Paul's Passing Thoughts

Oh boy, John MacArthur is really in for it this time. Probably not. In 2011, I wrote The Truth About New Calvinism, which painstakingly documents the fact that the present-day evangelical brain trust had no idea what the Protestant gospel is, and had to be informed by an Adventist theologian circa 1970. A re-visitation of this contemporary history will be the subject of our 2023 conference.

This led to the Neo-Calvinist movement, which is a return to the medieval Protestant gospel. After the American Revolution, individualistic ideas became integrated into the authentic Protestant gospel that ruled the American colonies, and church actually became a force for good in American society for the better part of 200 years. Particularly in the 60s, the church had a vague concept of the biblical new birth, but even that led to positive outcomes. The evangelical church was firmly established as a societal moral compass.

However, the authentic Protestant gospel, what Albert Mohler refers to as “confessionalism,” overtly denies the biblical new birth and redefines it as a necessary revisiting of the gospel that originally saved us. In other words, instead of being a one time event that seals us with the Spirit, it is a ritual necessary for maintaining salvation. Hence, the mantra, “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” Of course, the way this is all preached plays on the assumption that remembering our original salvation is a good idea and helps our sanctification, that is, until we are fully indoctrinated into a full-blown progressive justification, which is Protestantism, and Luther and Calvin both plainly stated such.

Post Revolution, the American church retained a progressive justification functioning, particularly in the order of worship, but had a contradictory intellectual testimony. Here is an example among many: In the 60’s, 70’s, and to a much lesser degree in the 80’s, most parishioners would have rejected out of hand the idea that church membership is essential for salvation. However, they didn’t function that way. As a church leader during the 80’s, I was ran out of town for suggesting nonattenders be removed from the membership role. It was clear, at that point, that people connected their salvation to being on a membership role, but would have, at the same time, vehemently denied it intellectually.

This brings us to the latest drama trending in the church. Stuff that has been going on in the biblical counseling movement for years is finally getting some press, and the real John MacArthur is being exposed. Women married to pedophiles, which put their own children at risk, were brought up on church discipline for leaving their husbands. Julie Roys, a journalist, wrote about a particular case at MacArthur’s church and it went viral. It is my understanding that a respected elder and attorney at MacArthur’s church, Hohn Cho, was asked to review the case. I am gathering my information from a recent Christianity Today article that picked up on what Roys has been writing about for some time.

Apparently, Cho was not up with how MacArthur’s church handled the situation, and insisted that the church reconcile with Eileen Gray, the wife involved in one of the aforementioned cases. The church’s refusal led to Cho leaving MacArthur’s church and becoming an advocate for other victims.

Let me set the table before we unpack all of this. First, why are there so many cases like this in a supposed evangelical bastion of Bible literacy? Second, why are these numerous cases being handled the way they are being handled? Thirdly, why is the vaunted biblical counseling movement seemingly powerless to change these men, and why is this counseling, in most cases, making the situations worse? These questions can be answered if you understand the authentic Protestant gospel that drives MacArthur’s church, and the ideology behind it.

However, I want to address Cho first. Why is he the only leader in MacArthur’s church to take a stand on this? Answer: he is a half pregnant Protestant. He really doesn’t thoroughly understand the gospel and ideology that MacArthur is functioning under. Nevertheless, what he does understand, and the application thereof, causes him to stand above the rest. He appears to be a good guy who is, thankfully, confused regarding the whole authentic Protestant enchilada. However, Cho is probably confused enough to object to me calling him good, because, you know, “only God is good.” Ok then, I assume he has repented of being an advocate for Eileen Gray, because if we are not good, we cannot do good works, right? In fact, Calvin himself wrote that NO Christian has ever done a good work and never will. Here is where Cho is confused: he thinks he is dealing with people who believe other people can do what is right. That’s not exactly the case. We can begin there: Calvin stated the aforementioned because his standard for justification was perfect law-keeping, and not the biblical new birth, which he and Luther rejected in exchange for the Protestant doctrine of mortification and vivification.

If you are born again, the fact that the Trinity dwells IN you is what makes you perfectly righteous as a state of being, and NOTHING ELSE. The biblical new birth changes our relationship to the law, this is key. The apostle Paul even states it as two different laws (Romans 8:2 [nomos for both]), and for all practical purposes, the Spirit’s two uses of the law: to convict the world of sin and the judgement to come, or for sanctification. In the latter, there is no condemnation. In other words, if you properly understand the gospel, you CANNOT have a single perspective on the law that applies to justification and sanctification both.

Clearly, very clearly, John MacArthur, and his puppet, Phil Johnson, see law and gospel through a single perspective on the law, which boils down to an under-law gospel. This is an unavoidable fact. We are either under law or under grace, we cannot be both. Clearly, the authentic Protestant gospel defines under grace as a covering for remaining under law. No, Christ didn’t come to cover sin, he came to end it. Frequently, MacArthur himself refers to salvation as an “atonement.” Nor can you separate condemnation from a single perspective on the law, which necessarily requires an ongoing rectification for “present sin.” Consequently, Phil Johnson has stated from MacArthur’s pulpit that Christians are under the “righteous demands of the law.” So, in broad daylight, he advocates for the very false gospel that the apostle Paul spent his whole ministry refuting.

I took the liberty of listening to a podcast of Cho presenting the gospel from Grace Community Church’s doctrinal statement. Clearly, he doesn’t understand the full ramifications of what he was reading and explaining, but in a good way, he kind of has a working knowledge of the biblical new birth. This is what sets him apart and has driven him to do what he has done. Also, more evidence of his fortunate confusion is his concept of justice, which is totally antithetical to the authentic Protestant gospel.

So, the reason for all of this vile behavior in the supposed bastion of evangelical biblicism is a false under-law gospel. The reason that men in MacArthur’s church are enslaved to such behaviors is because enslavement to sin is a hallmark of being under law. It’s just that simple. And usually, someone like Cho would be brought up on church discipline in order to destroy his creditability and protect the church, but in this case, Cho is too well known and respected; it would have backfired, and remember, he’s a lawyer, so…. And by the way, where is “church discipline” in the Bible to begin with, and for that matter, in Matthew 18? And where are the “elders” in Matthew 18? We have, “the Lord’s discipline” in the Bible, and we have “self discipline,” but where is “church discipline”?

In the early 90’s when Neo-Calvinists put a full court press on MacArthur to join the “gospel recovery movement,” which is an astounding notion to begin with, if you think about it, he was at a fork in the road. Had he rejected their beckoning, he wouldn’t have lost one follower, and I believe he missed an opportunity to lead a countermovement that would have turned the world upside down for the gospel. Instead, he chose to receive his full reward from mortal men.

Cho also is standing at a fork in the road, and a colossal opportunity to receive a massive reward in heaven. Sure, there is a lot more meat that could be put on the gospel basics that I have outlined here, and have been writing about for years, but Cho is obviously smart enough and virtuous enough to fill in the blanks for himself.

For sure, he is smart enough to know that a tree is known by its fruit. I pray that he realizes there is no sin in challenging our deepest held beliefs, and the fruit of that endeavor will enable him to seize on the opportunity that MacArthur passed on, because he loves the praises of men more than God.

paul

Originally posted in 2019, revised and edited.

One experiences many confusing things at church, but the most well-traveled road of confusion is people dong stuff they really didn’t do; God did it. Like the head coach of Clemson football, yesterday, the coach of Liberty’s basketball team gave “all the glory to God” because they didn’t really win the game, God did, because of their “Christ-centered program.” 

Truly, there is no religion on earth less self-aware than Protestantism. They are so utterly clueless regarding their own confessions that any religion, cult, or militant group should be commended for simply understanding what they really believe. Moreover, no one is better than Protestant scholars at dressing themselves up as the epitome of academic acumen. To watch the likes of John MacArthur Jr. and others at conference Q and A sessions present themselves the way they do is stunning when you realize how clueless they are. 

Few Protestants, if any, understand why they do or say anything. So, why do they say God did something they clearly did? I will explain. It starts with something the Liberty coach said while not really knowing what it means like all things Protestants say. “Christ-centered,” is a term that encompasses a vast body of Martin Luther’s metaphysics. While Protestants hail Luther as their spiritual hero and father of their faith, and this includes Evangelicals and Lutherans alike, they are slow to recognize that Luther was primarily a philosopher of Platonist disciplines. Christocentric metaphysics encompass Luther’s Theology of the Cross which was based primarily on Dualism. 

We will begin by stating why Protestants say they didn’t do something when they did, while not knowing why it is important for them to say it. Reason: if they claim they did something good, they, according to Luther’s Theology of the Cross, have denied the gospel and will consequently go to hell. Now, of course, regarding that being the reason, the Protestant will protest, while stating that the purpose of the statement is to only give God all the glory. Sounds good, but that is NOT Protestant orthodoxy. If you ever want to know what Protestant orthodoxy is, never ask a Protestant because they don’t know (and the ones who do know are not going to be honest about it). However, we must remember that the talking points they don’t understand lead to a functionality that doesn’t match the intellectual confession, and that is fine with the Protestant industrial complex if not the outright goal. 

So, how does this all work? In Luther’s metaphysics, reality is divided into two parts, or realms: 100% evil, and 100% good. Luther didn’t necessarily assign 100% evil to all the material realm, but he certainly assigned it to humanity. In this metaphysical construct, humanity is both passive and active while the good is only active. What does this mean? Regarding humanity, it is actively evil and passive. When the human is active, only evil occurs, only evil can flow out of man, whether lost or saved, but the human being also has a passive element. This passive element is like water. What do we know about water? It is passive; in other words, until it is acted upon by gravity, temperature, or wind (an active force outside of it), it just sits there and does nothing. 

Hence, when a person does something good, it is only because their passive element was acted upon by God. Therefore, God did it, not you. When water freezes, the water didn’t do it, the temperature did. When water does the wave dance, the water isn’t doing it, the wind is. HOWEVER, keep in mind, all this activity, whether passive or active, is experienced by us (according to the doctrine) as if all of it is active. In other words, it is experienced as if the totally depraved humanoid did it actively. 

Now, let’s get a little bit deeper into Luther’s metaphysics and how this is experienced in reality. Don’t forget the key element to understanding all of this: EXPERIENCE. We will now mention contemporary lingo that refers to Luther’s Theology of the Cross: “Objective justification/righteousness experienced subjectively.” Good and evil are both objective, but humanity only experiences both subjectively. In other words, in the experience of the totally depraved individual, saved or lost, they cannot distinguish from the active or passive; they cannot distinguish between whether their actions are coming from within their own evil self, or whether their passive being is being acted upon by the good (even though it all feels like it is active by us). In contemporary lingo, we also hear “The objective gospel outside of us.” All good remains outside of the individual, or Martin Luther’s “alien righteousness.” 

Accordingly, Luther split up works this way: human; ALL evil with some of the works appearing as good. The invisible realm: ALL good. It is interesting to consider why Luther (and Calvin) rejected the notion that a human can do a good work: the law. Luther and Calvin both believed a human cannot keep any aspect of God’s law perfectly; hence, ANY act by ANY individual can only bring condemnation. In other words, perfect law keeping is the standard for righteousness. This is an astonishing contradiction to the Bible which shows us a righteousness “apart from the law.” In the true gospel, mankind and true righteousness become one apart from the law because of the new birth. The new birth, according to the Bible, changes a true believer’s relationship to the law from something that can only condemn to something that can only reward. Luther and Calvin both rejected this idea and insisted on a single perspective on law and its sole purpose for condemnation. 

Therefore, central to Luther’s soteriology based on his metaphysics (view of reality or humanity’s state of being), he coincided all the aforementioned with a doctrine of mortal sin and venial sin. All venial sin is forgivable through the church’s “common means of grace” while there is only one mortal sin: the belief that humanity can do good works or anything else that would find merit with God as opposed to summary condemnation. This is the doctrine of total depravity. And this is why Protestants, though few realize it, are insistent on “giving all glory to God” and the “Glory to God alone” solas. This philosophy is also the foundation of the 5 Points of Calvinism. By the way, regarding soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), Calvinism cannot be separated from any form of Protestantism via the mostly insignificant subject of freewill. ALL Protestants function according to the doctrine of Total Depravity, while some deny it intellectually. Most, if not all Protestants insist on “giving all the glory to God” and thus deny the importation of a gift that enables the individual to do good works actively. In effect, an unwitting denial of the new birth, which was redefined by the Protestant Reformation. Certainly, God gave us the original gift, but any gift that is accepted transfers ownership to the recipient or else it is not a gift. A loan is not a gift. We are either righteous as a state of being, while failing to love because of weakness, or yet under condemnation because we are loaned the righteousness of someone else via a “legal declaration,” which is not a righteousness apart from the law to begin with.

Don’t misunderstand, there are some Protestant scholars who truly know what it’s all about. A few names would be DA Carson and Tim Keller. Some time ago, Tim Keller received push-back from the church at large for teaching that Christians need to repent of good works to remain saved. The amount of push-back he received is indicative of Protestant confusion as Keller’s assertion was merely sound Protestant orthodoxy. I would also say many of the neo-Calvinist teachers of our day understand what’s really going on like John Piper and Mark Dever. That’s the T4G, TGC, etc. bunch. This is why they drive many Evangelicals in the church at large nuts—because they don’t understand that the movement is a return to real church. 

Just for giggles, and because I know our readers who are original/independent thinkers have some good questions, I am going to delve into this a little deeper with the help of Jonathan Edwards. In other words, I am going to delve deeper into how all of this supposedly works in real life. Let’s begin by defining what is saving faith according to Protestantism. “Faith” is merely an ability to perceive reality according to Luther’s metaphysical construct. Luther and Calvin both equated saving faith with agreement regarding their Platonist worldview and stated such often. Anything perceived by the five senses is evil, including technology that would improve life. That knowledge is earthly and is dubbed “the glory story” (the story of man) as opposed to “the cross story” (the story of God and redemption) in Luther’s Theology of the Cross metaphysics. All empirical knowledge that improves life only accomplishes the following: it puffs man up and steals glory from God according to Luther. Accordingly, and supposedly, Christ primarily went to the cross to establish a lifestyle of suffering to obtain true knowledge as opposed to being part of establishing the new birth and ending the condemnation of the law. So, according to Jonathan Edwards, saving faith is a sixth sense that enables one to see the cross story apart from what the five senses perceive, which is only evil (Martin Luther’s glory story). 

Before any action, people think about it first, or the action is based upon a prior thought. Edwards taught that God was the author of the first thought that produced any good work. The mind of the individual is also actively evil and passive. Any idea that we have is evil, but any idea that comes from God’s action on the passive part of our humanity is good. But again, we have no way of distinguishing between the two because they are experienced by us in the same way, or as if the idea was originated by us. This is why Keller rightfully suggested that “Christians” pray to be forgiven of good works; that is, works that only appear to be good but aren’t because they didn’t come from God. As one pastor stated it, “Sanctification is done TO us, not BY us.” Nevertheless, it is experienced, or feels like it is done by us. Since authentic Protestantism affirms sanctification as the progression of salvation (progressive justification), these feelings must be rejected as truth with a confession that the “Christian” life is experienced subjectively.

We can therefore close with the suggestion that sports coaches don’t necessarily have to give God all of the glory for winning a big game because winning a big game wouldn’t necessarily be classified as a good work. It might be more theologically correct to ask for forgiveness for winning the game and how winning puffs us up. Or, they could say this: “If we won this game, we ask for God’s forgiveness, but if it was his doing, we give Him all the glory.” That would be the truth according to Protestant orthodoxy because life is subjective and the coach has no way of knowing whether God won the game or not. 

God loves to win basketball games and football games because such is a moral good work…who knew? 

paul