Paul's Passing Thoughts

Thank You for Going to the Concert

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on May 28, 2016

ppt-jpeg4The Protestant Reformers, for all practical purposes, made every verse in the Bible about justification. Hence, according to the primary interpretive hermeneutic of the Reformers, the Bible is not God’s statement about the multifaceted state of being, but rather what we call a “metaphysical narrative.” This is the idea that God controls everything perceived in reality as a story that pleases God only. Your reality is a prewritten experience for God’s glory only.

That may mean that your life will glorify God by you realizing how depraved you are, and thereby obtaining gratitude for God’s saving acts that are in the narrative. The more you understand your depravity, the more gratitude you have, and the more God is glorified. According to the Reformers, whatever happens in life is the metaphysical prewritten narrative, and the Bible is the handbook that guides us in interpreting the story. This is the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.

In Martin Luther’s doctrinal construct, this is the Theology of the Cross, or the “Cross Story.” All those who do not interpret their existence according to this worldview, according to Luther who is the father of the Reformation, are advocates of the “Glory Story.” In Martin Luther’s formal worldview, all of reality is divided between the Cross Story (the story of God for His glory) or the Glory Story (the story of man and his glory) with NO in-between objective reality. Those who are part of the Glory Story are predetermined by God as well and will suffer in eternal hell; likewise, for God’s glory and good pleasure.

This idea is what led evangelical “pastor” Steve Lawson to suggest that Christ Himself will personally torment people in hell forever. Protestantism, whether people will face it or not, is predicated on the idea that God is just as pleased with eternal torment as He is with eternal joy; BOTH bring Him glory. Ever perplexed by the goofy things that go on at the local Baptist church? However far removed from the primary premise, the behavior finds its roots in Reformed tradition; particularly the lack of wherewithal to deal with spiritual abuse.

This reality, no pun intended, is what makes articles like the one recently written by Dr. Albert Mohler egregiously disingenuous. In that article, Mohler bemoans Bible illiteracy among evangelicals. And of course, his kind of biblical prowess is the answer after Protestant academics have created the problem to begin with. There has been no movement ever in history that has made more money by creating misery and then presenting itself as the cure.

TANC ministries is focused on an interpretation of reality based on what God truly intends for it to be. This necessarily involves a focus on sanctification in the same way that Protestantism focuses on justification albeit an errant one. In the same way that a skewed understanding of sanctification distorts justification, a skewed view of justification makes Christian living a study in steroidal confusion. TANC has dedicated five years of research to justification, with a prior investment by me of three years totaling eight. The TANC assertion has always been that a proper understanding of justification is the key to understanding the deep waters of Christian living, viz, sanctification. This is now where TANC has redirected its focus; the time has come.

This new focus necessarily demands a plenary investment by all of God’s people without any caste mentality. Religious academia not only contributes little to the cause, it is an immanent threat to the testimony of Christ and the true gospel as unrevised history has well documented. The collective free and independent interpretation by Spirit-filled Christians is essential as well as a breaking down of barriers between the library and the walk of the new man in the world; the Bible interprets reality, and multifaceted real-life experience lends vast understanding to what is being stated in the Bible.

In Protestantism, people who have to function in the real world go to church every Sunday and allow those who live in libraries to interpret their reality, and for some bizarre reason, pay good money for it to boot. If you only pay 10% or less, you are supposedly robbing God by not paying money to people who couldn’t survive in your reality for one day. This is why of all world religions Protestantism makes the lesser sense of the bunch. Nothing is more confused than a Protestant.

In regard to justification, I spent the better part of eight years doing research, but now with the proper keys to understanding Christian living, I have found a career in what I think is very well fitted for lending understanding to life and biblical reality. That career regards ADL service; that is, aiding people in activities of daily living. As I reflect my experience against the wisdom of Scripture, learning and understanding is taking place. I wonder what empowers the individual more than understanding why we do what we do?

But there is another key ingredient to this understanding: others who get it. With the use of the Bible and things self-evident according to God’s vast creation design, TANC co-author Andy Young wrote a post this week about self-value and the value of others. This post lent understanding to how my conscience was guiding me in some issues regarding work. I have remained plugged into a particular client because my conscience was compelling me to do so, but I really didn’t understand why my conscience was pressing me in that direction.

I am presently working with clients that I initially envisioned myself working with. This has been a long process. However, I have a client who was one of my first and has much lesser ADL needs; specifically, nothing but house cleaning. This is far less unfulfilling for me than medical type ADLs. The perception is depth of need. But after reading Andy’s post, I understand why I am committed to this client; now I understand what my conscience was trying to tell me.

Now I understand why I can dismiss the voices of my past Reformed ideology posing as my conscience. In addition to the outrage against the very idea of self-value harassing me while I was reading the post, I can also dismiss the accusation that my conscience is telling to be a, “people pleaser. Did not the apostle Paul tell us to please others whenever possible unless they are trying to persuade us to do something not pleasing to God? Sure he did. But why?

Because we are wired by God with a desire to please others. But why? Because we place value in them. Because we are created in the image of God who values Himself and others. He also values what He created, viz, life, and He demands that others value it as well. This may very well lead us to do things for people that we don’t enjoy doing, but finding the joy in pleasing them through the act. If we enjoy doing what is pleasing the person, that’s a double blessing. But if we don’t enjoy doing what we are doing for the person; yet, joy is found in pleasing the person that we value. Nevertheless, does this eventually lead to finding joy in the task itself? I think it often does.

In this particular case, the client has put a high value on me because of my cleaning. The client is very insistent that I be her HHA (Home Health Aid). And I must say, she values me more than SOME clients who depend on me and others for medical type ADLs. A messy house is one thing, but lying in your own waste for any period of time is another. Yet, the one who values me praises me while the other curses me. Indeed, as I have learned, the level of task rendered by no means determines the value. And here is an aside that you may apply to many other areas of life including childrearing: aids often no-call/no-show clients; and why do they do this? They don’t value others. And by the way, because they do not value others, neither do they value God from whom all blessings flow.

What else did I learn from Andy’s post in partnership with God’s word and life experience? A why. Why are ADLs so important? Sure, I gain self-satisfaction in doing ADLs, but why does this make any sense? After all, these are people who can no longer contribute to others, right? The answer follows. They value themselves. They value their own lives. This is intrinsic. This is intuitive. This is how God wires us. To not value self and others is unnatural and against God’s creative elements. God values Himself and those He creates.

And this is fact: the more a client values their own life and strives to make the best of it, the more the aid values their work. And I believe life in general works little different from this. I have clients who strive to make everything of their life that they can. This endeavor for self-actualization regardless of their condition raises the self-value of the aid, and by this they love the aid by loving themselves. This idea is anathema to Reformed ideology which places no value on human life. Protestants deny this while proudly pontificating “total depravity” because like I said, Protestants are confused in general while funding Neo-Platonist academics who hate life.

Why are we all inspired by disabled people who excel in life and happiness? Because they put a value on their life, and life in general which increases our own value when we help them. This pleases God and we value Him as the first priority. Striving to please those we value is a natural element of creation. This is why I am so overjoyed that a client of mine is going to a concert next month. If you knew this client, you would be very surprised that he would venture to go to a concert. But the client’s love for life increases my value and the service I supply. This is why an aid’s job is harder when a client fails to love themselves—to value themselves. Therefore, to all those who need help with ADLs…

…thank you for going to the concert. By loving yourself you are loving me.

paul

Tagged with: ,

Authentic Protestantism (aka “New Calvinism”) is Totally Debunked by 2Peter 1:1-15

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on May 27, 2016

This is a revised version of an article originally published on January 16, 2012

2 Peter 1:1-14 contradicts almost all of the major tenets of authentic Protestantism: Christocentric salvation; Christocentric interpretation; double imputation; Christocentric sanctification; the total depravity of the saints; sanctification by faith alone; the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event; assurance based on gospel contemplationism; sanctification is not “in our OWN efforts”; the apostolic gospel.

Christocentric Salvation

“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”  (v1).

Salvation is not Christocentric. Peter states that we obtained our faith by God the Father AND Jesus Christ.

Christocentric Interpretation

 “May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (v2).

The benefits of salvation are multiplied by the knowledge  of  both the Father and the Son. Of course, this knowledge can only come from the Scriptures. Obviously, knowledge of both is required for the multiplication of grace and peace. One may also note that when Peter restates this truth in verse 3, he only mentions the one “who called us” which of course is God the Father.

Double Imputation

 “The imputed righteousness of Christ” is an often heard slogan among reformed. But it is the righteousness of God that was imputed to us by the New Birth when we believed in Christ (see v1).  The believer is righteous because he is God’s literal offspring.  Christ lived a perfect life as a man because of who He is (the Son of God), not for the purpose of imputing obedience to us as part of the atonement in sanctification.

Christocentric Sanctification

 “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence” (v3).

Again, God the Father is the member of the Trinity who called us. Knowledge pertaining to the Father is efficacious in sanctification.

The Total Depravity of the Saints

“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (v3,4).

“Partakers” is: koinōnos from koinos; a sharer, that is, associate: – companion, fellowship, partaker, partner. Koinos means: common, that is, (literally) shared by all or several and is derived from a primary preposition denoting union; with or together, that is, by association, companionship, process, resemblance, possession, instrumentality, addition, etc.: – beside, with. In compounds it has similar applications, including completeness.

Sanctification by Faith Alone

“For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love” (v 5,6,7).

Obviously, if sanctification is by faith alone, Peter wouldn’t tell us to ADD anything to it.

The Imperative Command is Grounded in the Indicative Event

“For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (v8,9,10,11).

Glorification (and one could argue assurance as well) is an indicative act, but in these verses, it is contingent and preceded by imperatives. Peter uses the conjunction “if” three times to conjoin imperatives preceding the indicative.

Assurance Based on Gospel Contemplationism

One of the more hideous teachings of the Reformation is that guilt is indicative of not understanding grace. Therefore, saints will not be told to take biblically prescribed action to relieve guilt, but will be told to further contemplate the gospel. There is barely anything more powerful in the Christian life than full assurance of salvation, and Peter tells us in no uncertain terms how to obtain it: aggressively adding certain things to our faith.

Sanctification is not “in our OWN efforts.”

Authentic Protestantism, by default, disavows our effort in sanctification by continually utilizing the either/or hermeneutic: it’s either all our effort, or all of Christ. Though we can do nothing without Christ, Peter makes it clear that peace and assurance will not take place if we do not “make every effort” (ESV).

The Apostolic Gospel

“So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things” (v12,13,14,15).

Think about it. It had been revealed to Peter that his departure was near, so his ministry was focused on what he thought was the most important thing that they needed to be continually reminded of. Where is, “The same gospel that saves us sanctifies us”? Where is, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day”? Where is, “Beholding the face of Christ as a way of becoming”?

paul

God’s Acknowledgment of “Self” and the Full Circle of the Ten Commandments.

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on May 25, 2016

“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” ~ Exodus 3:14

When Jehovah (I Am) identified Himself to Moses at the burning bush, He did more than just tell Moses His name. God made a philosophical statement about reality. God acknowledged His own existence, and in so doing He declared His intrinsic rights because of that existence. Furthermore, by acknowledging His own existence, God also recognized man’s existence. I believe this is at the heart of what the Bible means when it says that man was made in God’s image. We have a right to “self” because God has a right to “self”.   And for us to acknowledge our own right to “self” demands that we by extension must acknowledge others’ right to “self”, just as God acknowledges ours.

Do not misunderstand what I mean by “right to self”. I do not mean “self-ishness”, which the Bible clearly decries. “Selfishness” means to love oneself MORE than another. On the other hand, the Bible never teaches us to love others more than ourselves. Said another way, the Bible doesn’t teach that we should love ourselves LESS than others. It says we are to love others AS MUCH AS we love ourselves. Herein is the way in which we acknowledge another’s right to “self”, we treat others as WE would want to be treated. We see our own value as an individual and in so doing recognize that others have that same value. That value includes one’s right to existence and the means necessary to sustain that existence. The United States’ Declaration of Independence embodied that idea in this way:

“…We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

“That all men are created equal” is to recognize that all men have the same basic right to “self” and to existence, and that equality of individualism is preserved in the rights to seek those things which would secure that existence. No one ever has the right to violate another’s right to “self”, EVEN GOD!

In a conversation with a close friend the other day, I posed the question, “why is stealing wrong?” My friend replied that stealing is wrong because God said so; it’s in the Ten Commandments. Stealing is wrong because God said, “Thou shalt not steal.” I then followed up with the next question, “Why did God say stealing is wrong?” For this my friend had no answer. All he could say was, “I don’t know, I never thought about it before.”

You see for my friend, as it is with most people (particularly Christians), that God “said it” was enough for him. It was nothing more than an appeal to authority. An authority says this or that, so we must do it or not do it. This is the same reasoning that led to the slaughter of 6 million Jews while millions of others gave their tacit approval. People’s behaviors are the product of their assumptions, to paraphrase John Immel. No matter how irrational the behavior may seem, if you find the assumption you will find the reason for the action.

So why DID God say that stealing is wrong? It is a simple question, and once challenged to think, my friend finally did ask it of me. Stealing is wrong because it is a violation of “self”, of the individual. Our possessions are the products of our labors which are an investment of ourselves. Your labor is an exchange of value. You enter into that exchange with an employer who trades you wages for your investment of yourself. Those wages then in turn are exchanged for those things that are necessary to further your existence – food, clothing, shelter, etc. – and if there is any surplus, luxuries – car, mobile phone, flat screen TV, etc. So in reality, everything you produce – labor, wages, food, clothing, car, TV, etc. – is a product of you as an individual. For someone to steal those things from you is to violate “you” (self) because those things represent what the individual produced as a function of “self”. You have a right to them because you produced them because you have a right to “self”.

Contrary to what people/Christians are taught, the Bible is not a theological book. It is a philosophical book. And the Ten Commandments in particular are not simply an authoritative codification of do’s and don’ts. It is a philosophical statement from God to man about the value of the individual. It is a statement about how God values Himself, and it is a statement about how God values man. Conversely it is a statement of how man is to value God and how man is to value man. God’s very first statement to man is an appeal to God’s own sense of “self” and value. God as an individual. “I am God. I exist. I have value.” Therefore, the way we show God that we value Him is to have no other gods before Him! We do not make vain attempts to conceptualize God’s sense of “self” by making an image to represent that. We do not mock God’s name because His name is intrinsically tied to who He is. To violate God’s name is to violate who He is.

Man, too, has value as “self”. Therefore, we honor our parents, we don’t murder, we don’t commit adultery, we don’t steal, we don’t lie, and we don’t covet, not because God said so, but because we acknowledge that this would violate another person’s right to “self”. This is the basis for morality. It can be said then that the definition of morality is anything that does not violate God or man as “self”.

God’s command to not covet seems all-encompassing. The last commandment perfectly reduces everything down to the root motivation for all violations of “self”. And that is self-ISHNESS. A desire to usurp for oneself that which rightfully belongs to another. And as we have said before, that is a desire caused by Sin. The Bible describes Sin as an entity that seeks to control others. It seeks to master and enslave. It seeks to violate another for it’s own benefit, to wield control over another.

The New Testament offers another perspective on covetousness.

“For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” ~ Ephesians 5:5

“Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:” ~ Colossians 3:5

The apostle Paul had a unique insight among the other apostles in that he was a certified expert on Jewish law. This perspective gave him an ability to draw parallels between Old Testament and New Testament concepts that the others did not. Peter even declared that many of the things which Paul taught were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16).   In these two passages in particular, Paul sees covetousness as being nothing more than idolatry. I’m not exactly sure how he gets there since he doesn’t elaborate on it.

Still, it is an interesting piece to the puzzle. Consider that one of the Ten Commandments speaks to idolatry. When one thinks of graven images, one usually thinks of idolatry. But Paul seems to suggest that idolatry involves more than just “idol worship”. It is a violation of God as “self”. Covetousness is a violation of man as “self”. What Paul has done here is to show the intrinsic relationship between the two. To violate man is to violate God, and to violate God is to violate man. Do not misunderstand, I am in no way suggesting that man IS God. But I do want to point out that there is a mutual recognition between God and man with respect to existence.

So to violate the tenth commandment is to violate the first, and thus we have come full circle. The Ten Commandments then are not statutes in and of themselves. It is not a means for God to show us “filthy rotten sinners” just how “holy He is” and how “sinful we are.”  It is a full-orbed treatise on morality and existence. It is not a law for authority’s sake. It is God instructing us on reality. What we see in the Bible is that LOVE is the motivating factor in all of this. To love someone is to ascribe value to them. Perhaps this is the relationship between idolatry and covetousness. To idolize something is to objectify it, to assign value based on its desirableness to oneself instead of an individual’s intrinsic value as another individual.

Whatever the case may be, when we show love to God and others, we have thus fulfilled the whole law because in this way we demonstrate a like view of both man and God, and we see reality the way God sees it.

Andy

What is Election According to the Bible?

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on May 24, 2016

ppt-jpeg4If the laity want sound definitions of biblical words in order to obtain truth, they will have to study the Bible themselves in order to show themselves approved of God. For example, Protestant scholarship has always defined “election” as the pre-selection of individuals for salvation and damnation. This conclusion can only be drawn by foisting presuppositions on many passages. Election often refers to things and people having no need of salvation. For example, according to Nave’s Topical Bible: Christ; Isa 42:1, 1Pet 2:6, National Israel; Dt 7:6, Isa 45:4, and angels; 1Tim 5:21.

Election is God’s choosing of things and people for specific purposes. It is interesting to note that things and people contrary to God’s purposes are never referred to as some kind of other elect class. There is only one elect category.

In conjunction with election, there is the “called” who are in essence everyone defined by three groups of people: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the “one new man” (Eph 2:15). The manifestation of the one new man is a word often translated, “church,” viz, “ekklesia” which means, “called out assembly.” This called out assembly is also elected (1Pet 5:13).

Election is the choosing of things, groups, and individuals that serve the purposes of God’s redemptive plan. Individuals are NOT chosen unto salvation or damnation, election pertains to God’s plan of salvation and what He chooses to serve that purpose. Election is about the means of salvation offered to all people as a gift. Man did not, or could not devise a plan of salvation, but he is able to participate in the plan of his own free will. The plan was not of man’s will, in fact, his tendency is to hide from God, but he does have the will to be persuaded to accept reconciliation on God’s terms. The plan of salvation and its terms are elected and offered to man as a “promise” contingent on faith alone.

Let’s begin to develop this with passages that speak of God’s election, or “purposes.”

Romans 13:1 – Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

So, governments are elected (“Instituted” or “ordained”) by God for what purpose? “…for he is God’s servant for your good.” But, are all governments elected by God? No, only those who are performing the purpose of election. Election is defined and qualified by its intended purpose. Now, in many theologies and philosophies, the purpose of election is reduced to whatever supposedly glorifies God. This makes election a determinism issue. Hence, everything that happens is God’s will and for the purpose of His self-love and glory. By reducing election to this single purpose, it strictly defines election in terms of God’s sovereignty or the “gospel of sovereignty”—a term that appears nowhere in the Scriptures. What God elects is confirmed by the application of its purpose, or the practice of its purpose (2Pet 1:10 ff.). Hitler’s Nazi Germany was not elected by God; their practice did not coincide with God’s purposes. Governments are elected, but not all governments are of God’s elect.

Therefore, election also speaks to generalities as well. As far as Christ’s called out assembly, what group of people did He primarily focus on?

1Corintians 1:26 – For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[d] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

As far as calling, which includes the three aforementioned groups, God focuses primarily on the lower-class among those groups. And what is the purpose? His glory, because the upper crust tend to get credit for what God does. Does this mean God only saves the poor? Of course not. But culturally, God has always fought against man’s tendency to worship aristocracy, nobility, and errant authority. When Christ told the apostles that it was easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle in comparison to the salvation of the rich, He was using an extreme example to smash a cultural paradigm. Have you ever noted the response He received from the disciples? Who then can be saved? Christ then cited the impossibility of men to come up with plans and means of salvation which is, for all practical purposes, often attributed to the noble. Listening to men rather than studying to show one’s self approved of God is the worship of man’s authority. James also addressed this same problem in his epistle.

God does elect individuals to serve in His purpose of salvation. This election of individuals for ministry in God’s salvific purposes is often attributed to individual predeterminism. In contrast, people groups are chosen for a purpose, not salvation for the sake of salvation, or damnation for the sake of damnation. With that said, God does single out individuals, or elects them for specific ministries and purposes. The following concerns the apostles:

John 15:16 – You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

Many are quick to jump on this passage as a proof text for individual pre-selection, but Christ is addressing disunity among the apostles and reminding them that it was Him who chose them for the task of apostleship which was being compromised by their selfish mentalities.

Also, as we shall see, those presently not fulfilling God’s purposes of election are not necessarily destined to continue in their rebellion, but before we move on, let’s pause to consider another point:

Romans 8:28 – And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Who are the “those,” and “many brothers”? We assume individuals, but could this not be referring to elected types or groups of people made up of individuals that accepted the free gift of God’s elected plan of salvation? Before you write this off as a stretch, consider the following:

Matthew 22:1 – And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ 5But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11“But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Now, as in many of the English translations, “chosen” in verse 14 should really be “elect.” This conveys more of an idea of a group rather than those who were preselected. But one thing is clear: the “called” are both Jew and Gentile. Those who accept the invitation to the wedding feast become the elect. The real idea here is in essence, many Jews and Gentiles are called, but few are of the elect. Prevalent among the Jews of that day was the idea that being a Jew alone made you the elect. No, this parable refutes that idea and encompasses Paul’s purpose of calling Gentiles as well in order to make the Jews jealous (Rom ch., 11) and thereby save some of them. At any rate, the Jews and Gentiles both are called to Christ, and what is the PURPOSE of that calling?

Ephesians 2:15 – by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

The gospel is God’s elect plan to reconcile mankind to Himself, but also to reconcile and bring peace/unity between Jew and Gentile, in fact, this is the very “mystery of the gospel.”

Ephesians 3:1 – For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

1Corinthians 12:13 – For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Galatians 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Every diverse type and group of people imaginable are called to be baptized into this one new man of which Christ is the head. And what is the purpose of this calling?

Romans 8:28 – And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Who are the predestined? Groups and types of people who are called: “And those whom he predestined he also called.” However, it is very clear from Matthew 22 that all of the called do not accept the invitation, but if they do, they are also, “justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” How can someone who is not yet redeemed be glorified? They aren’t; the glorification of the group or the elect is what is predetermined. The purpose of election is to justify and glorify the called, but all of those called to not conjoin themselves with God’s purposes.

John Calvin was not oblivious to the contradiction in regard to the called for those who want to buy into pre-determinism, and therefore sought to rectify the contradiction by created a class of elect that were temporarily elected. Hence, the called (Rom 8:30) who are justified are justified temporarily as opposed to the other classification of elect: those who persevere.

In Romans 8 those who are predestined are called, but in Matthew 22 not all who are called are of the elect. That’s a contradiction. Therefore, this is best understood through the purposes of election: it is God’s predetermined purpose to justify and glorify all who are called, and in fact, has already done so through Christ’s work on the cross. Nevertheless, those who do not accept the invitation of the call remain disinterested in God’s purposes.

We will conclude with a look at Romans chapter 9 because it seems to emphasize individual pre-selection. Again, we struggle to not see this as individual predestination because of how we have been conditioned. But the point of the passage is God’s purposes in election through miraculous rebirth according to “the promise.”

Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

God elected governments, but not all governments are his elect according to his purposes. God elected Israel, but not all Israelites are of His promise because the promise is through new birth, not Jewish birthrights. Those who are Israelites according to the flesh (born into nationality) are not the elect group, but rather those born into promise by the new birth. The whole passage should be interpreted in regard to elect/non-elect  groups, not individuals. Let me drive this point home by citing what Paul says further along in the text:

Romans 9:23 – in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people, ’and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” 26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

Romans 9:30 – What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

Who is the “us” in Rom 9:24? It is the “one new man” called from among two other groups. Individuals are not in view here, elected groups are. And, not all of the called are part of that group; only those who respond to the invitation by faith alone. Remember, the backdrop of Romans 9 is Jew/Gentile. The purpose of election is to make Jew and Gentile one unified body—the goal is to reconcile the hostility between the two groups as a result of being reconciled with God.

In regard to the whole prepared vessels for wrath or glory in verses 19-23, Paul writes,

Romans 9:19 – You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

But again, Paul clarifies what this speaks to immediately following in verse 24, “US,” as in, the one new man, not individuals. I believe this is key; God calls groups for His purposes, but it is their choice to accept or reject the invitation. Once they do one or the other, they themselves choose to remain in group A, or join group B. I believe Matthew 22 is the interpretive key for this thesis.

The vessels are people called to God’s elect purposes; those who are called into purposes and works prepared beforehand by God—not the salvation of individuals:

Ephesians 2:10 – For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

2Timothy 2:21 – Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

God elects the work and defines what is honorable or dishonorable, but note our choice to cleanse ourselves. We put God’s purposes into practice because this is why we choose the gospel in the first place; a desire to align our individual purposes with God’s elective purposes. We can only affect this through the new birth which only God can bring about, but we can accept the invitation or reject it.

This is another consideration in this passage; the new birth.

Abraham is the father of national Israel and its descendants, but the gospel (the promise) only comes through miraculous new birth. With Abraham, it was the birth of Isaac when Sarah was well beyond childbearing age. God’s offspring are brought about by God’s life creating work, not men. In the case of Rebekah, it was God prophesying that Jewish tradition would be reversed and the older would serve the younger.

Romans 9:8 – This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Please note, that once again, election is hitched to a specific purpose: to eradicate all notion of works from justification. No one can birth themselves. However, they can accept the promise of new birth through faith alone. This whole discourse regards…”that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls.”

Now, also note that many make, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” something that God did before the two were born. No, read the passage that Paul cites (Malachi 1:2-3). This is something that happened well after the fact. It was the fulfillment of the prophecy that righteousness would come through the promise of miraculous birth, not works via Jewish tradition or default salvation by Jewish heritage/nationality. This why God elected the one seed, Christ, and Paul continues on in explaining two more groups: the children of Jewish flesh (nationality), and the “remnant” that are children of the promise.

And finally, even in all of this, consider those who are in a group that is not of promise: “Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious” (Rom 11:11 NIV).

Listen, proponents of the so-called “sovereign gospel” can’t have it both ways, and we also see yet another purpose of election; to make Israel jealous, which assumes cause and effect. Those in any given group can recover through the preaching of the word, or the casting of the life-giving-seed of God’s word which Paul also writes about in the same context.

Election is defined by God’s MANY purposes, not a reductionist “gospel of sovereignty.” God calls individuals to elect groups and purposes. His purposes are predetermined, not who will accept the free invitation which is to everyone because God “shows no partiality.”

Do you want to enhance your presentation of the gospel? Do a study and list all of the purposes of God’s election. Election is defined by God’s purposes. Give lost people a vison regarding what God is up to in his wonderful plan of salvation. This is a pretty deep topic, and per the usual, my goal and the goal of this ministry is to get the ball rolling in the right direction. However, it will take the collective efforts of God’s laity to unpack the wonderful doctrine of election.

paul

Why Are You “Dissing” the Church?

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on May 24, 2016

Originally published April 16, 2015

andy-profile-1Leaving the institutional church has been one of the best decisions our family has made. Granted, there are the social aspects that we miss (my wife especially, she’s a people person), but it doesn’t take much searching to admit that real friendships have to be based on more than just a weekly formal gathering. Want to know who your real friends are? Just try leaving your church for whatever reason. See how many of them still keep in contact with you. In fact, it was a comment very similar to that which I posted on Facebook a few weeks ago, which prompted quite a debate.

There is a young man with whom I am friends, let’s call him “Trevor”. I have personally known Trevor for many years. Trevor has come to me with many questions about some of the things I post on Facebook, and we have had some very edifying discussions. We’ve talked at length about the differences between Justification and Sanctification. He is genuinely seeking answers, and I am grateful for the opportunities to help disciple him.

But a few weeks ago, Trevor sent me the following private message on Facebook:

 “Hey Andy I keep seeing you dissing on churches and even though you are probably right why not use your intelligence and abilities on helping teach people about God. There are a lot of people who need God that I’m sure are reading that and when people see hostility amongst Christians towards other Christians it turns them off to it completely and isn’t that contradictory to what we want for people”

I understand the motivation behind his response, and I don’t hold it against him. It is typical from anyone who sits under the orthodoxy of the institutional church. Trevor has probably even spoken with his pastor about some of these issues I’ve brought up, and maybe this response comes after the result of one of those conversations. Either way, his tone of concern is well noted and appreciated. So below you will find my response to Trevor. I apologize that it is rather lengthy, but I hope that it will be edifying.

 Dear Trevor,

 I’m sure you will agree that it is hard to give a full-orbed treatise within the confines of a simple Facebook status message. It doesn’t lend itself well for going into details. So the goal is to try and make your point in the most direct and concise manner possible. For that reason, a simple matter-of-fact statement may come across as curt and abrasive. That is unavoidable. Nevertheless, statements such as these should prompt people to think. But often times, rather than think, people respond defensively because they automatically assume I am attacking them. I am not attacking people, I am challenging ideas. But most people are too lazy to differentiate the two because they have too much ego invested in their ideas, and therefore take any attack on an idea as a personal attack. This is true of both Christians and non-Christians alike. And actually I have found that those who call themselves “Christian” have an even greater tendency toward ego investment, and there is a very good explanation for that, which leads me to the next point.

 When you challenge what a “Christian” has traditionally been taught, you are indeed challenging their very salvation. And this is a frightening prospect for them. But it is for this very reason that these notions need to be challenged, because what it boils down to is that their faith is in a “belief system” rather than belief in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That which passes for “the church” is the very embodiment of this belief system. Is it any wonder then that people have such a knee jerk reaction? For someone to even raise the question that what they have been taught might be wrong scares the crap out of them!

 This is why I criticize the institutional church, because it embodies this system that has kept people in the spiritual dark ages for centuries! The institutional church is based on “authority”, and the system is needed to maintain the authority. But this is so contrary to scripture. There is to be no authority among the brethren of Christ. Christ is the authority! And he is the only mediator between God and man. Now that is not to say that there is not leadership, but leadership is not the same as authority. Authority implies “power”, while leadership implies “example”. But the emphasis within the traditional “church” model is predicated on power and authority, and everything that happens within the confines of these institutions is designed to maintain that power structure. It has been that way since the very early beginnings of the Roman Catholic church in the 4th century. And Protestantism is no different.

 I see many good genuine Christian people languishing away within the walls of the institutional church, and it grieves me deeply, for there are eternal consequences at stake. Not as far as salvation goes, but with regard to eternal rewards. You have spiritually illiterate Christians looking to some authority to tell them what to believe, who have never been equipped to carry out the task that was given to them from the first day they were born again- to go out and make disciples. They are not exercising their gifts. Instead they hide their talent in the ground, waiting for the Master to return and say, “here Lord, here’s what you gave me.” And there will be no eternal reward for them. And the church is purposefully keeping them in this state of immaturity. How I long for believers to realize their full potential as Children of God! But that will never happen in the “church”. The church serves itself.

 So, even having said all of that, I still haven’t fully been able to explain the depth of this all. But your concern is how this arguing among believers will turn off others. I contend that what turns of the unsaved is not the fact that they see Christians argue, but rather that Christians don’t even know what they believe.   Furthermore, what they do claim to believe is not even rational. Christianity for the past 1500 years has simply failed to produce a fully rational explanation for why someone should believe in Jesus. There must be more to it that just, “well you just have to have faith.” Faith must be grounded in reality. So we don’t simply lay aside arguments regarding contending for truth just for the sake of presenting the illusion of a unified front to the world.

 In addition, the traditional excuse for evangelism is simply nothing more than who has the better sales pitch for getting someone to attend their church versus another. This ties in directly with the notion of salvation being in the church. Christians are more interested in getting people into their church than they are with teaching people about the gospel of the Kingdom. By definition, the church cannot be comprised of unbelievers. The body of Christ, the “assembly”, is only made up of believers. The purpose of believers assembling is for edification, and that happens by four functions: instruction in the word, fellowship, sharing meals (including the Lord’s table), and praying together. (Acts 2:42). How can an unbeliever possibly be any part of that? He shares nothing in common. He is not a part of the Body. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” Unbelievers have no part in the fellowship of God’s people.

 Now the excuse has been that we need to bring unsaved to church so that they can get saved. But that is simply a lazy excuse for evangelism. It is not what Christ’s instructions were. Believers gather in fellowship to be edified. Having then been properly equipped, WE can go OUT into the world to take the gospel TO the lost so that they can HEAR it from US. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. How then shall they believe in whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be SENT? (Romans 10:14-15, 17) Every believer is a preacher- and ambassador from God’s heavenly Kingdom – sent forth with the message of reconciliation to the world. It is our mandate as individuals, NOT the function of an institution!

 And so seeing how the “church” has utterly failed in every way in all of these areas, I hope you can better understand now why I have such disdain for it and am so critical of it. But the answer is not reform. It doesn’t need to be reformed, it needs to be defeated because it is not what God intended for His people. The answer is, to come out from among them and be separate. And that is what I have done, and that is what I want to encourage all believers to do. Come out from this institution and join in genuine fellowship with other like-minded believers and start exercising your gifts. There is no horizontal authority between men among believers. All authority is in Christ.

 Andy