Paul's Passing Thoughts

“We can add another practical question to the conversation: As a visitor to a new church, will you now be scrutinized by volunteer “security” people packing a Glock that they practice with 50 hours a year? When you reach for that tithe in your coat pocket, should you do so very slowly?”

Another church shooting  occurred in Texas yesterday, but with a new twist: armed parishioners took the guy out in about six seconds. If you watch the videos closely, some of the armed parishioners were already preparing to draw before the guy even stood up and started shooting. That’s because the guy was obviously creepy and wearing some sort of baggy trench coat and a weird looking hoody. I don’t go to church, but if I did, I would defiantly carry, and if I was there, would have taken up a position on the guy for readiness purposes. The guy had “active shooter” written all over him.

This is just another problem with institutional purpose builds that are places of “worship.” First of all, if you are a Christian, ALL of life is worship at all times and in all places. A purpose build where you go to “worship” at a particular place and time detracts from that truth. Secondly, if the church is “the people and not the building,” why all of the vast investment in infrastructure?

Because churches are public institutional buildings, anyone can walk in from the street during a “worship service.” They are referred to as “visitors.” Armed volunteer security can prevent a massacre, but a visitor with ill intent is always going to have the element of surprise. Even in this case where the guy was a walking billboard with “trouble” written all over it, two parishioners died.

Christian gatherings, that is, biblically speaking, were never for evangelizing. In fact, purpose builds are closely related to a false gospel that conflates justification and sanctification. Christian gatherings for “prayer, the breaking of bread, and teaching of doctrine,” were/are NOT for evangelizing. Christian gatherings are for sanctification and sanctification only.

Hence, real Christianity functions very much like a literal family and not an institution. Anyone coming to a home fellowship meeting is going to be familiar and known to those gathering together. Each home fellowship should decide for themselves if they want to invite curious seekers.

Institutional Christianity that requires a central meeting place where its authorities operate have myriads of other problems. To name a few more, in countries where Christians are persecuted; for example, in Muslim countries, Christians insist on gathering together in purpose builds at a particular time and place to make their slaughter more convenient. Why would they do that, and spend good money for the privilege? Answer: because church doctrine makes gathering together in a purpose build efficacious to the church’s salvation process. Church soteriology calls for submission to church authority as part of the salvation process, and infrastructure speaks to that authority.

Moreover, the church build model doesn’t work everywhere and in every cultural circumstance. Many cultures do not have an economic system that will support institutional buildings. In many countries, such builds are illegal unless approved by the government on a case by case consideration. In China, only the state church is allowed to have institutional buildings. This was also the case in the Roman Empire during the 1st century. That’s why Christ’s called-out assembly was primarily made up of home fellowships.

Also, last week, you may of heard of the stabbing attack on a gathering of Jews at a Rabbi’s house. The news stories also referred to a “synagogue” that was near by. Though thought of as a purpose build for worship, the Hebrew word is the Greek version of “ekklesia” translated as “church” in the English Bible. The idea of both words is a “congregation” or “assembly,” or more with the Hebrew version, “house of gathering.” In Jewish tradition, synagogues were primarily family homes where Jews gathered and that is also true today as can be noted by the news story. True, the attack illustrates that such violence can also happen at a home fellowship, but for the aforementioned reasons, very, very unlikely, especially if home fellowships take precautions. Private homes do not lend free access to whoever wants to walk in for any given reason; you just don’t walk into someone’s home uninvited.

In addition, if a home fellowship is aiding someone in a domestic violence situation, everyone in the fellowship is going to know and precautions can be taken. In contrast, when churches are involved in such situations the congregation is not aware for the most part. These are volatile situations, especially when the church is counseling a spouse to divorce her violent husband and maybe even paying for the divorce. This is a tragedy waiting to happen and puts the whole congregation at risk unawares.

We can add another practical question to the conversation: As a visitor to a new church, will you now be scrutinized by volunteer “security” people packing a Glock that they practice with 50 hours a year? When you reach for that tithe in your coat pocket, should you do so very slowly?

A book with many chapters could easily be written on the dysfunctionality of the institutional church system that flows from the false gospel of progressive salvation. Hopefully, people will give this issue more thought as this illogical system collides with real-life reality.

paul

“Get it? Church membership is a ‘means of salvation.'”

I received a solicitation for a donation to The Gospel Coalition this morning by email. Why their false gospel is false is explicitly stated in the email:

” In the waning hours of the decade, we at The Gospel Coalition rejoice at how God has used our ministry over the last 10 years—serving more than 130 million people with thousands of free digital resources to help them grasp the gospel and apply it to all of life.
Our mandate for the next decade is clear. As the internet grows darker, and the search bar becomes ever more a spiritual battleground, ministries like ours must be steadfast in our mission to offer gospel-centered hope for the searching.

If you have read our articles, attended our events, or supported TGC in any way over the last decade, thank you. A coalition cannot exist without its stakeholders, and our impact thus far could not have happened without you. As we look to the next decade, we need your support more than ever before. We are seeking to raise $100,000 by year’s end to propel our Hope for the Searching campaign in 2020 and beyond.”

Simply stated, the TGC gospel makes salvation a PROCESS and not a onetime finished work by God alone for eternity. If salvation is a process and you are living in that process, you, in same way, must be a part of that process; that enters human activity into salvation and that’s works salvation in all cases.

The email was sent by false teacher and president of TGC, Don Carson. Like with all TGC double-speaking liars, “salvation” is replaced with the word “gospel” for purposes of nuance and deliberate deception. Hence, here is what is really being said: “…free digital resources to help them grasp the gospel salvation and apply it to all of life.” Note that we must apply salvation to our whole life. Maybe you have heard it stated this way: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” It is, as Carson also writes, “gospel-centered hope.”

We are not sanctified by salvation—salvation is finished by God in your life apart from anything you do or don’t do with intentionality. This is a fact IF you believe the true gospel of justification by new birth. Salvation (justification) is a completely finished work and totally separate from the Christian life (sanctification). Only sanctification progresses and depends on our activity apart from the finished work of salvation. Any doctrine that conflates the two is overtly false; TGC teaches a blatantly false gospel in broad daylight. One of their favorite truisms is, “Justification and sanctification are distinct, but never separate.” Of course, this is just more deliberate double-speak. In ALL instances where a soteriology does not completely separate justification and sanctification; justification by the law is present. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Furthermore, according to this false gospel, submission to the institutional church is needed to facilitate the salvation process. Church is where you access what they call, “the ordinary means of grace.” That’s really saying, “the ordinary means of salvation.” Get it? Church membership is a “means of salvation.”

Everyone knows what the word “means” means in that context, so the word “salvation” is deliberately replaced with the more ambiguous word, “gospel.” It’s deliberate deception.

paul

Don’t let all of the various and sundry stripes of Protestantism whether Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Charismatic confuse you; it is all a variation of Double Imputation soteriology. I was reminded of that when I stumbled upon the below (bottom of post) tweet by Joel Osteen which I responded to.

The problem here, once again, is Protestantism’s fundamental error concerning the new birth which totally distorts a true Christian understanding of reality and salvation. In Protestantism’s Double Imputation soteriology, everything boils down to a single perspective on how God sees us regardless of what’s really going on. Hence, the Charismatic side of the Double Imputation coin (Osteen et al) posits the following: because of what Jesus has done, God only sees His approval of Jesus when He looks at us. Think, “covering.” This circumvents a fatherly view of his child according to reality and makes everything about the fulfilling of the law by Jesus. As children of God, why make it “our goal to please him” when, supposedly, because of Jesus, He only sees approval to begin with? To make any effort to please Him would be circumventing the work of Jesus, no? This under-law thinking restricts our relationship with the Father to a yes/no question of perfect law-keeping accomplished by Jesus. Therefore, of course, Osteen is going to preach a don’t worry, be happy lifestyle that pleases us as anything we do to please others is circumventing the salvific works of Jesus.

On the other side of the Double Imputation coin, viz, Baptists etc., again, a true fatherly relationship with God is circumvented. According to this version, we are totally depraved spiritual losers but whenever God looks at us, again, He only sees Jesus. According to this construct, likewise, why try to please the Father when there is nothing we can do to please Him anyway? Indeed, “all of our works are as filthy rags.” God is not really our father, he is a god of wrath that would be please to devour us with fire in an instant if not for Jesus the god of grace.

One side states that we should live like God sees us so we will be happier and richer while the other side states that we should mortify self and find joy/gratitude in Christ’s grace. Both really boil down to the same thing from two different angles: our love for the Father through the wisdom of the law will be relaxed because of the same soteriology that supplies a double substitution: Jesus is a covering rather than a true brother to those who have been transformed from death to life as a state of being. It’s a true Fatherly relationship; we are eternally secure and loved by our Father, and because of that reality, just like our fatherly relationships in this life, our Father is not always going to approve of our actions. And, by the way, He may want us to have the approval of others in many circumstances because like true realty a child’s behavior reflects on the parents.

However, Osteen’s approach is a pushback to the other side of the coin which is why he is wildly popular. Everyone following him got sick of hearing what a loser they are Sunday after Sunday.

That’s the difference, but in both cases the true new birth and how it results in a true Fatherly relationship with God is missing.

paul