12 Reasons Why…
With football season upon us there is a new meme that has been circulating Facebook recently. You might have seen it.
Obviously, this is meant to be a passive/aggressive criticism of those who use these same excuses for not going to church. And as usual, it gets its share of “likes” and positive comments and “amens” all around.
So, with one of our topics being all the issues wrong with the institutional church, and with our focus being that of home fellowships, and because I have a tendency to be a trouble-maker, I decided to take the above idea and run in a different direction with it. For your consideration, I am pleased to present to you:
12 reasons why attending a sporting event is better than attending church.
- The coach isn’t going to kick you out of the stadium for being critical of his play-calling.
- The only people asking you for money are the workers at the concession stand, and at least you get a snack and a cold beverage in return.
- You are surrounded by total strangers, but most people will interact with you like you’ve been lifelong friends.
- Those same people won’t judge you for what you’re wearing.
- There’s no “fan covenant” to sign where you agree to support the team no matter what.
- Nobody is going to question your team loyalty if you show up to the stadium late or not at all.
- Group participation is not only allowed but encouraged!
- You don’t have to worry about the coach showing up at your house the next day asking you why you weren’t at the game.
- You don’t have to worry about the coach getting on the P.A. system to bad mouth the season ticket holders who missed last week’s game.
- If you get to the stadium early, that’s ok. There’s most likely several parties already going on in the parking lot, and they won’t mind if you crash in, even if you didn’t bring a dish to pass.
- If there is ever a team scandal, the coach doesn’t blame the fans for it.
- You can be fairly certain that no one will ever tell you that the outcome is pre-determined!
Of course, if you have any others that you care to add, you are welcome to do so!
Andy
TANC 2014 Andy Young, Session 1: Anybody Remember Grammatical Historical Teaching?
Originally published November 13, 2014
Be Ye Holy for I am Holy
Ok, welcome to Session 1 on Understanding Sanctification.
In my opinion, the hardest part about doing any sort of topical study is finding a starting point. I would much rather take a passage of scripture and teach through that in context, and just let the passage say what it says. What makes a topical study of the Bible so difficult is that there is always a danger of proof-texting. We have to always make sure that we are aware that we unconsciously bring a bias with us, wherever that bias comes from, it could be from our parents, what out parents taught us, could be from a particular church denomination that we grew up attending, or maybe our worldview, whatever influenced that. There are things in our life that shape us and we end up having a particular bias when it comes to interpreting scripture. So when it comes to studying a particular topic or doctrine, we have this tendency to seek out passages that fit in with our bias. This is called proof-texting.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with proof-texting. In fact, many of the scriptural truths we hold dear we can directly site a specific verse or passage that teaches that. For example, if I were to ask you, what must a person do to be saved, what are some verses that immediately come to mind?
Acts 16:31
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
Romans 10:13
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Romans 10:9-10
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
John 3:14-18
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
Now these are all good verses, and the reason these are good proof-texts is because the context is pretty straightforward. And the big danger with proof-texting is ignoring the larger context. For example, if someone were to ask me about how to be saved, one verse I would not use as a proof text is Acts 27:31. Anyone know that verse? “Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” That’s a good salvation verse, isn’t it? Now I know that’s a silly example, but don’t laugh, I have heard of people teaching on this passage and making all kinds of metaphors out of the ship and trying to turn this into a salvation passage. But I use this to show you how easy it is to take a verse out of context. We have to make sure we are very careful to understand and interpret a verse or passage within the larger context.
So in these sessions dealing with sanctification, we’re going to be turning to a lot of scripture. We’re going to spend a lot of time looking up verses and passages of scripture dealing with sanctification, and I’m going to be very careful and methodical to make sure we keep the context straight, that we understand the larger theme of where these verses fit in with the rest of scripture, and so hopefully we’ll avoid this danger of proof-texting.
In this first session I want to lay the ground work for the other sessions, so I’m going to spend a lot of time defining terms. That will become our premise for the rest of the study on Sanctification. It is important to understand the distinction between Sanctification and Justification. It is important to keep that distinction. Sanctification is an act that happens to those who are already justified; those who are already declared to be righteous. No, not just declared righteous, made righteous by belief in God, belief in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the Biblical standard for righteousness; belief in God. So because Sanctification is subsequent to Justification, I am going to be specifically addressing those who are already saved. If you have already believed in Christ for your salvation, I am speaking to you today. These sessions will apply specifically to you. Nothing I have to say applies to someone who is unsaved. I am speaking directly to believers. In other word, little to nothing I have to speak about applies to Justification. Justification has already been accomplished in your life, now we’re moving on to Sanctification.
So having said all of that, I’m going to use this first session to define our terms. What is Sanctification? More importantly, what is a Biblical definition of Sanctification? Then our second session, we’ll explore sanctification in the Old Testament and it’s relationship to the Law, and I want to consider the idea, that if God wants me to be holy, then why do I still sin? And then in the last session on Sanctification we will examine the question of, is there any merit to good works, and we will even examine the Biblical source of assurance for the believer.
So let’s get started on some terms. What is Sanctification? What does it mean to be Sanctified? Before we can address those questions, we need to understand what Sanctification has to do with relation to holiness. We know that God is holy. The Bible teaches that holiness is one of God’s attributes. So as creatures made in the image of God, can we exhibit holiness? Are believers really holy? The verse that I’ve chosen to use, sort of as the theme for these sessions on Sanctification is 1 Peter 1:16. Why don’t we start there. Go ahead and turn to 1 Peter. And actually I want to start with verse 14.
“As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation [way of life, how you conduct yourselves]; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.”
And this last part here in verse 16 like I said is what I have chosen as the theme for these sessions. Peter uses the esxpression, “because it is written,” he is actually making reference to the Law. Peter is actually quoting the exact phrase found in Leviticus 11:44, 45.
Now some things I want you to notice about the grammatical structure of this passage here in 1 Peter. Please notice all of the verbs in this passage, all of the action words, they are all in the imperative mood. Imperative mood means it is a command. An order. Holiness is not optional. It is a command.
Secondly, not only are all the verbs, all the actions, not only are they commands, they are in the active voice. Active voice means that the subject performs the action. The opposite of active voice is the passive voice. In passive voice, the subject is the recipient of the action, or the subject has the action performed upon him. Notice the active voice in all of these commands
do not fashion yourselves – you don’t fashion
be ye holy – you be holy
Notice the subject performs the action. You. You are performing the action. This is different from passive voice. If these commands were in the passive voice it would read something like:
do not be fashioned – do not allow yourself to be fashioned. Or;
be made holy – allow yourself to be made holy.
Taking this even one step further, if we look specifically at this phrase, “be ye holy”. This phrase in the Greek looks like this. It’s pronounced:
αγιοιγενεσθε “hag-ee-oy gin-ess-theh”
The word I have underlined here is the imperative form of the word:
γινομαι – “gin-oh-my” – to cause to be; to become (reflexive)
This is a linking verb that is the equivalent to our English word “is”, and all the forms it takes- am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been.
So not only is this verb in the active voice, the word itself is causative in its very meaning. This phrase could actually read, “cause yourself to become holy.” Or, “make yourself holy.”
The third thing I want you to consider from this passage is, who is the audience? Who is to perform this command to be holy? Let your eyes go up to the beginning of the chapter. To whom is Peter addressing this letter? Who is supposed to be holy?
King James says – the strangers scattered throughout all these regions of Asia Minor. Who would that be? In the Greek this would read as pilgrims of the dispersion. That is an expression that is used other places in scripture to describe displaced ethnic Jews. These are Jews who did not return to the land of Israel following the Babylonian and Assyrian captivity. They dispersed, and settled here and there throughout this region. We also know from reading the books of Acts and from Galatians chapter 2 for example, that Paul’s ministry focused on the Gentiles, and Peter’s ministry focused on the Jews. Galatians 2 uses the expression the gospel of the uncircumcision vs. the gospel of the circumcision.
So what we have here is Peter writing this letter addressed to these Jews of the dispersion, but what’s more important is that they are believers. And that is what I really want us to see here. Peter is writing to believers. More than that, these commands here in verses 14-16 are issued to believers. He is exhorting believers to not fashion themselves after their former life. The believer is commanded to be holy. The believer is to cause it to happen, actively, make it happen, not to passively wait for it to happen to him. And I want this to be our underlying theme of these sessions.
As we go through these sessions, keep this in the forefront of your mind at all times, this is what we as believers are commanded to do. We are not to live our lives the way we used to. Not fashioning ourselves after the former life. And by the way, that is the exact same word the apostle Paul uses in Romans 12:2, where he says be not conformed to this world, “soo-scheme-ah-tid-zo”. This is where we get the word “schematic”. You’ve probably heard of a schematic diagram. For electrical engineers a schematic is a pattern to follow. And that’s what the word means, having to do with a pattern. We don’t pattern our lives after this world, we don’t follow the pattern of our old behaviors. As believers we are to be holy as God is holy.
And if God in His word is commanding us to do it, then we must be able to do it, because I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in a God who would tell us to do something that we can’t do. And if you don’t believe that, then I’m sorry, then you and I don’t believe in the same God.
Believers are called to holiness. Now what is holiness? That’s a word that has a lot of mystique about it. Very ethereal. We hear it, we think we know intrinsically what it means and we throw it around, but we have a hard time explaining it. Well, let’s define these terms. How does the Bible define holiness? Let’s start at the beginning. Surprisingly, the word “holy” doesn’t even appear in the book of Genesis. The first occurrence of the word “holy” in the Bible appears in Exodus 3:5.
Exodus 3:5
“And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.”
קדשׁ – qôdesh – ko’-desh
Strongs dictionary defines it as a sacred place or thing. Ok, well, that doesn’t tell us very much. There is a parallel word for holy in the New Testament. The first use of the word holy in the NT is
Matt 1:18
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”
A couple more places where this is found, and I’m not going to look all of these up, but
Matthew 4:5
“Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,”
Matthew 7:6
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
This word in the Greek for holy is
αγιος – “hag-ee-oss” – sacred.
Again, still a pretty abstract concept. Let’s set out to de-mystify these concepts. Bring it from the abstract to the tangible. Let’s see if we can nail it down a little more. To better understand what holiness is, let us examine the opposite of holiness. In scripture, the opposite of holy is profane. Now profane carries with it a different meaning than what we understand in our modern usage of the word. When we hear the word profane we usually think of profanity, like foul language. So in the modern usage of the word, profane has the idea of evil, or foul, or sinful. But that is not what the word means as it’s used in scripture. In scripture profane simply means, common, ordinary, or everyday. Run-of-the-mill. No-frills. Just like all the rest.
Now when you consider profane in this aspect, scripture presents all kinds of contrasts between that which is holy and that which is profane. The Old Testament is full of these contrasts. Here are just a few of them:
Holy vs. Profane
Leviticus 20:3
And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
Leviticus 21:6
They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.
Leviticus 21:7
They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
Leviticus 22:2
Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 22:15
And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the Lord;
Leviticus 22:32
Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the Lord which hallow you,
Ezekiel 22:26
Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference [discernment] between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.
Ezekiel 44:23
And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
Amos 2:7
That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name:
Over and over again we have this contrast presented to us. So if we understand then that profane is that which is common, or ordinary, or just like all the rest, and we understand that holy is the polar opposite of profane, then holy would be that which is not profane; that which is not common, that which is not ordinary, that which is not every-day, that which is not just like all the rest.
God said to Israel, when you profaned My name among the heathen, you made Me to be just like all the other gods. When you profaned my temple, you made it like any other ordinary building. I am no longer holy. You caused me to be patterned after just like everything else. I am no longer in that place where I deserve to be, because I am God, I am Jehovah. I am not like all the rest. I am higher than all the rest. In fact, there are no others. I am the only one. I am that I Am! I am the self-existent One! That’s what My name means. Do not profane it! Do not make it just like all the rest!
This distinction between holy and profane is very helpful when it comes to us understanding why holiness is important in the Christian life. Because if we are believers, then we are the adopted children of God. If we are believers then we have identified with Christ. We are righteous as He is righteous. Sin has been taken away. So then why would we live a life that profanes our Father? Why would we live a life, why would our behavior be common, ordinary, why would our behavior be just like everyone else?
God is out of the ordinary, and He wants His people to be like Him. In fact, He made it possible when He saved us. Sin was taken away. Our old man was crucified with Christ, and now we live in newness of life. Our lives should be out of the ordinary. Our lives should not be characterized by that which is just like everyone else in this world.
So, after we have gone through all of that, do we have a Biblical definition of holiness that we can work with?
Holy – a place or thing which is distinct from that which is common, ordinary, or just like everything else.
Now those are words we can understand. Those are words we can wrap our minds around and sink our teeth into.
Now that begs the question, what determines if something is holy? What is it that makes something holy? And this is where the relationship with sanctification comes into play. If we as believers are commanded to be holy, our holiness then is effected through the process of sanctification. In fact that could be a good starting place to define Sanctification. We could say that:
Sanctification – the process whereby the holiness in the life of the believer is effected.
But let’s not leave it there. Remember, our goal is to have a Biblical understanding of these concepts. So let’s go back to God’s word and see how the scriptures define Sanctification.
Now while the word holy did not appear until the book of Exodus, the word sanctify appears early on in the book of Genesis. The first instance of “sanctify” appears in
Genesis 2:3
“And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”
קדשׁ – qâdash – kaw-dash’ – to be clean; to make, pronounce, or declare clean.
Notice that, the basic definition of sanctification has to do with cleansing. If you wanted to substitute the word clean for the word sanctify in Genesis 2:3 it would read:
“And God blessed the seventh day, and cleansed it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”
Now let me put our word for holy back up here for a moment.
Holy – ko-desh
Sanctify – kaw-dash
There is a great similarity between these two Hebrew words. In fact they are both taken from the same root word. What we have here is a very close relationship between cleansing and holiness. The fourth commandment is what, remember the Sabbath day to keep it, holy. Remember our definition of Holy? Why was the Sabbath day holy? Why was the Sabbath day distinct from that which is common, ordinary, or just like everything else? It was holy because God cleansed it.
Ok, how about the New Testament? The first instance of “sanctify” in the NT is found in
Matthew 23:17
“Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?”
αγνος – “hag-noss” – clean
Now just like I did in the Hebrew, let me put up the word for holy in the Greek.
Holy – “hag-ee-oss”
Sanctify – “hag-noss”
Again, look at the similarity of the two words. And just like in the Hebrew, these two words in the Greek are taken from the same root. The same relationship appears in the Greek between these ideas of cleansing and holiness.
So now that we understand this relationship between holiness and cleansing, we can take the meaning of the word Sanctify, and combine it with the meaning of holiness, and we can come up with what I believe is an accurate, Biblical definition of Sanctification.
Sanctification – the process of cleansing for the purpose of making a place or thing distinct from that which is common, ordinary, or just like everything else. (or the purpose of making something holy)
So we have our definitions. We’ve established the ground work, the foundation from which we can build.
If you remember at the beginning of this session I asked the question, as creatures made in the image of God, can we exhibit God’s attribute of holiness? I would say that according to scripture, the answer is a resounding, YES! We are able to. We are able to be distinct from that which is common, ordinary, or just like everyone else. We are able to behave that way. We are able to pattern our lives that way.
So, now that we have a premise to build on, in session two, we’ll take a look at how this all worked out in the Old Testament under the law, and the relationship of Sanctification to the law. We’ll expand on this idea of cleansing and the relationship between cleansing and Sanctification and holiness in the life of a believer.
Do we have time for any questions or comments?
An Introduction to TANC 2015: Why the Protestant Reformation is a Lie
Protestants don’t know anything. That’s not a derogatory remark, it’s merely a staple of Reformed ideology. It’s who we are supposed to be. Protestantism is predicated on the idea of spiritual caste as an accepted norm. The average Protestant parishioner is not supposed to know anything, and again, this is an accepted norm. In fact, many Protestant laymen who didn’t get the memo will concur; knowing something in the institutional church will usually get you in trouble. If you know something, you lack humbleness, and are trying to undermine… The Pastor.
This should not surprise us at all if we understand our authentic roots and the ideology of our spiritual heroes. Though Martin Luther’s 95 Theses is credited with launching the Reformation, its first and defining doctrinal statement came six months later in the form of the Heidelberg Disputation to the Augustinian Order. In the 22nd thesis of that document, Luther declared knowledge to be a vice that does nothing but puff people up, and like with all lust, it can never be satisfied. Luther’s disdain for reason is well documented, referring to it as…
Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.
Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and … know nothing but the word of God.
There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason… Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed.
Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.
Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason.
To be a Christian, you must “pluck out the eye of reason.”
In our day, this fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree as reflected in this quote by a pastor sent to our ministry by one of his former parishioners:
Paul told the Corinthian church that “‘knowledge’ puffs up but love builds up” (1Cor 8:1). So, if you love knowledge and look into the word of God to gain mere knowledge and you absolutely love doing it to the exclusion or ignoring of everything else, you may be “puffed up” and indeed not “building up.”…. Puffiness rips and tears. Puffiness pushes people away. Puffiness divides. Perhaps even more critical is the fact that puffiness portrays a small gospel and devastatingly distorts God’s glory.
To the puffy I say, “Stop studying your Bible.” Go on a quest for Jesus. He is the Word! Study Him, not it.
Studying Jesus and not any knowledge regarding Jesus is the most popular rendering of 1Corithians 2:2 in our day: we are supposed to make every effort to know NOTHING but Christ and him crucified. After all, according to another popular truism in our day, “He is a person—not a precept.”
Of course, most Protestants would deny all of this out of hand when confronted, but the roots and foundation of Protestant ideology has at least resulted in a lax view of knowledge while leaving the thinking to Protestant academia. Some well-known evangelicals such as Dr. Jay Adams have stated the obvious: Protestants are biblically illiterate, and have no wisdom in regard to Christian living other than God-given commonsense and even that is at an all-time low.
Christians, who strive for wisdom and spiritual maturity in the institutional church, if they don’t give up, will eventually find themselves in turmoil and at a crossroads. Striding towards commonsense spiritual objectives will continually put them at odds with the Protestant herd. I was certainly no exception. As someone who was always considered knowledgeable wherever I attended church as a Baptist, in reality, I knew nothing. The knowledge that I had accumulated in various seminaries and Bible colleges was all but worthless. Though I read and studied my Bible more than most, I understood little of it. Most of what I read made no sense at all. Nevertheless, I deemed myself knowledgeable relative to the environment, yet in my heart, I knew the Christian life made no sense and I was for the most part confused. In reality, I was good at constructing Protestant sentences with orthodox bumper stickers and pithy truisms.
So, I set out on a journey eight years ago to search for clarity after 23 years of confusion and strife. The part of my journey that really made everything come together began in 2011 when I embarked on a personal study of Paul’s letter to the Romans. I was determined to make this the time—the endeavor that would reveal once and for all what I was searching for: why my God seemed to be a God of confusion. I prayed earnestly at the beginning of the study that I would just let Paul’s words say what they plainly said. If something he wrote was definitive, I would use that as a building block of understanding.
Though I stayed true to the plan, not much happened until Romans 4:15. That’s the day my life came to a full stop.
For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
What in the world did Paul mean by that? NO law, NO sin: especially in the context; speaking of Christians. I kept it mind and continued to work through the letter. Then I came to Romans 5:13…
for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
There it was again: no law, no sin. I stopped there in my verse by verse study and read through the rest of the letter and found the following:
Romans 7:6 – But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. 7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.
Apart from the law sin lies dead. There it is again. No law, no sin. Then I read the following as well:
Romans 10:4 – For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Conclusion: Christ died on the cross to end the law, and where there is no law, there is no sin. That’s how Christ took my sins away: He died on the cross to end the law. The true Christian is free from any judgement or condemnation—we are not under the jurisdiction of the law.
I wasn’t the least bit sure where this left the law in regard to the Christian life, but pondering the simple fact that we are no longer condemned was exhilarating and freeing. The old self that was under the law of sin and death died with Christ; you can’t indict a dead person, they are no longer under the law. And even if you exhumed my body and presented it in court, the judge has no law in which to convict me (Rom 7:1-6). There is NOW no condemnation for those in Christ (Rom 8:1).
Again, I was not sure where this left the law in regard to the believer’s life, but I had my building block; part of the pieces fit together which would lead to more pieces fitting and an increased understanding of the bigger picture.
Then I came to Romans 8:2.
For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Remember, I had committed to simply letting the words say what they say. As a result, I saw something in this verse that I had never seen before; clearly, Paul wrote of two separate laws…the law of the Spirit, which I had always thought of as the Spirit’s realm of influence, and the law of sin and death.
“Wait a minute here,” I thought to myself. “If the law of sin and death refers to the written law that condemns mankind, and the two laws spoken of here are the same Greek word, and they are, why would one refer to a realm while the other one referred to a written law? Could it be that this is two perspectives on the same law?” I knew that a literal take on this verse would demand that, and then John 17:17 came to mind:
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Then another verse came to mind:
And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment (Jn 16:8).
That’s when I realized that the law has two different applications/perspectives: one for the lost and one for the saved. But verses were not done coming to mind:
Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfills the requirements of God’s law (Rom 13:10).
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love (Gal 5:6).
So, the Christian is free to aggressively love God and others through obedience without ANY fear of condemnation:
There is no fear in love, but perfect [mature] love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected [matured, or growing] in love (1Jn 4:18).
Therefore, why the Reformation is a lie is not complicated at all. This SIMPLE fact makes Protestant theology a house of cards: it keeps so-called believers under the law of sin and death; its very definition of a Christian is the Bible’s definition of a lost person…under law (Rom 6:14). Protestantism is predicated on a single perspective on the law that Christians remain under; they remain under condemnation. This condemnation is covered by Christ’s righteousness as the “Christian” lives by faith alone. Living by faith alone works (usually some kind of ritual like “preaching the gospel to ourselves everyday”) imputes the obedience of Christ to our Christian lives as a way to keep ourselves justified. The Reformed call this “double imputation.”
Once one gets past all of the theological Protestant-speak, it boils down to extremely simple theological math: a Christian is NOT free to love—Jesus must love for us lest it be works salvation. And it almost goes without saying that there is a love famine in the institutional church for this very reason. The Protestant is not free to love, but must focus on a convoluted life formula that supposedly imputes the righteousness of Christ to our lives and thereby keeps us saved. Yes, this is the dirty little secret: total depravity doesn’t merely apply to the unregenerate, but also to the “saints.”
Yes, yes, many a Protestant doth protest against this accusation because few Protestants know what Protestantism is. Nevertheless, it is a false gospel that denies the new birth and keeps people under law and not under grace—a grace that frees the individual to aggressively love without fear of condemnation and the mire of unhealthy introspection.
We are saved APART from the law of sin and death…period (Rom 3:21), and it does NOT matter who keeps the law, the law of sin and death itself is the issue. Salvation is accomplished by the ENDING of the law of sin and death—not the fulfilling of it. Christ came to fulfill the law of the Spirit of life (and love) through us (Rom 8:4)…NOT the law of sin and death.
That would make the law of sin and death a co-life-giver with Christ. The law cannot give life unto salvation. If Christ fulfilled the law of sin and death with loving obedience to the Father, that law is a co-life-giver. That is Paul’s entire point in Galatians chapter 3. There is only ONE seed. If we are still under the law, the law is an additional seed that can give life…but there is only ONE!
Hence, Protestantism goes the way of most other false religions; some ritual or tradition fulfills the law of sin and death and separates the individual from the freedom to love without condemnation and according to the law of the Spirit of life. Love is replaced by obeying men and faithfulness to their institutions. The law of love is replaced with the traditions of men and their orthodoxy.
Consequently, we are in a Protestant dark age. In the same way that secular America has awakened to the failure of the elitist political class, Christians must awaken to realize the failure of Protestant academia. The assembly of Christ was a laity movement, and only the laity can return God’s people to the truth of the gospel. This is a repeat of history when God’s elect where continually troubled by the 1st century Gnostic elitists. Paul wrote to them…
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.
Likewise, the beloved James addressed the problem as well:
Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?
This is our mission at TANK, to aid the priesthood of believers in rediscovering the truth of the gospel and kingdom living robbed from us by 500 years of Protestant orthodoxy. The light has been covered by the Protestant basket long enough, and this is a matter of simple theological math: the new birth is the standard of righteousness, NOT the law of sin and death, and it matters not who keeps it—it CANNOT give life.
So, the speakers at this year’s conference are partaking in this journey in the arena of ideas. This is an issue that addresses every area of life and culture. Other than the gospel of first importance stated here, everything is being examined and revisited. It’s not group think, it’s collective truth made up of individuals seeking the one mind of Christ, not the traditions of men.
Let all be convinced according to their own conscience. Protestant elitists will not stand in our stead regardless of their claims, but each person will give an account for the sum and substance of their own lives. Let us do it with trembling and fear; not any fear of condemnation, but a fear of trading the life of Christ for the death of tyranny.
Because only truth sanctifies,
Paul M. Dohse
Book Review: Facing Up to John Immel’s “Blight In The Vineyard”
Originally posted June 19, 2012
Barb Orlowski, D.Min, and author of ChurchExiters.com states the following in an introduction to said blog:
Every year dedicated Christian people leave churches because of spiritual abuse [this is epidemic in our day]. What factors contribute to dedicated and active believers in Christ leaving their churches and becoming exiting statistics? The stories of people who left their home church because of a negative and hurtful experience [more often they are shown the front door] paint a picture of a widespread occurrence, which beckons consideration by church leaders and church congregants alike.
John Immel saw the picture that Dr. Orlowski describes and even experienced it firsthand. I don’t know what his experience was exactly, and he doesn’t know much about mine either; as he said to me over dinner: “I think we are both past that now.” Which brings me to something else Orlowski wrote in a recent article:
The church should lead the way in uncovering any of these dark behaviors. The local church has an opportunity to be part of the solution and not part of the problem regarding these covert and dysfunctional issues in the church today.
As more people understand what spiritual abuse is and what it is not, then there can be an army of people who are able to help in clarifying many of the confusing topics that get intertangled with this issue (Dr. Barb Orlowski: What Spiritual Abuse Is and Is Not).
I dare say that John Immel has seen the picture (which is hard to miss in our day), considered it, and discovered the root cause. He has also articulated the cause/root in a way that invokes a Monopoly-like motto: “Do not pass understanding; do not collect 200 issues.” Now all that’s left is to educate and raise the army.
Immel has clarified the issue in, Blight In The Vineyard: Exposing the Roots, Myths, and Emotional Torment of Spiritual Tyranny (2011 Presage Publishing). Therefore, the solution is easy: promote education that will lead to a rejection of the root cause. Yes, it can be complicated, but it can also be simple; when you follow and support certain philosophies, either “wittingly” or unwittingly— bad things happen. A certain philosophy, or maybe better said, idea, has always spawned the same results from the conception of Western culture. A counter idea has always yielded dramatically different results deemed favorable by those disposed towards happiness. I have come to believe that America was founded on the counter idea. Consider what Immel writes in the introduction to Blight In The Vineyard:
Blogs made it possible for people to compare notes and connect dots. Suddenly, the pixelated events result into high definition and the picture shows a breathtaking consistency. The stories contain striking uniformity in pastoral conversations and actions. They contain profound similarities in the emotional, spiritual, and psychological pain of those who have suffered.
That set me to thinking. How was it possible that from state to state, even country to country, people could recount similar life events with stunningly consistent conversations, outcomes, and backlash? What ideas could produce such underlying fear, anxiety, and spiritual frustration? What ironclad logic could cause masses of people to act out similar conduct that produces such invasive outcomes? What thoughts that lurk under the titles of authority would lead average men to believe they wield unchecked control over people’s lives? How could a denomination reproduce such unswerving reproducibility?
Many today ask the same questions. A reader of my blog named Charles posed the same question this way:
Have noticed this for a great many years, and my wife and I always wondered…. “What text book on abusing the sheep are all these guys reading from,” because they all acted the same.
Right here in this review we see some of what Charles is referring to. Orlowski, Immel, and Charles have never met, but note the similarities in their descriptions and even use of the same words. Nevertheless, here is where I depart for a spell and will return a little later. My perspective has been radically changed by Immel’s book and interacting with him in the arena of ideas. In fact, I have made his book required reading in the Dohse household, and have already led family devotions based on the book’s major theme. I now share my perspective based on additional study/research prompted by Immel’s assertions.
The least common denominator is the debate over the competency of man verses the incompetency of man. I believe the basic philosophy of Plato is vastly relevant to this debate. Plato saw man as utterly incompetent save those who understood that reality must be ascertained by means other than the senses. In other words, reality, goodness, and truth could not be surmised by observation of matter. He believed that the few who are able to see reality should rule over the ignorant masses who are enslaved to mere shadows/forms of the truth. Remember also that Plato lived in a culture inhabited primarily by slaves who served the elite. Some historians estimate that 90% of the Greek citizenship during the time of Plato was slaves.
It is my contention that Augustine (a Catholic Saint) integrated Plato’s ideas with theology and more specifically, Neo-Platonism which later spawned multiple forms of Gnosticism that plagued the 1st century church. The most notable Reformers were followers of Augustine, but the backbone of their theology was the underlying assumption that man was utterly incompetent whether regenerate or unregenerate. I believe that Augustine merely exchanged Plato’s concept of reality with “gospel.” Hence, today we have the elitist gatekeepers of the gospel ruling over the totally depraved.
Now we can return to Charles, and my reply to his comment:
Charles,
John Immel answers that question in his book, “Blight In The Vineyard.” It’s a philosophy that yields natural results, so it’s like they all read from the same playbook. The basic philosophy sees freedom of ideas as a danger to civilization and the church. Initially, many buy into it for fear of chaos, but the results are always bad according to history. Ideas are very powerful, and almost always tempt the individual to act upon them. Freedom to interpret reality is a kissing cousin to freedom of ideas.
The ideas that rule the day also rule the world. Hence, the Reformation was really a spat between Rome and the Reformers about who was going to control the ideas. Both Rome and the Reformers believed that one’s freedom to interpret reality was nothing that should be tried at home by the common people. When man is seen as utterly incompetent to contribute to his own destiny, love as determinism is the only solution. Visit any of the spiritual abuse expose blogs–the trouble started when people questioned doctrine, or even spoke in way that would enable others to think for themselves. Immel uses happenings at SGM [a denomination of Reformed Charismatics] to illustrate how this philosophy plays out naturally in real life.
Later, John Immel contributed some thoughts to Charles’ comment:
Charles… I think the answer to the question is … yes, they are reading from the same book. Pastors the world over are pulling from the same intellectual traditions. They don’t pastor in a vacuum. They pastor with the whole history of Christianity hanging in their heads like a fog.
Very few people want to reinvent the peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Or maybe better said very few people have the ability to challenge peanut butter and jelly orthodoxy, so they tend to review what has always been said, and emulate those foggy ideas.
While very, very few people consider themselves Calvinists… (or even know what he really preached, or practiced) with striking consistency they accept many of the Calvinist assumptions, which is to say they accept Augustinian presumptions about life, and spirituality what God intended the “gospel” to mean.
I have said this in many places… for all of Protestantism’s presumption that they are the authentic real version of Christianity that Catholicism screwed up…. at the end of the day, post Reformation Christian doctrine is metaphysically Catholic, which is to say we are foundationally committed to Augustine’s presumptions.
The ‘abuse’ is merely the logical outcomes of those foundations. The reason we are circling back around the tyranny of the ages, is because for the first time in American history, our doctrinal thinkers (en mass) without any hesitation, with full ‘moral’ clarity, are advocating the historic ideas that justified the tyranny.
So yes… they are all reading from the same book…
Today’s church can stop spiritual tyranny. But it will require agreement on the root cause. And the root cause is Reformed theology. Wherever and whenever it has been tried, despotism and despair has followed: in Calvin’s Geneva; in Colonial Calvinism; in Confederate Calvinism; in the empty promises of the SDA 1888 conference and the Awakening Movement of the 70’s; and finally, in the present-day Neo-Calvinism Resurgence—a sectarian beast resurrected by the Reformed theological dream team of the Australian Forum.
Just like its non-religious philosophical counterparts, classic Calvinists (the original article as opposed to my “sanctified Calvinists” and Immel’s “convenient Calvinism”) think it’s a good idea that has never been done the right way. The philosophy of determinism, fatalism, and the incompetence of the common man is foisted upon the unregenerate by irreligious despots, and by Reformed elders among the saved.
Immel’s book puts feet on these generalizations. The solution is to shun the philosophy; bad things happen when bad philosophy is followed. And through education, we can raise up Orlowski’s army.
Whether Geneva Calvinism, Colonial Calvinism, Confederate Calvinism, SDA Calvinism, or Neo-Calvinism, it always has, and always will die a social death due to its gangrenous despotism. We can hasten its rightful death in our day, and prevent future rediscovery movements with the present-day “picture” following. We can give others another way to follow.
If we can face up to the blight in the vineyard.
Paul M. Dohse
Author: The Truth About New Calvinism: Its History, Doctrine, and Character
leave a comment