Paul's Passing Thoughts

We don’t meet together in private homes for some practical matter; it’s a statement about our gospel. It is a statement about the new birth. The new birth makes us literal members of God’s family, and this is what makes us righteous, the new birth, not perfect law-keeping by anyone including Christ. In addition, church is an institution that speaks of authority and functions on authority. Home fellowships are a family functioning as a body.

Live Link for Sunday 4/19/2020 @ 6pm. 

As a new Christian in 1983 I did something out of the gates that put me at odds with the church inside of six months: daily Bible reading. I didn’t understand a lot of what I was reading, but on the other hand, a lot of what I was reading was pretty clear and objective. Then, I would go to church and hear one contradiction after another while church claimed the Bible as its authority for truth. I remained faithful to church for many years following, but knew something was fundamentally wrong with the entire concept.

This post is about one example. Really, a major example. One of myriads of inner-church quarrelling is the whole, “Which day should we ‘worship’ on, Saturday or Sunday?” Of course, a single church quarrel is always fraught with false premises to begin with. Worship is not on any given single day, worship is all of life A-Z. And don’t forget this: there is so much debate in church that no reasonable person could believe the church knows anything objectively.

Should we worship on Saturday or Sunday, and should Christians recognize the Sabbath, and is Sunday the church Sabbath under the New Covenant? So, I attempted to do a Bible study and come to a personal conclusion, and with many such debates like this, it was a fools errand. Why? While church disingenuously encourages parishioners to read the Bible for themselves, it has never taught legitimate principles of epistemology. In contrast, it only supplies a foundation of false presuppositions that result in the following: the more people read their Bibles, the more church falsehoods will be reinforced. Church infuses a prism into parishioners which will determine what they see in the Bible.

Regardless, the whole argument bothered me for reasons I couldn’t put my finger on. My daily Bible reading could not recall a biblical emphasis on days of the week or the naming of days of the week; weekdays were always referred to by their order, not a name.

Like many things with church, there are all kinds of suspicions in the background, but you also have life to attend to, so you really don’t pause life to launch an in-depth investigation. But, then the COVID worldwide emergency happened. And, per the usual, with ANY non-business-as-usual event that takes place in the world or local culture, church has a head-on collision with reality. This, throughout history, has caused church to die on hills of no relevance. Church, in regard to true Christianity, is completely irrelevant with trainloads of meaningless controversy following.

So, here we go, “Easter Sunday” and “Good Friday” were cancelled because of a government lockdown, as well as weekly church services. And trust me, God could care less. He could care less because church, that is, its basic principles, are totally invalid. We will be looking at this from a calendar point of view. God chose a particular calendar for His theology to emphasize basic points. One point follows: His ekklesia is not an institution; it’s a literal family functioning as a body. An institution cannot function on a lunar calendar; institutions have to function on a solar calendar because an institution functioning on a lunar calendar would be very difficult if not impossible altogether.

Why is that? First, the first day of the week (according to the Gregorian calendar), viz, Sunday, would not always be on Sunday. A solar calendar makes it possible for specific days to be named and always occurring in the same order (and position) every week. The Jews, for purposes of God’s appointed days, used a lunar calendar. This means, according to one theory, the Sabbath occurred on the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th of every month. Let’s take May of 2020 for example, all the Sabbaths would be on Friday. In June of 2020, all of the Sabbaths would be on Monday. This would wreak havoc on institutional “worship” for many, many different reasons. However, in a family setting, just like differing birthdays or anything else, not so much.

I am not going to cover everything I have been studying about this for the past week, but suffice to say that the implications for biblical theology are profound, especially in regard to Genesis, chapter one, and the law instituted on Mount Sinai. Following a particular order of time was part and parcel with the commands themselves, and following any biblical command regarding sabbaths apart from a lunar calendar is not a legitimate observance. The fact that a Jewish day started at evening and ended the next evening also causes interpretive confusion.

Furthermore, first and second temple law protocols were intrinsically linked  with Jewish feasts and other holy days, which were all ended with Christ dying on the cross. The ekklesia was free to meet wherever and whenever it wanted to. Set days for anything were nonexistent. In the first century, the Sanhedrin determined when the new moon occurred, which set the precedent for the month. Obviously, with the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD, any authority to determine the Sabbaths on a monthly basis became nonexistent.

Aside from the Sabbath (and calendar?) protocol established with creation, Leviticus chapter 23 expounds on the instructions given to Moses at the beginning of the exodus. Curiously, these instructions occur for when Israel was in their land, but yet, the instructions pertain to individual family dwellings.

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, concerning the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.

Why? Why not the area surrounding the tabernacle or purpose build temples? But curious is how many Bibles translate the same passage:

The Lord said to Moses, Speak to the Israelites and say to them: These are my appointed festivals, the appointed festivals of the Lord, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies.

There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a sabbath to the Lord.

Note that many translations imply a gathering at a “sacred assembly” wherever the Jews may be established geographically at any given time. No, the focus is clearly private dwellings. You can die on a hill of freedom to congregate for religious purposes if you will; it’s a good American thing, but don’t do it for any biblical reasons because there aren’t any. Just simply do church and Easter (Passover) at home. It was never meant to be a public spectacle, and rarely, if ever, occurred on Sunday. And for that matter, the Sabbath rarely occurred on Saturday which means the first day of the week wasn’t always Sunday either.

According to Leviticus chapter 23, the Sabbath was a “feast,” not a “time of worship.” Passover was on the 14th of Nissan which was the first month of the Jewish year. For some reason, this was a huge point of controversy between the ekklesias and the church established in Rome by the church fathers—Rome wanted the date of Easter recognized for Passover instead. And if my research is any indication, there is defiantly fire where you see smoke. Understanding this issue to a great degree (I have only scratched the surface) would lend gargantuan understanding of your Bible starting with the creation event in Genesis chapter one.

The next day, the 15th day, was a sabbath day and marked the first day of unleavened bread which was a yearly feast that took place with Passover. The seventh day of that feast (the 22nd day) was also a Sabbath. This follows the theory that the Sabbath days were on the 8th, 15th, 22, and 29th of every month. Regardless of what theory you prefer, the following point remains: these days on the present universal calendar would be different days every month. And again, the feasts were always family centered and not institution centered.

Correlating all of this with the death of Jesus would be an insightful study. The Passover was followed by unleavened bread and Pentecost which was about 49 days from unleavened bread. And by the way, the study IS rocket science, but would be well worth the effort.

A biblical day starts at evening and ends the next evening. Darkness came first, or at least was already present. “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” And, God didn’t rest on the seventh day because he was tired. It all means much more than what we realize.

 paul

“The death of Democrat Americans is necessary collateral damage to achieve the greater good: getting rid of Trump at all cost…Democrat celebrities have spoken openly and often about the insignificance of Republican lives, but we should consider the newly revealed democide of the Democrat Party.”

The Democrat Party has now taken its place in the infamous history of socialist and communist democide. The greatest example is China’s Great Leap Forward between 1958 and 1962 when the economic policy of that socialist movement killed between 18 and 45 million people.

Regarding the present Plaquenil (hydroxychloroquine) controversy concerning the medication’s use to fight the Coronavirus pandemic, the evidence is in, and it is overwhelming. Three parties are guilty of outright murder: doctors who have book knowledge and lack commonsense, the Democrat Party, and doctors who hold to collectivist ideology.  Little space will be used in this post to address doctors who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel (the first party) as they pretty much speak for themselves.

First, we will look at the overwhelming and obvious proof that (as everyone knows) Plaquenil is effective in curing Coronavirus and is also a prophylactic. Fact is, this drug is a weapon that could likely stop this pandemic in the United States dead in its tracks. As Dr. Stephen Smith, founder of The Smith Center for Infectious Diseases and Urban Health, said recently, “I think this is the beginning of the end of the pandemic. I’m very serious.”

Yet, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and on Trump’s C-19 team, said the following on Face the Nation last week: “You know, as I’ve said many times, Margarate, the data are really just at best suggestive. There have been cases that show there may be an effect and there are others to show there’s no effect. So I think in terms of science, I don’t think we could definitively say it works.”

That, my friends, is a blatant lie, and I strongly suspect that he knows it.

Now the evidence.

The firsthand testimonies, which are Innumerable and known thanks to the internet and conservative journalism, is where we will begin. I will cite the two most compelling testimonies, actually, stunning testimonies. First, the following excerpt is from USA Today:

A Democratic state representative from Detroit is crediting hydroxychloroquine — and Republican President Donald Trump who touted the drug — for saving her [life] in her battle with the coronavirus.

State Rep. Karen Whitsett, who learned Monday she has tested positive for COVID-19, said she started taking hydroxychloroquine on March 31, prescribed by her doctor, after both she and her husband sought treatment for a range of symptoms on March 18.

“It was less than two hours” before she started to feel relief, said Whitsett, who had experienced shortness of breath, swollen lymph nodes, and what felt like a sinus infection. She is still experiencing headaches, she said.

Whitsett said she was familiar with “the wonders” of hydroxychloroquine from an earlier bout with Lyme disease, but does not believe she would have thought to ask for it, or her doctor would have prescribed it, had Trump not been touting it as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

Trump, at his daily coronavirus briefings, has repeatedly touted the drug in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin, despite criticism from health professionals that it is unproven and potentially dangerous. There have also been complaints that Trump’s remarks have resulted in a shortage of the drug for those people who normally use it for its recommended purposes.

But Whitsett said Trump’s comments helped in her case. “It has a lot to do with the president … bringing it up,” Whitsett said. “He is the only person who has the power to make it a priority.”

Full stop. Come now, let’s employ a little commonsense. When Donald Trump says, “What do you have to lose,” he speaks wisdom that is self-evident to humanity. That’s what commonsense is. Even if there were only a handful of these testimonies, when people are on the precipice of death, they have absolutely nothing to lose. But, in reality, these testimonies are myriad. Folks, in the middle of a life and death crisis, there is something seriously wrong with those who will watch people die over the difference between “anecdotal” evidence and “long-term controlled studies.”

But, it gets better. Marc Siegel, a Fox News medical correspondent, columnist for several news outlets, including the New York Post and Forbes, and associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center, stated the following on last night’s Tucker Carlson show: “I want to tell you about a 96 year old man in Florida who said one night, ‘I don’t think I’m going to make it, I feel very weak, the end is coming. I’m coughing, I’m short of breath, I can’t get up from the couch.’ The next day he was on hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics per his cardiologist. He got up the next day; he was fine. This man is my father.”

That’s a stunning testimony from a celebrity doctor trusted by millions. But, hundreds like these two testimonies cited are pouring in daily. Would Siegel share this testimony if he thought it would give false hope? Very unlikely.

Even more compelling is the actual studies on this drug and its use for Coronavirus in particular. Another celebrity doctor who has been leading the charge on this is the heart surgeon Mehmet Oz. Though a controversial doctor according to some, the point here is the studies he is citing, not the consensus of opinions about him. On Fox and Friends 4/6/2020:

By the way, the word “anecdote” is used a lot — that is an incorrect description of where this medication is now. There’s no question it’s not proven to be beneficial in the large clinical trials we expect in America, and certainly the FDA and medical societies would desire. But these have been supported with case studies. I just got off the phone with Didier Raoult, who’s the well-respected French physician who’s done a lot of this work. Thousand series of patients — 1,000 patients in a row he’s treated, and he’s not published yet, he’s going to be published over the next two weeks. But he’s got seven people who have died, they were all older and had other co-morbidities, 20 people have gone to the ICU of that trial.

Now, it’s not a randomized trial, but that’s not anecdotal. The data from China we discussed last week for the first time on Fox & Friends also, pretty evident that it’s a randomized trial. That is the opposite, if I had to create an opposite of an anecdote. So when those words get thrown around and I saw us this morning in some of the papers, it’s an error on the part of journalists.

Doctors know that difference and they say you know what, I’ve got nothing else. I’m going into a battle, I’m going to march with the army with me. I’ve got randomized data and large case studies that support — it’s the best I’ve got and I’ve got, I’m estimating this, but Dr. Raoult, who was born in Africa, thinks there have been a billion prescriptions written for these products, and he’s stunned that there’s so much concern about side effects. Yes you have to screen for side effects; a doctor has to be involved. But all of this panic about how dangerous they suddenly became is surprising him.

Another doctor that Oz interviewed was even more forceful, saying that not using Plaquenil in the current crisis because there are no long-term controlled studies is, “immoral.” It’s truly amazing how the likes of Dr. Fauci think Americans will accept expertism beyond the scope of what’s reasonable, even to a child. Even more amazing is the stoic coldness in which he dismisses the data while thousands of people are dying daily. Something is very wrong with him.

Does Dr. Fauci lack so much commonsense that he sees no connection between human health and economics? Does he really think America can survive a one-year shutdown economically? No, he is not that stupid; he has an agenda.

Understanding Collectivism 

Whether religion or politics, your position is determined by you presuppositions about mankind. Is man able, or unable? Regarding the ability of man, this position acknowledges human weakness and even evil, but touts man’s ability to overcome these things. Belief in human ability is expressed through individualism.

In contrast, collectivism rejects mankind as able. It sees human existence as one, big, hot mess. Here is where you don’t want to get confused: in collectivism, wisdom is defined by knowing that. The wisest among us know that truth cannot be known; man is unable to discern reality.

Hence, the “experts” among us are educated in making the best of it. They are the ones who lead us through the darkness in order to make life the best it can be. This necessarily insists that mankind should give up all of its freedom to those who know that man cannot know reality. Those who refuse to believe this, and are arrogant enough to believe they can know reality, are a threat to all of humanity.

This is why we dare not question the experts. And, the American concept of self-rule is like letting children play with loaded guns. That’s what’s behind gun control: “For crying out loud, we can’t have millions of people carrying guns around! It will be the Wild West all over again and the hospitals will be overwhelmed with accidental shootings and all kinds of gun violence!” So, people should trust the government to protect us and only “trained law enforcement” should carry guns.

This concern among collectivists is genuine, but there is another reason. A well armed public is a huge problem for a collectivist government; a collectivist government (socialism, communism, etc.) cannot exist with a well armed public because it poses problems for tyrannical oppression of the great unwashed. Yes, they would concede, it’s a pity when criminals break into your house at night and you can’t defend yourself, but a worse problem is everyone being armed willy-nilly. Therefore, the few are expendable for the collective good, or the greater good. No, the fact they are surrounded by armed guards is not hypocrisy: they are the experts that the commoners depend on; of course we should protect them. Of course it is necessary for the experts to have a carbon footprint; they need to travel the world over to discuss how to save it from the great unwashed. The problem is the masses producing an unnecessarily large carbon footprint as a result of willy-nilly travel.

Collectivism is not the shepherd that leaves the 99 for the one lost lamb. The one lost lamb is expendable for the greater good of the other 99. Also, with collectivism, the highest moral value is altruism; that is, self sacrifice for the collective or greater good.

FYI, some doctors and nurses are collectivists also. Of course, they all take The Hippocratic Oath to abide by medical ethics, but the question is, does individualism or collectivism drive the ethic?

Vaccines are a great example of this. For whatever reason you like to cite, they are harmful to a small percentage of people. The medical community is very unmotivated to do anything about that. Why? They say it all of the time: “The benefits outweigh the risks.” Indeed, that is true, but this is also clearly saying that the few are expendable for the collective whole.

America is not based on pure individualism; yet, to the degree that it is, it has accomplished more good on earth than any nation before it. God’s ekklesia, not to be confused with the church, which by the way, was actually founded on collectivist ideology, is an example of pure individualism. The group is one body with individual members being part of the body and all contribute to the overall function of the body in some way. In the Bible, this is called the “body of Christ.” If a part of our body is ailing, we nurse it and care for it, we don’t kill it and go on our way. If we lose use of an arm, we don’t have it cut off because it is no longer useful. Why not? Well, because, obviously, it still has some sort of value.

This is the way individualism sees life. Life has value because it is life, not because of its ability to contribute something. But, with that said, individualism recognizes that what people have to contribute is not always obvious and may be hidden under things we take for granted and fail to think about. But regardless, life is sacred.

Be sure of this: “quality of life” is an euphemism for a person’s ability to contribute to the “collective good.” Or to be more crass, one’s ability to contribute to the state. Things like eldercare and “special needs” do not equate with collectivism. The exception is initially, during the transition of a culture from open society to socialism.

Collectivism will also show continual fondness for globalism. Vaccines are wonderful, but those behind a strong push for vaccines, like all healthcare professionals, knowingly or unknowingly, are either driven by collectivism or individualism. It would seem, given our present circumstances, that the argument against globalism is simple and discussion-ending: people in some cultures like to eat bats and house pets. In other cultures, people are romantically involved with other species. These behaviors, and other ill-advised behaviors, create pandemics that can utterly destroy entire nations. That is, unless you have universal vaccination that makes globalism possible. Keep in mind, in the same way that socialism is impossible without a ban on guns, globalism is impossible without a universal vaccination program. Too often, individualists think collectivists like vaccines for the same reasons.

Many are shocked at Dr. Fauci’s lackadaisical attitude towards shutting down the American economy for up to a year. Some Democrat strategists are calling for an eighteen month shutdown. This would forever change America’s standing in the world and wreak havoc on mortality rates in other ways. Fauci does not share Trump’s view that the cure can be worse than the disease. In fact, he seems totally indifferent to shutting down America in order to mitigate new cases to zero—however long it takes.

If Fauci is of the globalist mentality, this makes perfect sense. The significance of a single economy in the globalist scheme of things is relatively insignificant. In addition, Fauci’s criticism of the World Health Organization, even in light of its overt corruption, is always conspicuously missing. Obviously, Fauci has no emotional attachment to American exceptionalism whatsoever. Obviously, America is expendable for whatever he considers to be the collective good, which certainly couldn’t include individual American lives. More precious to him than the thought of Plaquenil saving one life out of fifty times it is tried is his coveted “long-term controlled studies.” If he isn’t a coldblooded collectivist, he at least functions like one.

The Democrat Party is much easier to read. Their only prayer of beating Trump in the November election is to destroy the Trump revolution earmarked by the best economy that America has ever seen.

A cure for Coronavirus means a limited economic shutdown. A limited economic shutdown will not destroy the Trump economy. Problem is, Democrats will also die. But, this you must understand: the death of their own for the better good equates with socialism and the collectivist ideology it is founded on. The death of Democrat Americans is necessary collateral damage to achieve the greater good: getting rid of Trump at all cost.

The cost of health during an economic depression is well known. Shutting down America for eighteen months will result in death rates that would far rival the Coronavirus pandemic. Everyone knows this, everyone. And, everyone knows that would include Democrats. Democrat celebrities have spoken openly and often about the insignificance of Republican lives, but we should consider the newly revealed democide of the Democrat Party.

It’s a socialist lie older than the mountains: the “People’s Republic of China” is a “republic” for the people. No, it’s a people whose value is determined by their ability to contribute to the state, and the people are expendable for every whim of social experiments. Oops, the Great Leap Forward didn’t work out, oh well, better luck next time. Millions of people died, and yet China clings to socialism because the ability of man and self-rule are impossible. That presupposition about mankind is excluded as a possibility. Worse yet, America came along and told everyone else in the world that they have been wrong since the beginning of civilization. The very existance of America is a constant indictment against world history and all of its preceding cultures.

And unfortunately, the Democrats agree with that. That is…

…the Democide Party.

paul

“You can state it that way, and the Bible does in a few places, but that is really just another way of stating what Christ really did. It’s not the whole story. What Christ really did, and understanding it, is key to having assurance of salvation. And by the way, as we shall see, church is no friend of that understanding.”

The Bible states that all fear comes from the fear of God’s judgement. So, people don’t fear death per se, they fear the judgement that comes afterward. This is the general, core principle, and we see it clearly in realty. ALL psychological problems, whether deemed medical or the product of bad thinking and doing, have an element of fear or paranoia. A person may be diagnosed as Bipolar, but anxiety will also be present…always.

Enter condemnation—condemnation is the consequence of God’s judgement. Those under God’s enviable judgement are also under condemnation. This word is very central to the discussion of a Christian’s assurance. If you are a Christian, and you lack assurance, it is because of condemnation. Where condemnation does not exist, 100% assurance of salvation is present. lack of assurance necessarily means condemnation has crept in.

Now comes the thesis of this post: condemnation is not yet completely vanquished by God; our fight for assurance is a fight against condemnation. While the Bible tells us that in reality, objectively, there is NOW…NO condemnation for those in Christ, condemnation can still harass us because death has not yet been vanquished by God. Death is still alive. The Bible states that it will be the last enemy defeated by God.

These are the basics, and lend understanding to God’s beautiful awe-inspiring plan of salvation. God’s plan of salvation is a logically consistent complex tapestry that employs all aspects of reality including individual identity, family, religion, and government. Any question of Bible doctrine is determined by how it fits with God’s true plan of salvation.

For example, is the Trinity a correct Bible doctrine? Yes, because it fits with how God transformed mankind from living creatures to being His very family members. Angels are living creatures created by God, and it can certainly be said that He loves them, but they aren’t family. No Trinity, no family. No family, no salvation. And by the way, this is family in the literal sense. Can I make a logical argument for the Trinity? Yes, it is efficacious for becoming part of God’s family and becoming part of God’s family is synonymous with being saved.

God is a Father and the words He speaks are life. His words are His seed, the seed of life. God came to man with Promises, and those who believe those promises and embrace them as their identity are fallen upon by the Holy Sprit and God’s word (His seed) is infused into them. This results in a love for God’s truth. This results in holding God true and every man a liar. This is true of the father of our faith, Abraham, and is true for us just the same. We are saved by believing God’s promises, and nothing else.

God made a promise to Abraham AND “the seed,” Christ. To Abraham, God promised that He would make Abraham a great nation that included Jews and Gentiles as one metaphysical body. He promised Abraham that the nation would dwell in a city built by God where pure righteousness will dwell. We and our father of faith look for that city. It is the hope of things not presently seen because we believe God’s promises. Yet, that hope forms how we live presently.

To the seed, Christ, also, “the Word” because He is, “the seed,” He promised the following: He would die for the sins of mankind, and would not be left to corruption in the grave. God, through the Spirit, would resurrect Him from the grave, and establish the new birth. Those who believe the promise are fallen upon by the Spirit and die with Christ, and are resurrected with Him, and thereby become heirs of the promises and the commonwealth of Israel.

“Heir” is another key word here. “a person legally entitled to the property or rank of another on that person’s death.” You see, it is not technically correct to say that Christ died for our sins. You can state it that way, and the Bible does in a few places, but that is just another way of stating what Christ really did. It’s not the whole story. What Christ really did, and understanding it, is key to having assurance of salvation. And by the way, as we shall see, church is no friend of that understanding.

The Old Testament is a will. A will is not executed until there is a death. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises. That’s what makes the New Covenant “better” while the Old Covenant is “passing away.” Christ died to END that covenant and fulfill its promises. let’s look at the Old Covenant will.

The Old Covenant will was administered by Angels on Mount Sinai. It was deliberately instituted about 400 years after God’s promises to Abraham and Christ because salvation is by the promises and not the law. The law was instituted by God to increase condemnation. The apostle Paul said it was instituted to “increase sin,” but that’s another way of saying the same thing; an increase of sin leads to increased condemnation which leads to increased fear of death because death has to do with God’s judgement. A review of all the events at Mount Sinai puts an explanation mark on that point.

However, the law, or the will, also offered life. The law also offered instruction on how to love God with all of your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as well. This was the gospel of Moses under the will: “I put before you on this day death and life, choose life.” Meanwhile, as a believer in the promises and therefore infused with the seed of God, ALL of your sins were imputed to the will. In this way, it was said that you were “captive” to the will because all of your sins against the law were held captive by the law. “All sin is transgression against the law.” The will was said to be a “protector” against sin’s condemnation until Christ came.

Accordingly, all the believers under the will were held captive in a place called “sheol” until Christ died. When Christ fulfilled that promise, “he ascended on high, he led captive a host of captives, and gave gifts to men.” Those gifts were poured out on the ekklesia (“called out assembly”), and made Jews and Gentiles one body with Christ as the head. This was part of the promises made to Abraham and Christ.

Here is the important part: Christ’s death fulfilled the will, but also by fulfilling it, ended it. And since all sin was imputed to the will, sin is no longer merely covered by the law by way of imputation, sin is ended. “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” Why would the Bible say that? Death is a sting because of sin’s condemnation, and the law condemns. If you are an heir to a will, and the testator dies, that will is fulfilled, you receive the goodies, and the former will no longer applies to you.

However, remember, the will is “passing away” and for believers has been replaced with “better promises.” That is, those that have been received. In this way, the will, is a “ministry of death.” That’s because the Sprit still uses it to “convict the world of sin and the judgment to come.” Sin→condemnation→fear→hopelessness→death→judgement all go together. The bible calls this sequence, “under law.”

ALL sin is still imputed to the “ministry of death” as an objective criteria for the question of sin and condemnation: if the ministry of the will has been ended for you, that is, to increase condemnation to compel you to flee to Christ,  there is no condemnation because for you, the will has been fulfilled by Christ. This doesn’t make the Old Testament will any different than any other will except the volume of heirs. If you discover that you are an heir long after the death of the testator, you are still entitled to the inheritance.

Are all people born into the world under the old will? Well, are all born “under law”? Are all born “under sin”? Well, then all are heirs of the Old Testament will. Sadly, some understand that they are in God’s will and do not care to contact their attorney in order to collect the inheritance. “How will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation.” Literally, God sees all of this as a rejection of what He has offered as “something to be despised and trampled underfoot.” Interestingly enough, in the Bible, the promises are said to be to those who are “near” (Jews) and those “far away” (Gentiles). To the “invited guests” (Jews) and whoever you find to fill the wedding banquet hall (Gentiles).

Those who want to collect on God’s inheritance by believing the promises are said to be “under grace.” This is better understood as, “under love.” This is because under law and under love are two totally different state of beings. “Grace,” is defined as God’s love in action. In every place you see the word, “grace” in the Bible, you can replace it with the word, “love” and it will make perfect sense in the context of the sentence. Salvation was the ultimate grace and act of love, and believers partake in grace as well. To always interpret the word “grace” as a salvation event is a serious interpretive misstep.

When you are under grace, what you know about the law should be the foundation of your assurance. Death means you will see God, but it also means you will see your literal Father who has no law for which to judge you. And if He has no law, there is no condemnation. The old you that was under sin, the law, condemnation, and judgement, died with Christ; you now stand before your literal Father—no father worth his salt condemns his children; in fact, the Bible says NO loving father does.

Instead, we are told that we will be judged based on how we built upon the foundation of our faith. Some sort of rewards will be given accordingly, and our efforts that fall short (“wood, hay, and stubble”) will be consumed with fire. Note that wood and hay are not worthless materials by any stretch of the imagination; I think eternal value is the issue. You may make a beautiful piece of furniture out of wood for someone who otherwise could not afford it. The wood will pass away, but not the act of love that made the furniture; that’s eternal.

That brings us to the subject of love. The practice of a Christian has not changed: as under the old will, we obey love and life; our faith works through love. It’s an altogether different state of being: faith→word→love→courage→joy→life→eternal reward. As 1st John states, “perfect love casts out fear because fear has to do with judgment.” As children of God, we can experience the loving chastisement doled out by real fathers who don’t condemn their children and provoke them to wrath, but we are never subject to a condemning judgment by the law. Hence, “where there is no law there is no sin.”

Nevertheless, the Christian is still harassed by condemnation. The Devil, sin, and religion, all wage war against the Christian with condemnation. To the degree that these attacks are successful, the Christian will lack assurance. For certain, if a Christian misunderstands the relationship of the law to the new birth and does not understand the covenants, their assurance will be a hot mess and their sanctification woefully anemic. A Christian who is sure of their salvation will lead a powerful life. This is not to be confused with religionists who base their assurance on a false hope.

Assurance is based on the right gospel, the right knowledge, and practicing love that displaces fear. The law is fulfilled by love.

Church orthodoxy is predicated on the “Christian” remaining under the law and its subsequent condemnation. Church orthodoxy has a single perspective on the law. That means the following: when a Christian does a good work, or an act of love, if you will, they have no way of knowing what their motives are. “Am I doing this to justify myself before God, or am I doing it strictly out of love?” If there is only one relationship to the law, condemnation is always running in the background and it is impossible to discern motives. This is why the church doctrine of double imputation states that Christ obeys the law for us and thereby excludes the possibility of practicing love through the law.

In contrast, a Christian can always know their motives if they understand that being under law is a different relationship to the law than being under grace. While under grace, it is impossible to justify yourself with the law. This is because the true Christian knows they are justified by believing in the promises of God and the law can justify no one, nor can it give life. That’s why Christ did NOT live a perfect life so that a perfect law-keeping  life could be imputed to the Christian life. The law is not the basis of righteousness to begin with nor can it give life. The law can only condemn, and we are no longer under its jurisdiction.

All that’s left is the possibly of loving while there is NOW…NO condemnation. The true Christian understands that the new birth is a demarcation between two different persons that are under two different jurisdictions and two different relationships to the law. One is dead and no longer subject to the written code; one was enslaved to sin, and the new person is enslaved to righteousness. Those who are enslaved to righteousness are free from the condemnation of the law.

Hence, the Christian is free to aggressively love God and others through knowledge of the law with no fear of condemnation or concern that they have ill motives. In fact, the apostle Paul told us to outdo each other with love! In other words, try to be better than other Christians in regard to loving God and others.

Church orthodoxy opens the door wide for condemnation. Under law and under grace are not two different relationships to the law according to orthodoxy, but under grace is a covering for remaining under law. If under law is not completely vanquished, there is no real biblical new birth. If law and justification are not mutually exclusive, all remain enslaved to sin and its condemnation under the law. Clearly, church orthodoxy says so-called Christians are under both; this is not true, you are 100% one or the other. Under grace is not a covering for remaining under law. And if you function according to that ritualistic system, condemnation will have a strong foothold.

Unfortunately, since church orthodoxy keeps all people under law, which is central to its double imputation soteriology, many look to church commitment for assurance. Being committed to church and patted on the head by pastors and elders give many a false sense of security. Apart from church ritual, actually referred to as “church ordinance” and “the sacraments,” their assurance would be shattered. Others are condemned by the weekly preaching and seek relief from church sacraments. The condemnation leads them back to Christ, supposedly, which leads them to live a “lifestyle of repentance” by returning to the cross (“ordinary means of grace”) for more Jesus. For those supposedly not under condemnation, weekly preaching is very condemning. The complete absence of condemnation makes church orthodoxy impossible while the doctrine of double imputation depends on it. One must remain under the law’s condemnation for perpetual pardon through Christ found only in the church.

A proper view of justification will also answer all other types of theological questions. Is there more than one resurrection and judgment? Yes, because we know at least one resurrection involves plenary condemnation, so that resurrection cannot include Christians. There are many more examples.

The Christian’s level of assurance is directly related to condemnation. When a Christian is experiencing lack of assurance, condemnation is present and active in some way. Condemnation always fills a void where love is lacking, will definitely seize the opportunity to pounce when a Christian’s behavior is unbecoming, and will have success always in error concerning the gospel and its relationship to the law.

paul

I will start this post by sinning with sinful thoughts. I live in Ohio and am following the Coronavirus pandemic closely with my own research. However, thinking for myself and not relying totally on the new experts of our day, medical bureaucrats, is not the initiatory sin I speak of in my arsenal of total depravity, which all commoners are endowed with.

Ohio Department of Health Director Dr. Amy Acton is predicting a surge in Ohio that will see at least 6000 new cases a day, and perhaps as many as 10,000, by April 15th. The sinful thought follows: percentage of increase has leveled off in the past five days (18%, 17%, 14%, 16%, 14%) leading one to ask the unthinkable: Has Ohio already flattened the curve? Yes, we realize the numbers are, in reality, much higher, but we are talking about the consistent rule being used to measure percentage of increase. Has a leveling off occurred? We don’t know for certain, but the point here follows: to even hope for that based on objective criteria is sin. It is the cardinal sin of “false hope.”

By the way, that notion, in and of itself, redefines “hope” which are things that have not happened yet. Have you ever noticed that experts get a pass when they are wrong about projections that strip people of hope? If people have “false hope” bad things can happen, but somehow, false alarmism has no consequences. Where’s the balance?

Regardless of the math, one must not be tempted to blaspheme with such a question. If such pandemics are so easily defeated, what do we need Dr. Amy Action for? Furthermore, in all of this, we also see how precious the medical hierarchy is; even doctors are frowned upon if they question the unction of the medical bureaucrats from on high.

Of course, I speak of medical doctors clamoring about the dramatic results they are experiencing by treating people with hydroxychloroquine. Unfortunately, some underling doctor was chewing on a ham sandwich and it invoked a thought, which led him to grab a bottle of the 70 year old drug, dust off the bottle, and give it a try. On that day, a day that will live in infamy, the medical bureaucracy has been threatened.

Indeed, regardless of the dramatic results, the medical bureaucrats have denounced the proclamations of the doctors as “anecdotal” and not the result of “controlled studies.” Some sort of result without “control”? Oh my, we can’t have that!

Dr. Stephen Smith, founder of The Smith Center for Infectious Diseases and Urban Health, said on “The Ingraham Angle” on Wednesday night that he is optimistic about the use of antimalarial medications and antibiotics to treat COVID-19 patients, calling it “a game-changer.”

“I think this is the beginning of the end of the pandemic. I’m very serious,” Smith, an infectious disease specialist, told host Laura Ingraham.

Reports like this from frontline doctors have been pouring in, while large pharmaceutical companies have offered to donate millions of doses. The bottom line is this: the fight with Coronavirus should be a first round knockout, but the fight is being dragged out to additional rounds for purely political reasons. Just yesterday, it was discovered that massive stockpiles of N95 masks are being sold overseas resulting in skyrocketing infections of American healthcare workers.

Coronavirus has been described as this generation’s WWII, and I fully understand the Greatest Generation dismissing that as ridiculous, but there is some truth to it. Opinions about severity aside, the pandemic is being used to take America down by insiders and outside enemies.

Why is America hated by both? It is the first nation in history to be driven by individualism and not collectivism. And by the way, if our children were educated to know the difference, there wouldn’t be a Democrat party. The basis of all reality is presuppositions about mankind and all actions are driven by those presuppositions. This is the ability of mankind versus the inability of mankind.

Those who argue that this makes man the center of the universe instead of God then proceed to tell you what God says about mankind. And, whatever that presupposition is drives everything. And, watch, those who advocate God-centrality ALWAYS preface that with those who supposedly rule for God on earth. In past history, there have been those who said, “Oh yes, I believe in God-centrality and that’s why I answer to Him and not you.” Many were burned  alive on a stake accordingly. There is only one thing worse than not being obedient to God, being disobedient to his so-called “anointed” authorities.

People who hold to collectivism don’t always employ the name of God but some other superior power that they represent such as Mother Nature etc. Recently, a British royal stated that Coronavirus is Mother Nature punishing mankind by sending us to our rooms. Church claims that it is a judgment from God for not doing what the church says. But, in all, the issue is what some authority says God said.

At least in America you have the freedom to be appointed by God; just go to seminary or a liberal university and obtain a degree. It also gives you authority to speak for the state, Mother Nature, or another authority of your choosing.

“The Fall,” something that is not in the Bible, at all, by the way, is a basic notion of philosophy in religion and the secular realm. Mankind is fallen, and degree of fall determines the metaphysical pecking order. This is why caste systems saturate human history. As Americans, because of our pedigree, we look back at history and find the deification of kings and emperors bizarre, but those practices are the direct result of collectivist ideologies. Japan in the 1940’s is a contemporary example. Today, not so much as the last emperor of Japan unwittingly ordered two servings of a nuclear bomb.

America was not founded on perfect individualism, and therefore, there is a caste system, but it is based on individualism to the point that one’s position in the caste system can be earned. In other words, caste is based on upward mobility and not predeterminism of some sort. What you bring to the table as an individual determines your place in the caste system; not what family you were born into or other things. And of course, there is communism that considers the state to be the supreme power of authority. In socialism, the sole purpose of the individual is to produce for the state and one’s ability to do so determines their human value.

Those who believe in human ability will want more freedom and less government; those who believe in human inability will be afraid and look to the government as a protective parent that replaces the parents that raised them. Those who believe in human inability will see individualism as a direct threat to their wellbeing. This is where the hate comes in; you are burning their safety net with your self-reliant arrogance. People often remain in abusive relationships because they believe their abusers: “You couldn’t survive without me.” This is the same kind of unhealthy relationships people have with governments.

Herein is the problem for collectivists: the American idea has survived for too long and proved too much; hence, individualism can not be beaten with contrary ideas. It must be completely burned down with the hopes that collectivism will rise from the ashes.

Capitalism and open markets have always funded individualism and always will. Socialism, the economic engine of collectivism, insists that the economy supports the state first and whatever the commoners have left should only support their ability to serve the state. That might mean little more than three meals a day if you are lucky. Anything more than that is “selfish consumerism.” The sole purpose of any individual is to support the state and this determines the individual’s sole value as a person. Collectivists are ok with this because they get a safety net in return, that is, supposedly. A cursory view of history reveals the folly of that misinformation. At any rate, socialism is marked by the promise of “free” necessities in return for appointed work. Foolish collectivists think they can have any job they desire with the payment being free necessities. People have fallen for this ploy over and over again throughout history.

While it is true that Coronavirus is a real pandemic, it is clearly being used by many in an attempt to burn down American capitalism resulting in the rise of a collectivist safety net. In addition, while the economic system of collectivism is socialism, the politic is globalism. If the present containment policies continue, America’s GNP will be cut in half resulting in forced dependence on other countries. That’s the collectivist end-game.

Take note, what is going on with this pandemic is a real and present threat to American capitalism. And, no capitalism equals no representative republic. It may not be WWII, but it is the closest to a like struggle that we have ever had since.

With all of this said, here is some shameful hope that plunges the depths of total depravity: Donald Trump is a master of international finances and a consummate individualist. This is why he is so despised: for the collectivists, he is the worst possible person to be in charge at this time of grand opportunity presented by a pandemic. Democrats wake up every morning obsessed with defeating individualism and obtaining their goal of collectivist globalism, which always promises utopia, and delivers medieval suffering instead.

Simply stated, I cannot see Donald Trump letting the above happen on his watch. I cannot see him allowing his accomplishments of the past three years slip away. With that said, EVERY aspect of this pandemic speaks to his America first policies. If he guides us through this and the economy rebounds, the I told you so list is going to be a deathblow to the Democrat party. Trump will control the Whitehouse, Congress, and the Senate.

Let us sin boldly in hoping so.

paul