The Time of Decision is Near: Are You With God or the Church?
On the one hand being very busy right now, and on the other hand being sent article links of what’s trending and personal emails of interest, I have decided to write a post here that speaks to all subjects. Article one is this piece by Answers in Genesis aka Ken Ham. The next is this one promoting the idea that church membership is efficacious for salvation. The third is this one here which is indicative of massive concern of late among evangelicals that Marxism is taking over the church. And of course, everything President Trump that is constantly dominating the news feeds. And lastly, an email that I received this morning.
By the way, thanks to all for keeping me in the loop as I have a lot going on right now and little time to serf the net.
As predicted some time ago by this ministry, the church crazy train, by virtue of its gospel and history, will continue to race down the track at faster and faster speeds. For those left in the church still able to think for themselves, the time of decision is looking to be near. Will you capitulate to the authority of men, or be a Hebrews 11 believer? Will you have courage and believe that your true reward is in heaven, or will you continue to be a cowardly lazy servant who will return to the Lord only what was originally given when He returns? You know, the same gospel that saved you originally lest you have a “righteousness of your own.”
Don’t be like John MacArthur Jr. who was confronted with this decision in circa 2008. He had a choice: the Protestant gospel of progressive justification via a bunch of dead Gnostics, or the truth; he chose the former—too much to lose otherwise. Sadly, had he chosen the latter, I believe he could have changed church history. He screwed up big-time, and lost an opportunity to impact Christianity just short of the Apostles. He clearly chose the traditions of men instead of God’s truth. I believe the following; had he stood up and said, “Through the admonition of several notable church leaders responding to my book, ‘The Gospel According to Jesus,’ I now see clearly what the Reformers really believed, and though their persuasion is for the affirmative, I must reject it with prejudice. We have it wrong and must change how we see the truth and how we apply it.” I believe many, if not more than ever, would have followed his leading.
That which is presently trending would have been rejected out of hand by the vast majority of churchians 10 to 20 years ago. But again, when authority is truth, the latter takes a backseat to what the academics say. In other words, when it gets right down to it, anything the academics say goes, and this will continue at breakneck speed. And dear discernment bloggers, there is no saving the church; give it up. It was run of the mill tyranny in the beginning until tempered by the American Revolution, but will most certainly return to its basic roots which is what we are witnessing in our day. In regard to what we see trending today, where will it end up? Read the book of Revelation; it’s all there.
First, know this: you cannot separate politics from church because church has always been a political party. Remember this, the John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion is a political/philosophical document written to the King of France. Remember this, the Pilgrims, who were Puritans, who were Calvinists, came to this country as political refugees, not the boloney you hear about risking life and limb for religious freedom. The Puritan Calvinists thought they could do church-state better than the Church of England, so they set sail to where they could have the freedom to do church-state better, or so they thought. Your first clue should be that the American colonies were a full-blown theocracy modeled after Calvin’s Geneva fraught with a religious caste system not even rivaled by Hinduism. In fact, Puritan rule of the colonies was probably the match that set fire to the American Revolution.
Hence, Ken Ham, in his article, takes separation of church and state totally out of context. The true context follows: America was the first non-church-state government in the history of the world. That’s the context. Before America, religion and government always ruled over the great unwashed together. On the one hand, church leaders say they don’t want an American theocracy, but on the other hand they say, “God’s law is higher than man’s law.” Why did I pull my son out of “Christian” school? I didn’t want to pay for the Bible classes that are predicated on progressive justification and the false gospel of justification by faith. I didn’t tell the counselor that, but said, “We teach our boys the Bible at home.” The counselor’s response? “These classes are mandatory because the average Christian is not qualified to teach the Bible at home.” At that point, the meeting was over and I told her why.
Article 2 is merely good ole fashioned Protestant orthodoxy, viz, salvation is progressive through submission to church authority. In the article, the author uses Bible terms that refer to Christians as, a family, a body, a priesthood, ect. to make his point, but the church is an institution and is none of those things, especially a family. Like any other institution, when you are there you are called family, but that’s as far as it goes. And an institution is not a body nor does it operate like one. He refers to meeting together for “accountability” and cites the go-to verse for that in Hebrews, but that verse says nothing about “accountability” but only “encouraging each other unto good works” which the church denies we can do to begin with. And of course, our intelligence is completely offended by the “there is no perfect church” mantra. Hello, NO church has ever separated itself from ANY denomination, or even withheld funds in the face of cover-ups for kidnapping, child rape, murder, embezzlement, and obstruction of justice. If you go to church, you are putting your children at risk with no legal recourse. No perfect church indeed. In truth, going to church denies the new birth which speaks to, at least, individual ability through new creaturehood.
Thirdly, the church’s Total Inability of Man doctrine necessarily requires a Marxist political solution. When Americanism broke up the marriage between church and state, Communism filled the void. The introduction of Communism in the historical timeline is no accident or mere happenstance. Total Inability is a core ideology of the church and Communism and a strong primer for the two to be intimate. Hence, while Susan was surprised to hear about professors at Cedarville University voting for Obama at a dinner party we went to, I really wasn’t surprised at all. While there may be many disagreements between church and Communism, the core value is belief in man’s total inability.
Fourth, this is why the entire political apparatus is against Trump who is a populous movement in and of himself. He believes in the ability of the individual. He wants to empower dumb hicks who like to hunt and drink beer. This is not going over well. Why, in the face of proven history, are Democrats against tax cuts? It makes no sense, right? But remember, money empowers people. That’s what it is all about. In everything, follow the money, but also follow the presuppositions concerning mankind. In both cases, government and religion are always in bed together.
Lastly, a trend I have seen for a long time, but never commented on, and was brought to my attention once again in an email I received this morning. While parishioners are proud to be under the authority of “godly men,” and not Christ, it’s funny how they think they have authority over the unchurched because they are higher in the caste system among the great unwashed. A friend of mine shared, in the email, how she was lectured and demeaned for not being a churchian. When churchians comment here at PPT, they don’t offer a counter-argument based on the points made in any given article, but merely argue from a position of authority. In other words, because they go to church and you don’t, their opinion supposedly has authority over your conscience. So, you could also say that this is an argument between those who have clearly relegated their conscience to the authority of men versus those who have kept their own conscience and insist on being persuaded with the truth.
This is all coming to a head more and more, and decision time for many. My advice is to cut your loses and return to a true Christian fellowship that is the true family of God and functions like a real body.
paul
Preaching the Gospel to Ourselves: The Devil is in the Details
Originally published April 17, 2013
After nearly six years of research on the Reformation I have come to the conclusion that like all cults, its proponents deliberately deceive by changing the definition of familiar terms and using subtle verbiage. They condone this because they don’t think we are “ready” for the hard truth of the authentic Reformed gospel. John Piper said that outright during an interview while answering the question, “What would you say to the Pope if you had two minutes with him?”
A good example of this subtle deception is a recent article posted on SBC Voices. Here it is:
If you search through the blogosphere, you’ll see some who advocate Christians “preaching the gospel to ourselves” daily, and you’ll see others who are staunchly against “preaching the gospel to themselves.” I think some who speak against “preaching the gospel to ourselves” misunderstand and/or misrepresent what we mean. Here is why I preach the gospel to myself. Out of the gospel flows both justification (being declared righteous by Christ alone) and sanctification (the immediate positional adoption by Christ into God’s kingdom, and the progressive setting apart of our lives from the Devil’s kingdom into God’s kingdom). The gospel is the source of both, but the two are separate acts of the Spirit’s work in our lives. If you repent and have faith in Christ, trusting in His life, death, and resurrection for your salvation, you are immediately justified and sanctified, and you will be progressively sanctified as God works out salvation in you. Christ, the gospel, is the source of the Spirit’s work through faith alone.
This is a little less subtle than what followed in the same article, but the goal by the writer of said post is to sound biblical while trying to sell us Calvin’s progressive justification. The Devil is in the details. Like all cults, Calvinism distorts the Trinity by overemphasizing one member over the others. The Jehovah Witnesses overemphasize God the Father and destroy the role of Christ while others overemphasize the Spirit’s work to the exclusion of Christ and the Father. Calvinists overemphasize Christ and exclude the Father’s role in justification. Notice he states that Christ is THE gospel: “Christ, the gospel.” The definite article “the” is ever so subtle, and completely untrue. The Trinity is the gospel, not just Christ. Notice that he also states,
If you repent and have faith in Christ, trusting in His life, death, and resurrection for your salvation, you are immediately justified and sanctified, and you will be progressively sanctified as God works out salvation in you.
According to the post, we have to trust “in His life” as well as His death for our salvation. Did you catch that little subtle statement? That is the belief that Christ lived a perfect life on earth so that His obedience can be imputed to our sanctification while we are justified by His death. This comes from Calvin who believed that Christians are still under the jurisdiction of the law and it must be obeyed perfectly until we get to heaven where our final justification is verified. As long as we live by faith alone in sanctification, Christ’s perfect obedience is applied to our sanctification which prevents “making sanctification the ground of our justification,” a truism often uttered by John Piper.
This is where all of this living by the same gospel that saved us and preaching the gospel to ourselves comes into play. If we live by the same gospel (faith and repentance only) that saved us in sanctification to prevent our sanctification from being the ground of our justification, the perfect obedience of Christ to the law will continue to be imputed to our Christian walk. This promotes the idea that it is alright for Christians to remain under the law as long as Christ keeps it for us. This is why they say justification is “distinct” from sanctification but “never separate” because Calvin saw sanctification as a process that completes justification. That’s a VERY problematic gospel. Note:
Christ, the gospel, is the source of the Spirit’s work through faith alone.
The Spirit’s work? Is he talking about the Spirit’s work in justification or sanctification? Yes, because they believe they are both the same. And here is the kicker: if you don’t live your Christian life by faith alone (the same gospel that saved you) resulting in Christ’s obedience being imputed to your sanctification, you lose both justification and sanctification. So, you have to keep your salvation by living by faith alone in sanctification. Remember, you have to trust in Christ’s life, not just His death and resurrection. Note the following statement by New Calvinist Michael Horton:
Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.
Much more could be said, but I think you get the picture. The author of the post furthers his position by referring his readers to seven elements pertaining to the same subject by a Rick Phillips. Phillips is much more subtle, but his first element reads as follows:
1. Justification and Sanctification are twin benefits that flow from union with Christ through faith. Christ is himself the center of the gospel, and through faith we are saved in union with him (Acts 16:31; Eph. 1:3). Justification and Sanctification are distinct benefits flowing through union with Christ by faith alone.
Regardless of whatever else these guys say, this is the bottom line: if we remain in union with Christ by faith alone, justification and sanctification continue to flow by “faith alone.” What did James say about that? John Piper:
We are kept by the power of God through faith [emphasis mine].
It’s works salvation by living by faith alone in sanctification; i.e., the same antinomianism they claim to refute. Because we are supposedly still under the law, Christ must keep it for us so His perfect obedience to the law will cover us at the judgment day. But the only obedience of Christ that is part of the atonement is His obedience to the cross—we don’t need obedience to a law that we were justified apart from. We are now enslaved to the law and its righteousness, but it can’t judge our justification. It has no jurisdiction over our justification, period.
The Devil is in the details.
paul
1 comment