Paul's Passing Thoughts

The other night I was watching a movie about Harriet Tubman and was struck by one of the scenes.  The movie was based on her true story, and I later looked up a printed version of the scene. Harriet Tubman was a runaway slave that lived under two different laws.  She recalled crossing the state line into Pennsylvania where the law declared all people to be free, and stated the following: “When I found I had crossed that line, I looked at my hands to see if I was the same person. There was such a glory over everything; the sun came like gold through the trees, and over the fields, and I felt like I was in Heaven.”

Protestants are big on definitive black and white statements. John MacArthur stated the following about justification: “Justification is a forensic, or purely legal, term. It describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to change the believer. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner’s nature or character.”

Of course, a thinking person would question that statement immediately. If a law can give you hope, would not having hope change you? Of course it would. In addition, the contrast of being under the law of slavery in that day and later freedom would most certainly change one’s perspective on life drastically.

Missing from the church gospel is the two different laws of slavery and freedom much like Harriet Tubman experienced. And for that reason, the church has no biblical gospel. Yes, the movie about Harriet Tubman inspired me to once again try to help church people get their minds around what the biblical new birth really is.

In regard to church: “You mean it’s all a lie?” Yes…sorry about that. I lived the lie for 30 plus years, but was glad to find the truth because I always knew something wasn’t exactly right with church. In fact, I was never completely comfortable with its canned five-word gospel either: “Christ died for our sins.”

Salvation is very much like the Harriet Tubman story and her two different lives under two different laws and how she crossed the line from slavery to freedom. That’s very akin to chapters seven and eight of Romans. There is only one difference; she lived under one law that was bad, and the other one was good.

However, she experienced true freedom, and that compelled her to put her newfound life and freedom on the line to save others. Had the law in Pennsylvania been little different from the law that Harriet Tubman fled, not only would her life have been little different, she would have been little motivated to bring others to her newfound freedom. This is another good analogy to be taken from her story because I was in the church for thirty plus years and getting people to evangelize was like pulling a mule uphill. There is a reason for that and the reason follows: church people are not under a different law. It is the same law they have always been under. Their “saved” life is little different from their old life they were supposedly saved from.

“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

This verse of Scripture is not about invisible realms or realm manifestation and other ideas that come from mysticism. The word for “law” in this verse is “nomos.” It is used a little less than 200 times in the New Testament and refers to the word of God. These are two different laws.

You could argue that it is really the same law (the same Bible) with two different applications, and you would have an argument, but that is not how the Bible frames it. These are two different laws; so, what makes them different? Answer: one has condemnation, and the other one has no condemnation. Under one, you are a slave; under the other, you are free. Under one, you are a sinner, under the other, you have no sin. Throughout Scripture, these two laws are spoken of differently.

More specifically, the new birth is the demarcation between the two laws. Perhaps you could say the different person makes these laws different. Clearly, the Bible teaches that the old us died with Christ and died to the law of sin and death, and we were resurrected to a new life under a new law.

Romans 7:1 – Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? ² For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. ³ Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

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

One law is dead when we become a Christian; it died with us when we died with Christ in Baptism. Christ died to end that law, and the old us died with him. We were also resurrected with Christ and are now under a new law. It is interesting to note that Harriet Tubman (her free name) had to be covert when she went back to Maryland to smuggle her family and friends to freedom in Pennsylvania; Maryland considered her to be under their law. Tubman believed that once you are made free, you are always free. Once you cross that line from Maryland to Pennsylvania, you are born into freedom and always free.

LIKEWISE, for true Christians, the world, and the church with it, will always claim that we are still under the law of sin and death. Actually, the church is most guilty of that. The church is the perfect example of Maryland slave owners in the Harriet Tubman narrative. MacArthur said it, no? When a Christian crosses that line between freedom and slavery, it does nothing to change that person. That’s what he said. In Pennsylvania, the law only declared Tubman free, but she was still enslaved?

If that was the case, she would have hardly risked her life for 13 covert missions to free 70 slaves. As a military officer in the Civil War, she led the raid on Combahee Ferry that freed 700 slaves.

This is why the church lacks zeal; its freedom from sin is only a “legal declaration” without the experience of real freedom. The church still lives in Maryland while only confessing the glories of Pennsylvania. “We are all sinners (still enslaved to sin) saved by grace.”

Harriet Tubman only lived under one law, the law of freedom. The old law she lived under, when she was Araminta Ross, no longer existed. In her mind, neither did Araminta Ross. Perhaps Christians who truly understand the new birth should change their names. Christ was known to endorse that idea at times.

Harriet Tubman’s life is a most fitting example of the true biblical new birth. We are not still under the law of slavery while confessing the freedom of heaven. We are literally citizens of that kingdom and under its law. She lived as a free woman. I am sure the old Maryland law tormented her at times, but that did not make her any less free.

This is what she has known for some time now: when she crossed over the Pennsylvania line, she felt like she was in heaven because she was.

paul

A Preview of Chapter 8 on Sway. Click on this link. 

I do believe, and am thankful to God accordingly, that many in the church are confused enough to be saved. Pastor John MacArthur often calls salvation an “atonement.” No, the new birth is not a covering for sin (atonement); it is an ending of sin. John MacArthur is confused about that, and many other things. Yet, I do think he means well and believes in God. Nevertheless, many will be surprised to learn his ultimate value to the true kingdom of God.

Since he was swept up in the New Calvinism movement, he is particularly confused about the sovereignty of God. His confusion about the difference between a body and an institution, may or may not have been present prior to his New Calvinism conversion.

Interestingly enough, the New Calvinism movement proclaimed run of the mill Evangelical new birth salvation a false gospel because it separated justification and sanctification resulting in many church members being re-saved again. I witnessed this while I was still attending church; longtime faithful members were being re-baptized and confessing they were never really saved. The idea that sanctification was something different than justification, and not the progression of justification, was deemed an Evangelical false gospel that sent many to hell.

Hence, the New Calvinism movement proclaimed itself as God’s avenger on evangelicalism and ordained by God to retake all of the spoils gained by the Evangelical false gospel. My point in mentioning that follows: NO church leader who was swept up in this movement ever made a re-profession of faith, MacArthur included. While New Calvinists constantly indicted the Evangelical church for being a false church while it was taking it over, the subsequent elephant in the room has always been ignored. Only a few contradictions highlighted by the pandemic will be discussed in this post though there are innumerable contradictions in the illogical morass we call “church.”

The COVID pandemic has incited many provocative questions about the church. In many cases, it has further exposed church folly. Initially, Protestant churches, all but totally taken over by the New Calvinism movement,  accepted the government lockdowns. Say what? This, after teaching the necessity of the “ordinary means of grace” that can only be executed by elders of the church, for years. This is just one of many Protestant elephants in the room mindlessly ignored as a normal course of existence. While the lockdowns continued, there was NO discussion about the “ordinary means of grace” necessary for the existence of Protestantism’s core doctrine of Double Imputation.

Then, according to my best guess, the money started running out. Now, the narrative is changing. It has gone from, “We must obey the civil authorities ordained by God,” to “We must obey God rather than man.” Nothing new here when it comes to church. And again, where are all of the sermons on maintaining Double Imputation in all of this? Look, let’s be honest with ourselves, nothing that goes on at church is really taken seriously; it’s all about institutional salvation.

In addition, this article is not about the political disaster that will occur for Democrats if they perp walk MacArthur. This article is about the illogical ideology of the church flushed out by the COVID pandemic. MacArthur’s reasoning for changing the narrative is a train wreck. According to a statement by MacArthur and his elders:

God has established three institutions within human society: the family, the state, and the church. Each institution has a sphere of authority with jurisdictional limits that must be respected. A father’s authority is limited to his own family. Church leaders’ authority (which is delegated to them by Christ) is limited to church matters. And government is specifically tasked with the oversight and protection of civic peace and well-being within the boundaries of a nation or community. God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the church. The biblical framework limits the authority of each institution to its specific jurisdiction. The church does not have the right to meddle in the affairs of individual families and ignore parental authority. Parents do not have authority to manage civil matters while circumventing government officials. And similarly, government officials have no right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters in a way that undermines or disregards the God-given authority of pastors and elders.

This is a joke for many, many, reasons. First, where does the Bible say church and family are institutions? Here is where the church, which is, in fact, an institution, finds itself at odds with everyday worldly life on a continual basis. The ekklesia of Christ is not an institution, it’s a body, and Christ being the “head” of the church isn’t a statement of authority, but rather speaks to a “head” of a body.

A body does not function like an institution. An institution functions by hierarchical authority. A body functions according to healthy members and organs working together for a common cause. The head has no authority over the body. The head can make decisions that edify the body for the collective benefit of the whole body, but most functions of the body are what we call, “involuntary.” The knowledge of the body’s head (mind) is central to the body’s edification. The more a body is edified, the healthier it is.

This statement by MacArthur and his elders is wholly disingenuous as well. It is well documented that their position follows: the church has authority over families that are members at Grace Community Church. This is a hallmark of New Calvinism. Fathers of a family are “under-shepherds” or “sub-pastors” (Voddie Baucham) of the elders. The statement that, “The church does not have the right to meddle in the affairs of individual families and ignore parental authority” in no way matches the reality in New Calvinist churches. It is an utterly absurd statement.

And, where does the Bible state that Christ has granted authority over the “church” to church leaders? That is not biblical. Neither is it biblical that God has given church authority over families. I will not reiterate here the hundreds of articles this ministry has written on these issues, but I will toss in this meme that we published some time ago:

While Christ’s ekklesia is instructed to be submissive to governmental authorities, the very structure of God’s ekklesia, that is, body and family, avoids unnecessary conflict with the government. The ekklesia is the family of God that functions like a body. It functions according to freewill offerings of love, not authority. In a marriage, according to the Bible, the husband is the head, that is, the primary edifier, not the authority in the family. Church does not understand the salvific reality between law and love.

This is why the early ekklesia was small groups who met in private homes. While these groups formed a massively large network of believers who worked together for common purposes, they rarely found themselves at odds with the government because the ekklesia is not an institution.  Many ekklesias were distorted by becoming authoritative institutions in the 4th century, but before that, persecution was always via institutional religion; primarily, the Judaizers and Gnostic sects. Most so-called “persecution” after the 4th century is little more than institutional competition.

Where honesty shows up in MacArthur’s unbiblical assessment of humanity’s institutional framework can be found in New Calvinism’s response to church scandals. In no case ever has any church member found justice within the church for pedophilia, rape, extortion, or theft. When disillusioned members appeal to government authorities for justice, said members are excommunicated (because the church claims authority over salvation), and civil authorities are told to butt out because it is a “church matter and not a civil matter.”

In several cases this has been the Grace Community Church position, and at the very least, yet endorses ministries that are very vocal about this position; namely, CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). MacArthur did not separate himself or his ministry from association with SGM regardless of  numerous scandals and documented criminal behavior.

lastly, MacArthur is very good at being wrong about most cultural topics. He mentioned in the statement that, “Parents do not have authority to manage civil matters while circumventing government officials.” Well, actually, the USA is a government by the people and for the people, so he is wrong about that as well.

American government is structured to protect individualism and the individual in particular. That necessarily circumvents any “jurisdiction” that violates the self-evident rights of an individual.

This is anathema to the world and the church as well: God is an individualist, and not a collectivist. He will leave a flock of 99 to save the one. “Jurisdiction” does not nullify that reality.

Once again, confused men posing as martyrs will lead the way in institutional competition while calling it, “persecution.”

paul