lawson to suggest that Christ Himself will personally torment people in hell forever. Protestantism, whether people will face it or not, is predicated on the idea that God is just as pleased with eternal torment as He is with eternal joy; BOTH bring Him glory. Ever perplexed by the goofy things that go on at the local Baptist church? However far removed from the primary premise, the behavior finds its roots in Reformed tradition; particularly the lack of wherewithal to deal with spiritual abuse.
This reality, no pun intended, is what makes articles like the one recently written by Dr. Albert Mohler egregiously disingenuous. In that article, Mohler bemoans Bible illiteracy among evangelicals. And of course, his kind of biblical prowess is the answer after Protestant academics have created the problem to begin with. There has been no movement ever in history that has made more money by creating misery and then presenting itself as the cure.
TANC ministries is focused on an interpretation of reality based on what God truly intends for it to be. This necessarily involves a focus on sanctification in the same way that Protestantism focuses on justification albeit an errant one. In the same way that a skewed understanding of sanctification distorts justification, a skewed view of justification makes Christian living a study in steroidal confusion. TANC has dedicated five years of research to justification, with a prior investment by me of three years totaling eight. The TANC assertion has always been that a proper understanding of justification is the key to understanding the deep waters of Christian living, viz, sanctification. This is now where TANC has redirected its focus; the time has come.
This new focus necessarily demands a plenary investment by all of God’s people without any caste mentality. Religious academia not only contributes little to the cause, it is an immanent threat to the testimony of Christ and the true gospel as unrevised history has well documented. The collective free and independent interpretation by Spirit-filled Christians is essential as well as a breaking down of barriers between the library and the walk of the new man in the world; the Bible interprets reality, and multifaceted real-life experience lends vast understanding to what is being stated in the Bible.
In Protestantism, people who have to function in the real world go to church every Sunday and allow those who live in libraries to interpret their reality, and for some bizarre reason, pay good money for it to boot. If you only pay 10% or less, you are supposedly robbing God by not paying money to people who couldn’t survive in your reality for one day. This is why of all world religions Protestantism makes the lesser sense of the bunch. Nothing is more confused than a Protestant.
In regard to justification, I spent the better part of eight years doing research, but now with the proper keys to understanding Christian living, I have found a career in what I think is very well fitted for lending understanding to life and biblical reality. That career regards ADL service; that is, aiding people in activities of daily living. As I reflect my experience against the wisdom of Scripture, learning and understanding is taking place. I wonder what empowers the individual more than understanding why we do what we do?
But there is another key ingredient to this understanding: others who get it. With the use of the Bible and things self-evident according to God’s vast creation design, TANC co-author Andy Young wrote a post this week about self-value and the value of others. This post lent understanding to how my conscience was guiding me in some issues regarding work. I have remained plugged into a particular client because my conscience was compelling me to do so, but I really didn’t understand why my conscience was pressing me in that direction.
I am presently working with clients that I initially envisioned myself working with. This has been a long process. However, I have a client who was one of my first and has much lesser ADL needs; specifically, nothing but house cleaning. This is far less unfulfilling for me than medical type ADLs. The perception is depth of need. But after reading Andy’s post, I understand why I am committed to this client; now I understand what my conscience was trying to tell me.
Now I understand why I can dismiss the voices of my past Reformed ideology posing as my conscience. In addition to the outrage against the very idea of self-value harassing me while I was reading the post, I can also dismiss the accusation that my conscience is telling to be a, “people pleaser. Did not the apostle Paul tell us to please others whenever possible unless they are trying to persuade us to do something not pleasing to God? Sure he did. But why?
Because we are wired by God with a desire to please others. But why? Because we place value in them. Because we are created in the image of God who values Himself and others. He also values what He created, viz, life, and He demands that others value it as well. This may very well lead us to do things for people that we don’t enjoy doing, but finding the joy in pleasing them through the act. If we enjoy doing what is pleasing the person, that’s a double blessing. But if we don’t enjoy doing what we are doing for the person; yet, joy is found in pleasing the person that we value. Nevertheless, does this eventually lead to finding joy in the task itself? I think it often does.
In this particular case, the client has put a high value on me because of my cleaning. The client is very insistent that I be her HHA (Home Health Aid). And I must say, she values me more than SOME clients who depend on me and others for medical type ADLs. A messy house is one thing, but lying in your own waste for any period of time is another. Yet, the one who values me praises me while the other curses me. Indeed, as I have learned, the level of task rendered by no means determines the value. And here is an aside that you may apply to many other areas of life including childrearing: aids often no-call/no-show clients; and why do they do this? They don’t value others. And by the way, because they do not value others, neither do they value God from whom all blessings flow.
What else did I learn from Andy’s post in partnership with God’s word and life experience? A why. Why are ADLs so important? Sure, I gain self-satisfaction in doing ADLs, but why does this make any sense? After all, these are people who can no longer contribute to others, right? The answer follows. They value themselves. They value their own lives. This is intrinsic. This is intuitive. This is how God wires us. To not value self and others is unnatural and against God’s creative elements. God values Himself and those He creates.
And this is fact: the more a client values their own life and strives to make the best of it, the more the aid values their work. And I believe life in general works little different from this. I have clients who strive to make everything of their life that they can. This endeavor for self-actualization regardless of their condition raises the self-value of the aid, and by this they love the aid by loving themselves. This idea is anathema to Reformed ideology which places no value on human life. Protestants deny this while proudly pontificating “total depravity” because like I said, Protestants are confused in general while funding Neo-Platonist academics who hate life.
Why are we all inspired by disabled people who excel in life and happiness? Because they put a value on their life, and life in general which increases our own value when we help them. This pleases God and we value Him as the first priority. Striving to please those we value is a natural element of creation. This is why I am so overjoyed that a client of mine is going to a concert next month. If you knew this client, you would be very surprised that he would venture to go to a concert. But the client’s love for life increases my value and the service I supply. This is why an aid’s job is harder when a client fails to love themselves—to value themselves. Therefore, to all those who need help with ADLs…
…thank you for going to the concert. By loving yourself you are loving me.
paul
What is Election According to the Bible?
If the laity want sound definitions of biblical words in order to obtain truth, they will have to study the Bible themselves in order to show themselves approved of God. For example, Protestant scholarship has always defined “election” as the pre-selection of individuals for salvation and damnation. This conclusion can only be drawn by foisting presuppositions on many passages. Election often refers to things and people having no need of salvation. For example, according to Nave’s Topical Bible: Christ; Isa 42:1, 1Pet 2:6, National Israel; Dt 7:6, Isa 45:4, and angels; 1Tim 5:21.
Election is God’s choosing of things and people for specific purposes. It is interesting to note that things and people contrary to God’s purposes are never referred to as some kind of other elect class. There is only one elect category.
In conjunction with election, there is the “called” who are in essence everyone defined by three groups of people: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the “one new man” (Eph 2:15). The manifestation of the one new man is a word often translated, “church,” viz, “ekklesia” which means, “called out assembly.” This called out assembly is also elected (1Pet 5:13).
Election is the choosing of things, groups, and individuals that serve the purposes of God’s redemptive plan. Individuals are NOT chosen unto salvation or damnation, election pertains to God’s plan of salvation and what He chooses to serve that purpose. Election is about the means of salvation offered to all people as a gift. Man did not, or could not devise a plan of salvation, but he is able to participate in the plan of his own free will. The plan was not of man’s will, in fact, his tendency is to hide from God, but he does have the will to be persuaded to accept reconciliation on God’s terms. The plan of salvation and its terms are elected and offered to man as a “promise” contingent on faith alone.
Let’s begin to develop this with passages that speak of God’s election, or “purposes.”
Romans 13:1 – Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
So, governments are elected (“Instituted” or “ordained”) by God for what purpose? “…for he is God’s servant for your good.” But, are all governments elected by God? No, only those who are performing the purpose of election. Election is defined and qualified by its intended purpose. Now, in many theologies and philosophies, the purpose of election is reduced to whatever supposedly glorifies God. This makes election a determinism issue. Hence, everything that happens is God’s will and for the purpose of His self-love and glory. By reducing election to this single purpose, it strictly defines election in terms of God’s sovereignty or the “gospel of sovereignty”—a term that appears nowhere in the Scriptures. What God elects is confirmed by the application of its purpose, or the practice of its purpose (2Pet 1:10 ff.). Hitler’s Nazi Germany was not elected by God; their practice did not coincide with God’s purposes. Governments are elected, but not all governments are of God’s elect.
Therefore, election also speaks to generalities as well. As far as Christ’s called out assembly, what group of people did He primarily focus on?
1Corintians 1:26 – For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[d] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
As far as calling, which includes the three aforementioned groups, God focuses primarily on the lower-class among those groups. And what is the purpose? His glory, because the upper crust tend to get credit for what God does. Does this mean God only saves the poor? Of course not. But culturally, God has always fought against man’s tendency to worship aristocracy, nobility, and errant authority. When Christ told the apostles that it was easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle in comparison to the salvation of the rich, He was using an extreme example to smash a cultural paradigm. Have you ever noted the response He received from the disciples? Who then can be saved? Christ then cited the impossibility of men to come up with plans and means of salvation which is, for all practical purposes, often attributed to the noble. Listening to men rather than studying to show one’s self approved of God is the worship of man’s authority. James also addressed this same problem in his epistle.
God does elect individuals to serve in His purpose of salvation. This election of individuals for ministry in God’s salvific purposes is often attributed to individual predeterminism. In contrast, people groups are chosen for a purpose, not salvation for the sake of salvation, or damnation for the sake of damnation. With that said, God does single out individuals, or elects them for specific ministries and purposes. The following concerns the apostles:
John 15:16 – You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
Many are quick to jump on this passage as a proof text for individual pre-selection, but Christ is addressing disunity among the apostles and reminding them that it was Him who chose them for the task of apostleship which was being compromised by their selfish mentalities.
Also, as we shall see, those presently not fulfilling God’s purposes of election are not necessarily destined to continue in their rebellion, but before we move on, let’s pause to consider another point:
Romans 8:28 – And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Who are the “those,” and “many brothers”? We assume individuals, but could this not be referring to elected types or groups of people made up of individuals that accepted the free gift of God’s elected plan of salvation? Before you write this off as a stretch, consider the following:
Matthew 22:1 – And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ 5But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11“But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Now, as in many of the English translations, “chosen” in verse 14 should really be “elect.” This conveys more of an idea of a group rather than those who were preselected. But one thing is clear: the “called” are both Jew and Gentile. Those who accept the invitation to the wedding feast become the elect. The real idea here is in essence, many Jews and Gentiles are called, but few are of the elect. Prevalent among the Jews of that day was the idea that being a Jew alone made you the elect. No, this parable refutes that idea and encompasses Paul’s purpose of calling Gentiles as well in order to make the Jews jealous (Rom ch., 11) and thereby save some of them. At any rate, the Jews and Gentiles both are called to Christ, and what is the PURPOSE of that calling?
Ephesians 2:15 – by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
The gospel is God’s elect plan to reconcile mankind to Himself, but also to reconcile and bring peace/unity between Jew and Gentile, in fact, this is the very “mystery of the gospel.”
Ephesians 3:1 – For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
1Corinthians 12:13 – For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Galatians 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Every diverse type and group of people imaginable are called to be baptized into this one new man of which Christ is the head. And what is the purpose of this calling?
Romans 8:28 – And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Who are the predestined? Groups and types of people who are called: “And those whom he predestined he also called.” However, it is very clear from Matthew 22 that all of the called do not accept the invitation, but if they do, they are also, “justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” How can someone who is not yet redeemed be glorified? They aren’t; the glorification of the group or the elect is what is predetermined. The purpose of election is to justify and glorify the called, but all of those called to not conjoin themselves with God’s purposes.
John Calvin was not oblivious to the contradiction in regard to the called for those who want to buy into pre-determinism, and therefore sought to rectify the contradiction by created a class of elect that were temporarily elected. Hence, the called (Rom 8:30) who are justified are justified temporarily as opposed to the other classification of elect: those who persevere.
In Romans 8 those who are predestined are called, but in Matthew 22 not all who are called are of the elect. That’s a contradiction. Therefore, this is best understood through the purposes of election: it is God’s predetermined purpose to justify and glorify all who are called, and in fact, has already done so through Christ’s work on the cross. Nevertheless, those who do not accept the invitation of the call remain disinterested in God’s purposes.
We will conclude with a look at Romans chapter 9 because it seems to emphasize individual pre-selection. Again, we struggle to not see this as individual predestination because of how we have been conditioned. But the point of the passage is God’s purposes in election through miraculous rebirth according to “the promise.”
Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
God elected governments, but not all governments are his elect according to his purposes. God elected Israel, but not all Israelites are of His promise because the promise is through new birth, not Jewish birthrights. Those who are Israelites according to the flesh (born into nationality) are not the elect group, but rather those born into promise by the new birth. The whole passage should be interpreted in regard to elect/non-elect groups, not individuals. Let me drive this point home by citing what Paul says further along in the text:
Romans 9:23 – in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people, ’and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” 26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
Romans 9:30 – What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.
Who is the “us” in Rom 9:24? It is the “one new man” called from among two other groups. Individuals are not in view here, elected groups are. And, not all of the called are part of that group; only those who respond to the invitation by faith alone. Remember, the backdrop of Romans 9 is Jew/Gentile. The purpose of election is to make Jew and Gentile one unified body—the goal is to reconcile the hostility between the two groups as a result of being reconciled with God.
In regard to the whole prepared vessels for wrath or glory in verses 19-23, Paul writes,
Romans 9:19 – You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
But again, Paul clarifies what this speaks to immediately following in verse 24, “US,” as in, the one new man, not individuals. I believe this is key; God calls groups for His purposes, but it is their choice to accept or reject the invitation. Once they do one or the other, they themselves choose to remain in group A, or join group B. I believe Matthew 22 is the interpretive key for this thesis.
The vessels are people called to God’s elect purposes; those who are called into purposes and works prepared beforehand by God—not the salvation of individuals:
Ephesians 2:10 – For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
2Timothy 2:21 – Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.
God elects the work and defines what is honorable or dishonorable, but note our choice to cleanse ourselves. We put God’s purposes into practice because this is why we choose the gospel in the first place; a desire to align our individual purposes with God’s elective purposes. We can only affect this through the new birth which only God can bring about, but we can accept the invitation or reject it.
This is another consideration in this passage; the new birth.
Abraham is the father of national Israel and its descendants, but the gospel (the promise) only comes through miraculous new birth. With Abraham, it was the birth of Isaac when Sarah was well beyond childbearing age. God’s offspring are brought about by God’s life creating work, not men. In the case of Rebekah, it was God prophesying that Jewish tradition would be reversed and the older would serve the younger.
Romans 9:8 – This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Please note, that once again, election is hitched to a specific purpose: to eradicate all notion of works from justification. No one can birth themselves. However, they can accept the promise of new birth through faith alone. This whole discourse regards…”that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls.”
Now, also note that many make, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” something that God did before the two were born. No, read the passage that Paul cites (Malachi 1:2-3). This is something that happened well after the fact. It was the fulfillment of the prophecy that righteousness would come through the promise of miraculous birth, not works via Jewish tradition or default salvation by Jewish heritage/nationality. This why God elected the one seed, Christ, and Paul continues on in explaining two more groups: the children of Jewish flesh (nationality), and the “remnant” that are children of the promise.
And finally, even in all of this, consider those who are in a group that is not of promise: “Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious” (Rom 11:11 NIV).
Listen, proponents of the so-called “sovereign gospel” can’t have it both ways, and we also see yet another purpose of election; to make Israel jealous, which assumes cause and effect. Those in any given group can recover through the preaching of the word, or the casting of the life-giving-seed of God’s word which Paul also writes about in the same context.
Election is defined by God’s MANY purposes, not a reductionist “gospel of sovereignty.” God calls individuals to elect groups and purposes. His purposes are predetermined, not who will accept the free invitation which is to everyone because God “shows no partiality.”
Do you want to enhance your presentation of the gospel? Do a study and list all of the purposes of God’s election. Election is defined by God’s purposes. Give lost people a vison regarding what God is up to in his wonderful plan of salvation. This is a pretty deep topic, and per the usual, my goal and the goal of this ministry is to get the ball rolling in the right direction. However, it will take the collective efforts of God’s laity to unpack the wonderful doctrine of election.
paul
The New Birth
I made the following statement in a social media discourse. Though it is an isolated statement in context of a conversation, I think it makes a fairly decent stand-alone commentary on the new birth.
Is it possible that the rebirth is multifaceted? Meaning to be born again includes justification, imputed righteousness, adoption, etc.?
No, your statement, for the most part, is incorrect. The new birth is a Spirit baptism that includes the death of the old person who was under law, and a resurrection to new creaturehood. And, the imputation of our sin to Christ as a penal substitution, is not a like imputation of righteousness to the new man. The righteousness of the new man is NOT a substitution for a righteousness that the believer does not possess as a state of being, in contrast, in Spirit baptism, the believer is MADE righteous. Christ was a substitution for the penalty of our sin, but He does not provide a substitutionary righteousness for us, to the contrary, He MAKES US righteous.
Moreover, His substitutionary payment for sin only occurred once, and has no future application for the believer. This was the main concern of the Hebrew writer, viz, ritual does not perpetually apply Christ’s death to future sin. “It is finished.” One imputation relegated to the cellar closet is the imputation of all sin to the Old Covenant law. “All sin is against the law.” “Where there is no law, there is no sin,” etc. All sin is held captive in the OT law, and then Christ came to end the law (Rom 10:4). Also, see Galatians ch 3. The law was a “guardian” (protector against eternal condemnation) until Christ came. When someone believes in Christ, all of the sin they committed against the law is ended because the Spirit puts the old us that was under the law to death. We die in Christ who died to end the law.
As far as present and future sin, where there is no law there is no sin. Why then the law? Well, as stated previously, to “hold sin captive until faith came,” but also for purposes of the new man to exercise “faith working through love.” So, in the same way one sin makes those under law guilty of all points, the love of the believer fulfills the whole law. This is not a legal loophole, the saved person has a love for truth not previously possessed and longs to be set free from what now makes sin possible: WEAKNESS. The saved person has a “willing spirit, but the flesh is weak.”
paul
James White and Progressive Justification
Live Link: Sunday 5/22/2016 @ 2pm.
Discussion of short discourse with James White on UK radio show about progressive justification.
Susan is under the weather with some back problems so we will fill in with this discussion on progressive justification. However, Susan will be calling in and joining the discussion. The script follows:
PAUL: Hello?
JUSTIN: Hello. Is that Paul?
PAUL: It is.
JUSTIN: Hi, Paul. It’s Justin, and we tweeted each other about you coming on to do a discussion with James White.
PAUL: Yes, we did.
JUSTIN: Are you good to do this recording?
PAUL: I am.
JUSTIN: All right. Okay. And how should I pronounce your surname, Paul?
PAUL: Doh-se, Paul Dohse, D-O-H-S-E.
JUSTIN: Like [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Dohse.
PAUL: That’s absolutely correct.
JUSTIN: Okay. Now look, I’m going to introduce you as our wild card here.
PAUL: Okay.
JUSTIN: Neither James [UNINTELLIGIBLE] come across what you described as the Reformation progressive justification. So you have to kind of explain it first before we can respond to it, if that makes sense. But we only got ten minutes as well, so it’s going to have to quite kind of quick back and forth between you both. Is that going to be all right with you, Paul?
PAUL: Yes, it is. I just have seven questions that I want a yes or no answer for.
JUSTIN: You just want a yes or no answer question.
PAUL: Correct. And if there’s any time left, we can have discussion on number one.
JUSTIN: Okay. Well, look [UNINTELLIGIBLE] I can imagine that James will not be able to just respond with a yes or a no, depending on the question. I’m sure there will be some clarification he wants to bring to the way you ask it probably.
PAUL: Sure.
JUSTIN: We may not [UNINTELLIGIBLE] question one is one thing, okay?
PAUL: Okay.
JUSTIN: We’ll give it a go. Okay?
PAUL: All right.
JUSTIN: All right. [UNINTELLIGIBLE], Paul. Hold on.
PAUL: Okay.
JUSTIN: So let’s take another caller, and today on the program, we’re getting James White to respond to a few calls. Coming in, James, again, is Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries. If they want to find your website, James, where should they go?
JAMES: AOMIN.org, A-O-M-I-N.org
JUSTIN: And they can find things there too [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
JAMES: Definitely.
JUSTIN: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] talk about what happened on today’s program. But [UNINTELLIGIBLE] sort of our wild card [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Paul Dohse is on the line. I don’t know Paul. You don’t either. Neither of us [UNINTELLIGIBLE] his main issue with Calvinism with [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Reformation. He says [UNINTELLIGIBLE] something called progressive justification. I’m just beginning to find out what that is. Paul is on the line now and has a number of questions that he wants you to answer, James. So we’ll see where it gets you in the last ten minutes that we got with James here, Paul. And welcome on to the program. What did you want to ask James, Paul?
PAUL: I would just like seven yes or no answers to seven questions, and I understand that there could be more discussion on these questions, but I just want a yes or no answer that would be…
JUSTIN: Yes or no.
PAUL: Right.
JUSTIN: James, I’m sure, will try his best, but he may want to clarify your questions, obviously, [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. But go ahead.
PAUL: Okay. Number one, did John Calvin hold to progressive justification?
JAMES: You have to define what you think that means, sir. It’s a very strange terminology. What do you think progressive justification means?
PAUL: Well, what it means is that justification isn’t a finished work in the life of the believer. Justification or salvation progresses from a beginning point to an ending point.
JAMES: Okay. Then the answer to your question is he most assuredly believed that justification is a forensic declaration by God that takes place and is a past event, and he differentiated between justification, sanctification and the entirety of salvation. So to meaningfully answer the question, you have to utilize his categories, and he does not believe in progressive justification. He believed in both conditional and progressive sanctification. And we differentiate between justification, sanctification and salvation.
PAUL: Okay. So what you’re telling me, and we must move on quickly to the second one, but what you’re telling me is that as a Calvinist, the term “progressive justification” is a little bit peculiar in your mind. They’re strange.
JAMES: Well, it goes directly against the Reformation teaching of what justification was because this argument was wrong, was that justification involved an infusion of the righteousness of God to the sacrament. The Reformers taught that justification was a forensic declaration of the part of God based upon the work of Jesus Christ that says that you are right before God. And they talk about the imputation of the righteousness of Christ and the imputation of our sins to Jesus Christ, our sin bearer.
PAUL: Right. Okay. So you’re saying that the righteousness of the believer is strictly positional but not a state of being.
JAMES: State of being in the sense of being the basis of justification?
PAUL: No, I’m not talking about the basis of justification at all. I’m talking about the substantive being of the individual believer. Is he righteous or not righteous?
JAMES: Well, that’s exactly where we do get into the differentiation between the concept of sanctification and justification [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
PAUL: Okay. So I think the rest of the questions might help us to clarify, but we only have ten minutes. So I must move on.
JAMES: Okay. Go ahead.
PAUL: Question two, in one of three classes of election–the non-elect, the called and those who persevere–did Calvin teach that the called classification are temporarily elected/illuminated and then fall away to a greater damnation as predetermined by God?
JAMES: He believed that there were certain people who received enlightenment specifically to increase their damnation, yes, but he would not say that they were a part of the elect from eternity.
PAUL: Thank you. Question number three, according to Calvin, does the present sin of the believer remove them from grace requiring a return to the same repentance that saved them which can only be found in the institutional church?
JAMES: In the institutional church…
PAUL: Or let’s say the Reformed Church.
JAMES: Well, no. Now you’re using the term “grace” almost in the Roman Catholic concept of that day, the falling from grace or being a state of grace or something along those lines. Calvin’s doctrine of sin, obviously, is that there is a need for repentance experientially in the person’s life and their relationship with God. But if you’re talking about one of the elect, that does not separate them from the life of Christ. That’s where they have to be re-justified or something like that.
PAUL: Right, and that nails it, the re-justification part of it. So that nails it. So your answer to that one is no. okay, number four, the sola fide…
JAMES: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] questions. I’m kind of intrigued as to where this is all leading, Paul. What’s, I mean, [UNINTELLIGIBLE] we’re not going to catch all your questions at all before we have to [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. What’s your ultimate point? [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Calvin was right. You think the Reformation was, you know, didn’t get it right? [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
PAUL: Well, I think fundamentally – here’s what I think, and I really wanted to end the crux of – the crux of this getting the answers to all seven questions that will help clarify, but can we quickly get a yes or no answer to the rest of the questions, and then I can answer your question?
JAMES: Well, okay. So, yeah. Okay, go ahead then.
PAUL: Okay. So where were we on? Okay, so number four, does sola fide also apply to sanctification as well as justification?
JAMES: No.
PAUL: Thank you. Number five. According to the Reformed…
JAMES: [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
PAUL: According to the Reformed doctrine of mortification and vivification, does the Christian relive their original spirit baptism throughout their lives as a result of practicing the same repentance that originally saved them?
JAMES: I don’t understand that question.
PAUL: Okay, let’s move on. Number six, does total depravity, the T in TULIP, also apply to believers? According to the Reformers, do Christians remain totally depraved?
JAMES: Not in regard to ability, no. There’s a new creation. So there’s a fundamental shift and change of spiritual life.
PAUL: Thank you. Number seven. Can a Christian do any work pleasing to God?
JAMES: Only by grace.
PAUL: So by grace, they can do…
JAMES: So yes, yes. The answer is yes because you said Christian. That means a new creature in Christ [UNINTELLIGIBLE] by the Holy Spirit of God. So yes, obviously [UNINTELLIGIBLE].
PAUL: Okay. So we can park on this a little bit with what little time we have left. So what you’re saying is that, yeah, so Christian can do a good work by grace. But when the Reformers spoke of grace, really, what they were talking about is salvation. So what you’re saying is…
JAMES: No.
PAUL: Okay.
JAMES: No. [UNINTELLIGIBLE] fundamental understanding of the fact that – and yes, when we talk about Reformers, [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Calvin and Luther [UNINTELLIGIBLE] differences of opinion on minor elements [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. So they’re all monergists. And it is a very common error to think the term “salvation” is meant to be taken synonymously with the elements of salvation–regeneration, sanctification, adoption–which are distinguished from one another scripturally and hence, theologically as well. [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
PAUL: Roughly, what percentage of the Reformers, and just roughly, just a general idea. You say that there’s disagreement amongst them. How many of them roughly would have believed that sanctification is purely monergistic?
JAMES: Purely monergistic…
JUSTIN: And so let’s just [UNINTELLIGIBLE] define monergistic.
JAMES: Okay. All right. Monergism is the idea there is one force acting to accomplish something. Synergism is a cooperation of forces. So I’m a biblical monergist. I believe in God, regenerates by his own power [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. So he initiates [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. He accomplishes. It’s nothing on our part exactly. [UNINTELLIGIBLE] sanctification. And of course the difference here is, are we talking about positional sanctification? We have been made holy [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. Or are we talking about the experience of being [UNINTELLIGIBLE] the image of Christ or a – not a positional but an experiential…
JUSTIN: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] ongoing.
JAMES: An ongoing thing. That’s why Paul uses the [UNINTELLIGIBLE] those who are being saved, those who are perishing [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. So they had discussions about these things. I can’t give you percentages, but the problem I’m sensing here in the questions is not using the terminologies that they did in the way they did [UNINTELLIGIBLE].
JUSTIN: Can I just get a clarification here? Because we are going to have to leave in a moment, Paul. But [UNINTELLIGIBLE] fundamental problem that you think Calvin and the other Reformers [UNINTELLIGIBLE] they didn’t really preach a – they didn’t really get the Reformation right because ultimately it’s still in your view become something about works or righteousness. Is that what you’re saying?
PAUL: I believe that Calvin and Luther taught a false gospel, and I think that…
JUSTIN: [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Reformed enough in your view? They didn’t [UNINTELLIGIBLE].
PAUL: No. No. I think they taught a type of works salvation by perpetually returning to the same gospel that saved us to keep ourselves saved, and I’ve got so many quotes from Luther that you would want on that.
JUSTIN: I’m going to have to leave it there from you, Paul, but thank you for calling in.
PAUL: You bet.
JUSTIN: Have you come across this before?
JAMES: No, not in that form.
PAUL: Wow, really?
JAMES: There are a lot of people who [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the questions, I realized there’s all sorts of differences about the subjects being discussed as far as most Reformed scholars and even history of Reformation, but it is important to recognize that you’ve read the Institutes [UNINTELLIGIBLE] written by Calvin, that he makes very careful distinctions, very careful thinker, in differentiating what’s called the ordo salutis, the order of salvation, differentiating sanctification and justification, and he was very clearly on what the nature of justification is. [UNINTELLIGIBLE] before God is because [UNINTELLIGIBLE] Jesus Christ. Nothing else. We don’t add to him. Everything else is a gift and grace in our lives, but it does not add to what our standing is before him.
JUSTIN: We’re going to have to leave you there. Thank you, Paul. [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
PAUL: Okay. Thanks for having me on. Thanks for having me on, Justin.
JUSTIN: Thank you, James, for [UNINTELLIGIBLE].
PAUL: All right, bye-bye. Take care.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment