The Three Major Approaches to Change Among Evangelicals According to How Romans 8:2 is Interpreted.
Originally published November 22, 2015
” ‘I didn’t do it! Jesus did it through me!’ See how this works? You did it, but ONLY because it…was/is ‘God’s will.’ Let’s be honest; we talk like this all the time, and it is exactly why ’10 percent of the people do 90 percent of the work.’ But more importantly, it’s their gospel. Their sanctification paradigm defines their definition of the new birth.”
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Key to our discussion is how one interprets the word “law.” In the first model of change, “law” is a realm…like, “law of gravity.” I once heard the well-known evangelical Paul David Tripp say the following about Christians: we can’t overcome sin anymore than we can overcome hitting the ground by jumping out of a second story window (paraphrase). Now, Tripp said this at a major Southern Baptist seminary chapel session to the echoes of many “amen”s. This is by no means fringe stuff; in fact, the first model here is the most common.
Before we go further, let me emphasize the gravity of this issue, pun intended. Please, if you forget everything else, don’t forget this: a person’s view of Christian change is indicative of their gospel. That’s what the parable of the talents is about. We tend to think that justification and sanctification are separate, and indeed they are; yet, a person’s view of sanctification reveals their gospel.
So, in this first model, what is the salvation construct or the definition of the new birth? The new birth is defined by a mere ability to “see the kingdom.” The new birth is mere perception. The “Christian” now has the ability to see the Spirit realm and the sin realm. As the so-called saints see both realms in a greater and greater way, they experience an increasing level of joy. This is their definition of new birth which takes place many times over the course of their lives. The more they see their own sin and God’s holiness, the more gratitude they have for their original salvation. Joy, regardless of what is going on in the realms, is the goal. You can see how this looks and sounds spiritual.
But what changes? Only your ability to see, leading to a deeper and deeper joy. Physical change that is experienced is not really being done by you. How does that work? Let me share how this supposedly works according to say, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, et al. The sin realm is passive and the Spirit realm is active. Let’s consider the physical realm, or sin realm. Let’s consider a 2x4x8 piece of lumber. You can see it, feel it, smell it, and if you would like, taste it as well. No problem here, the 2×4 is real. But, it is passive; that 2×4 sits there and does nothing until somebody picks it up. But you say: “Paul, your analogy breaks down here because the material workman is playing an active part; so, he is also active, and not just passive.” Not really. If you have read any of my wife’s stuff on the Puritans, you know that ideas precede all actions, and God is the creator of all ideas. So right, the workman picked up the 2×4, but only because of God’s will—God initiated the act through the action of “the first, or beginning idea (Edwards).”
Now listen, most Christians would write this stuff off as philosophical nonsense, but here is the problem: it’s how they function, and it’s how they talk. Want an example? “I didn’t do it! Jesus did it through me!” See how this works? You did it, but ONLY because it…was/is “God’s will.” Let’s be honest; we talk like this all the time, and it is exactly why “10 percent of the people do 90 percent of the work.” But more importantly, it’s their gospel. Their sanctification paradigm defines their definition of the new birth. Listen to what a Christian lady said to me about two weeks ago: “I want people seeing Jesus, not waist deep in theology.” She may not realize it, but what is she really advocating? What drives a statement like that?
Here is another variation, “yielding.” This is the second model, and we will get to the third one shortly. This proffers the idea that when we are “saved,” we are moved between the Spirit realm and the sin realm. Both put pressure on us, and at any given time we “yield” to one or the other. But again, the only reason we yield is because God gives us the will through the first idea. Let’s move on to the third model.
In this model, the “law” is not a realm, it’s the word of God. Both words in this verse for “law” are the same Greek word (nomos). By the way, the Greek word for “realm” is a totally different word (vasíleio). Let’s also define what we mean by “law.” When we use this word, we are simply speaking about the Bible, or Scripture—the words are used interchangeably. There are many, many examples of this, but one is Galatians 3:21-23. And while we are in Galatians 3, here is a related thought that will not be unpacked in this message, but is relevant and put forth for your pondering pleasure: if Jesus kept the law for us so that we can be justified, Jesus isn’t the only seed, the law is also a seed and a giver of life. It doesn’t matter who keeps the law, it can’t give life. We are justified by the new birth, not the law. This is Paul’s EXACT argument in Galatians 3. But what about Matthew 5:17, right? That’s what somebody is going to ask. Well, we aren’t going to unpack that either, but the answer is right here in Romans 8, and you can ponder that on your own time as well.
But here we are in Romans 8:2, faced with the consideration of two laws and what does this mean? There is only one Bible, right? Of course, but here is where I plug in the issue I often hear pastors complain about: passiveness in the church. Most pastors attribute it to “fear.” And what are they afraid of? They are afraid of condemnation because they don’t understand Romans 8:2 and the Spirit’s two uses of the law. They do not know the difference between under law and under grace in Romans 6:14. You see, the first part of Romans 8:2 is the first part of Romans 6:14 and also the second parts respectively.
Of course 10% of the people are doing 90% percent of the work because Jesus is doing the other 90%, and he would be doing 100% of the work if the 10% weren’t confused in a good way about sanctification. You see, Christians don’t work because they are afraid, and they are afraid because they are still under law. They fear that their motives for serving, somewhere deep, deep in their hearts is an attempt to justify themselves, and that would be works salvation. Therefore, by golly, if Jesus doesn’t tell them to do something, and thus signifying that it is actually him doing it, they must “wait on the Lord.” It sounds so pious, no? And of course, you can cite any number of Bible verses that would seem to support that.
And how is that working for us? But let me tell you what it is: it’s antithetical to “faith working through love”(Galatians 5:6). And what’s that? Here it is: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Jesus did not say, “Love me by letting me fulfill the law through you so I can love myself.” I hate to be blunt, but if you didn’t do the love, but rather Jesus loved Himself through you—you didn’t do any love. Though this would seem evident, I direct you to what Paul wrote in Galatians right after 5:6… “You were running well, who hindered you from obeying the truth?” Any questions? If Christians do not understand the Spirit’s two uses of the law, they will not run well, but will rather partake in John Calvin’s Sabbath sanctification rest salvation which we are not going to unpack at this time.
So, what are these two laws? It’s pretty simple: for those under law (unsaved), the Spirit uses the law for one thing and one thing only, to condemn, and if they don’t repent, it will be used to judge them on the day of the white throne judgment. But, for those who give their life to Christ, they die with Christ literally (Romans 6), and are no longer under that law (Romans 7). Because they receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, they not only die, but are literally resurrected to new creaturehood (Rom 6 also) and are under grace which means they serve the new law of the Spirit for purposes of love only. What is that law? It’s the same Bible, it’s also the “perfect law of liberty.” Why did James call it that? Because here is what you use it for: you use it to set people free to aggressively love with NO fear of condemnation. Loving Christians who understand the new birth understand that no loving act they do can effect their salvation because there is no law to judge them—all obedience is a pure act of love. In fact, the Bible says one act of love fulfills the whole law.
Christians who love aggressively without fear of condemnation show that they understand the true gospel because of what they understand about sanctification: Christ didn’t come to merely cover sin, he came to end it and free his literal brothers and sisters from its judgment… “there is NOW NO condemnation” for those who are in Christ because He came to END the law (Romans 10:4) of condemnation, and free His siblings to serve the law of love which they also love because they are born anew. Here is another nugget for pondering: our flesh, or body, or “members” are/is NOT inherently evil, but rather “weak.” The idea that our flesh is inherently evil is part and parcel with the first two models. This is why we still sin, but it is family sin, not sin that condemns us. For those who really believe and understand the gospel, the only motive is love. There is nothing else left but love.
Set people free to love without fear with the true gospel.
Christian Husbands and Fathers Will Be Held Accountable for Leading Their Families in Calvinism’s False Gospel
Originally published January 8, 2013 I see a significant laxness towards doctrinal issues in regard to where one goes to church, especially from husbands, and fathers. “But as for me and my househo…
Ministry and the Unregenerate Spouse
When you are born again, it is impossible to be unborn. And that’s a good thing because if there is anything that could unborn you it is what I suffered in the church for over 25 years.
On the one hand, I diligently studied the plain sense of Scripture on my own; on the other hand, I was constantly experiencing the contradictions thereof in the Baptist church. The plain contradictions were many tips of many icebergs while massive presuppositions of orthodoxy kept the rest submerged. This post regards the following presumptuous tradition:
“If God has called you, He has also called your wife.”
Really?
The apostle Paul addressed the issue of unregenerate spouses and ministry in 1Corinthians chapter 7 which can also be applied to spouses who may be saved but reject your convictions for any number of reasons.
This isn’t complicated, Paul instructed us to put ministry first while giving the spouse due respect and love. No spouse has the authority or precedent to circumvent what God has called one to do. This is what Paul meant when he wrote,
1 Corinthians 7:29 – This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, 30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, 31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
Paul was writing about the benefits of being single so one can focus on ministry, but also stated in the same chapter that in either case when things are done via God’s counsel, one does well. In chapter 7, Paul explains the guidelines for every situation regarding marriage relationships, but with the final goal in all cases being, “undivided devotion to the Lord” without “restraint” in regard to what is lawful. Notice that Paul operated according to what benefitted believers, not to lord it over them. This is THE general rule whether we are talking about marriage, ministry, or assembling together.
But isn’t the man, or husband, the head of the wife according to Ephesians chapter 5? That is referring to the head of a body, not authority. The point of Ephesians 5 is oneness of body, and the direction of the body; authority is nowhere in this chapter. In this chapter, “head” should be thought of as the primary direction for life, and the same word is used in “cornerstone” or the foundational stone of a building. The word for a single rock as a foundation (Matthew 7:24, 16:18) refers to a cornerstone which is “the first stone set in the construction of a masonry foundation, important since all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, thus determining the position of the entire structure”(Wikipedia).
The fact that Christ has authority is beside the point in Ephesians chapter 5; in the same way that Christ is the chief cornerstone of the building, or the head of the body, supplying it with life-giving direction, so it should be with the husband in regard to his wife. Like Christ and the church, the husband should sanctify his wife with the word. If he fails in that endeavor, he hates his own body; the husband and wife are one body. The wife should respect the husband as the head as the church respects Christ as the head. She should seek his leadership accordingly as the husband is led by Christ. And excuse me, but this pertains to being led by Christ, THE head of THE body (notice the emphasis on the singular), not a bunch of narcissistic Reformed elders. They, that is, elders, are nowhere to be found in Ephesians five. The elders are in no wise the cornerstone of your family nor does Scripture ever give them that authority by any stretch of the imagination.
But, in the same way that it does not benefit the husband in not following Christ, it does not benefit the wife in not following the husband IF, I repeat, “IF” he is making a reasonable and truthful attempt to follow Christ. A wife is NOT, I repeat “NOT” obligated to obey a foolish husband who professes a false gospel, nor does he have the authority to prevent her from following Christ in spirit and truth.
Even the apostle Paul said, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (NIV). Husbands get no special privilege on this wise. “Head” doesn’t mean “boss,” it means “leader.” It refers to the role of being a true cornerstone that results in a strong building or in this case, body. Viz, a house that can withstand the storms of life. Wives should not reject a good cornerstone like the Jews rejected Christ.
Note that in cases where the husband is clearly lost, but pleased to dwell with the saved wife, the saved wife has a sanctifying effect on the family and the children are not defiled:
1Corinthians 7:12 – To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
Great help is gained here if we will take note of what Andy Young taught about sanctification at our TANC 2014 conference: holiness, or sanctification, has to do with being set apart as “unordinary.” Because of the saved spouse’s unity with a family that is pleased to live with her/him, to some degree, the family is set apart and blessed because of the presence of the saved spouse.
Of course, this would be of no effect if the saved spouse is being led by the lost family members. If a saved wife is following a lost husband in every regard, there is no sanctifying effect; sanctification is not merely a label, but an active reality. To a degree contrary to what would normally take place, the sanctifying effect of the saved spouse prevents the children from being defiled by unholy living. This also puts the unsaved family members in a more favorable position for possible salvation, but if the unsaved spouse departs…
“…let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?”
I contend that the departing of the unsaved should be directly contrasted with being pleased (“consent”) to dwell with the saved spouse. The word in verses 12 and 13 follows:
g4909. συνευδοκέω syneudokeō; from 4862 and 2106; to think well of in common, i.e. assent to, feel gratified with: — allow, assent, be pleased, have pleasure. To be pleased together with, to approve together (with others) to be pleased at the same time with, consent, agree, applaud.
A mere living under the same roof is not in view here. The separation refers to disapproval in living with the other spouse as something to be rejected and not applauded. Additionally, if adultery can be committed in one’s heart, so can divorce. Remaining in the same house for ulterior motives does not constitute non-departure or lack of divorce; the saved spouse is not enslaved to that situation either, and in contrast, is called to peace.
Moreover, and back to Ephesians chapter 5, authority is not in view, but rather mutual submission to needs. Emphasis mine:
15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time because the days are evil. [Like 1Cor 7 and emphasis on the shortness of time.] 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.[This all goes back to verse 21 concerning mutual submission.]
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,[Submission to a need.] 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.[Oneness is the issue, not authority] 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.[Like the church has reverence for Christ.]
In summation, though Christ has authority, it is not His application to the body, nor is there any authoritative or rulership gifts in the body or marriage. Christ always submitted to need, exhorted, taught, rebuked, and persuaded, but never exercised authority or compelled His assembly to obey by force. There are but a precious few examples among the combined activities of Christ and the apostles where a possible argument could be made, but they are the exceptions and far from being the rule.
Lack of oneness among spouses should not circumvent ministry or our debt of love to the body. Period. However, in these very difficult situations, every believer needs to weigh the Scriptures carefully and stay true to their consciences.
paul
Christian Husbands and Fathers Will Be Held Accountable for Leading Their Families in Calvinism’s False Gospel
Originally published January 8, 2013
I see a significant laxness towards doctrinal issues in regard to where one goes to church, especially from husbands, and fathers. “But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD (Joshua 24:15)” is now, But as for me and my household, we will follow the elders. Certainly, the church has never been fuller of mindless, man-following, wimpy husbands.
Husbands are supposed to be like Christ. Christ washes His church in the water of truth. Yes, I know the womenfolk can think for themselves. Here at PPT/TANC, it is mostly women who show theological aptitude in our correspondence with friends of the ministry. Nevertheless, Ephesians chapter five makes it clear that men are responsible for leading their families in truth—not alone, but they are certainly to be in the lead or at least a co-lead for crying out loud. And by the way, elders are nowhere to be found in Ephesians five. Men, Reformed elders have NO authority in your home, period! YOU, and you alone are the pastor of your home. And if you are mixing it up with some Reformed elders who do not get that (and few do), take this advice from someone who learned the hard way: go to your local police station and get a restraining order based on stalking laws, and then notify the local press that you have done so.
Christ said that those who learn His truth and apply it to their lives, and teach others to do the same will be great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19). But many husbands in our day want to be great in the eyes of pompous philosopher kings. Christ warned that the LEAST of His commandments were not to be “relaxed.” Many pathetic, spiritually effeminate husbands in our day allow their families to attend Reformed churches that teach the following:
1. Progressive justification.
2. Gospel contemplationism.
3. The complete eradication of self-worth and confidence in applying God-given talents to life.
4. Elder absolution.
5. “Community” as the focal point of all life in Christ.
6. Elder intermediate interpretation of the Bible.
7. Antinomianism.
Basically, they have relinguished total control of their families to sectarian brute beasts. They would do anything that a Reformed elder told them to do, and often do so accordingly. Look, we deal with this. Even husbands who leave Reformed circles have a sort of Stockholm syndrome. They are full of fear, and their life is in turmoil just because they asked a few questions. I correspond with people who are in these groups and are afraid to leave. They are clearly brainwashed, but a consistent comment is, “The leadership doesn’t like to be questioned.” We have even offered asylum to one person in the form of housing, work, and legal counsel. Huh? Right, these groups, i.e., New Calvinism, use “biblical counseling” to gather data on people and then clearly use that information to control them. This is commonplace in the movement. Unless you want a couple of hundred people knowing about sin that you have repented of when you are “brought up before the congregation”—you will play ball the way the elders want you to. Or else.
Doctrinal discrepancy is reason enough, but many husbands relinquish their responsibility before God to lead their home and support this tyranny with their money. After all, not tithing can get you brought up on church discipline in these churches. This is yet another thing that is becoming commonplace as this Reformed movement grows unhindered and unquestioned.
But I have to believe that there will be a day of reckoning, and doctrinal ignorance will be no excuse.
paul
The Church Meme
The meme displayed in this post, and also the subject of this post is just one more piece of evidence pointing to the false religion of church. Church banks on lazy thinkers; however, if one gives this meme but a little thought, it speaks to the horrid reality of church and its history.
The most overt message of this meme follows: “You are obligated to be faithful to church no matter what happens there, and if you leave church for whatever reason, you never knew God. So, in order to prove that you have faith in God, you remain faithful to church. Part of persevering in the faith is being faithful to church no matter what. After all, church involves people, and where you have people—you have sin.”
Therefore, if something really, really bad happens that the leadership will not deal with; one does not dare question the premise of church, but rather finds another salvation franchise where they can continue to get salvation on the installment plan. Plainly, in the black and white pages of orthodoxy, the church has always proclaimed itself as God’s salvific authority on earth. Martin Luther and John Calvin were not the least bit ambiguous about it. Calvin clearly stated that water baptism made a person an official member of church, and continued forgiveness for present sin is only available through church membership.
4.15.1 – Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. Moreover, the end for which God has given it (this I have shown to be common to all mysteries) is, first, that it may be conducive to our faith in him; and, secondly, that it may serve the purpose of a confession among men. The nature of both institutions we shall explain in order. Baptism contributes to our faith three things, which require to be treated separately. The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed, be baptised for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Calvin Institutes).
4.15.3 – Nor is it to be supposed that baptism is bestowed only with reference to the past, so that, in regard to new lapses into which we fall after baptism, we must seek new remedies of expiation in other so-called sacraments, just as if the power of baptism had become obsolete. To this error, in ancient times, it was owing that some refused to be initiated by baptism until their life was in extreme danger, and they were drawing their last breath, that they might thus obtain pardon for all the past. Against this preposterous precaution ancient bishops frequently inveigh in their writings. We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of Christ was therein offered to us, always is in force, and is not destroyed by any stain: it wipes and washes away all our defilements. Nor must we hence assume a license of sinning for the future (there is certainly nothing in it to countenance such audacity), but this doctrine is intended only for those who, when they have sinned, groan under their sins burdened and oppressed, that they may have wherewith to support and console themselves, and not rush headlong into despair. Thus Paul says that Christ was made a propitiation for us for the remission of sins that are past (Rom. 3:25). By this he denies not that constant and perpetual forgiveness of sins is thereby obtained even till death: he only intimates that it is designed by the Father for those poor sinners who, wounded by remorse of conscience, sigh for the physician. To these the mercy of God is offered. Those who, from hopes of impunity, seek a license for sin, only provoke the wrath and justice of God (Calvin Institutes).
Hence, you may not like what is going on in church, but according to Protestant orthodoxy, it is the only place that you can get continued forgiveness; ie., salvation. Many churches will vehemently deny this, but watch how they function; they strongly emphasize getting people saved and repentance while putting little emphasis on practical Christian living lest we have a “righteousness of our own.” Rather than love/obedience, we must instead, “revisit our baptism.”
But, if you are in a church that totally looks the other way in regard to scandalous sin, or isn’t relevant to real life, you may find a “good church.” Or can you? Such people are often labeled “church hoppers” or brought up on church discipline and declared unregenerate. And besides, “no church is perfect anyway,” right?
Secondly, note the grammar shell game always invoked by the Protestant liars. This meme, in true Protestant tradition, subtly denies the new birth. Notice that church is only God’s actual family when it serves their purpose, but when referring to reprehensible behavior, church is made up of mere…”people.” Otherwise, if true biblical grammar was actually utilized, it would read: “If being hurt by God’s family causes you to lose faith in God; then your faith was based on being in God’s family and having expectations accordingly.” Ya think?
Thirdly, the meme subtly endorses Protestantism’s Gnostic roots. This goes along with the denial of the new birth and a literal family of God state of being. There is a strict dichotomy between a godly spiritual realm and “people” who are of the material realm. The “Christian” is called on to accept church as the only conduit between the material and the spiritual while expecting any and every kind of evil to take place in the church accordingly.
Fourthly, and lastly, the reality of new birth is rejected while making the so-called authority of church foundational to true faith.
In contrast, wherever born again believers are, the body of Christ is manifested. Whether gathering together for fellowship or serving, the assembly of Christ’s body is present. “People” are not the church, and besides, there is NO “church” to begin with. There is only the manifestation of God’s family members edifying each other and serving with their individual gifts.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment