Are You a “Church” Member of a Little Geneva?
“Diverting the saints away from a many-faceted application of truth to the narrow mystic prism of Redemptive Historical hermeneutics is the focused and intentional blitzkrieg of the Reformed oligarchy. The sole purpose of this hermeneutic is to stifle independent thought and free thinking.”
“One should note with much ado that ‘sin’ is anything that Reformed elders say it is. Parishioners often assume that Reformed elders define sin worthy of church discipline by a literal biblical definition. While such naivety is adorable, it is far from reality.”
“And ‘church autonomy’ was not intended to protect either church or state from each other. With Reformed history fresh in their minds, the framers of the constitution sought to prevent cooperation between the two for the expressed protection and well-being of the people.”
“The First Amendment has an ‘ embedded theology’? Really? I will say this as lovingly as I can: if you sign a membership covenant with any church, you need your head examined—the Reformed claim that church membership equals being saved notwithstanding.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
TANC, our organization that is in the process of being formed for the purpose of educating the church about Reformed theology, ultimately seeks to have Reformed theology, and Calvinism in particular, labeled as a cult. That is what we will be aggressively propagating with all diligence. And your support is appreciated.
Like all cults, Reformed theology seeks to control their subjects. But why? The reason stems from ancient spiritual caste systems in which an enlightened minority leads the masses. Proponents will include people who merely lust for power along with those with the best of intentions. Initially, governments and religious institutions were one and the same, ruling on earth in God’s behalf. Supposedly. Large numbers of people will buy into this because it offers them some sort of comfort /security, and it is also easy: “I belong to the fill in the blank ; therefore, heaven is guaranteed no matter what I believe or do.”
When these cults are old and survive a long time, they begin to be classified as “religions.” When individuals start religious movements (and ironically) with the exact same elements, they are often labeled, “cults.” Some cults that are poorly managed, and make bad decisions regarding their ancient presuppositions concerning mankind crash with a big bang. Jim Jones’ “People’s Temple” is a good example of this. Others like the Reformed tradition die a social death, but continue on with acceptable adjustments while retaining the same nomenclature. But from time to time the authentic article will resurface as new movements that have “rediscovered” the “true gospel.” This is the exclusiveness claim that is indicative of all cults.
This spiritual caste system always results in tyranny. How cult leaders manage the ebb and flow of comfort versus tyranny determines whether or not their particular brand will reach religious status, or even that of “denomination.” BUT, the same philosophical ideas that drive every cult are always present and operating. In the “success” thereof, the subjects believe that they are receiving something from the religious caste system (cultic religions/denominations) that they otherwise could not receive from God directly. That’s key—direct access to God =’s NO CONTROL.
The proof is in the pudding and John Calvin’s rule over Geneva is well documented and nothing less than Cult 101. The recent “Neo-Calvinism” surge in the church is merely an excellent contemporary study of the same exact elements that drove the tyranny in Geneva. It is a Geneva that the New Calvinists lust for. The only difference is the pesky separation of church and state that exists in many democracies such as the USA. So, they improvise.
Many New Calvinist “churches” pursue close relationships with local authorities with intentionality. A saved policeman that buys into the theology is considered to be a prized possession in Reformed churches. Such individuals can be used to intimidate unofficially, and in some cases, in a construct that is unlawful. For instance, if a Reformed church wants to ban an individual from church premises because of what they know while posing no objective threat to the safety of the parishioners, such a ban may have no lawful merit. And to obtain a restraining order is a due process that may expose the “church” to information that they do not want known. Here is where a phone call from a local police officer, or in my case, someone claiming to be a Springboro, Ohio police detective comes in handy. Churches, in most states, cannot ban members from the premises that do not pose a physical threat to parishioners or create a disturbance (for example, see the Wall Street Journal report here: http://goo.gl/zgf4R). In-house security details are also becoming popular in Reformed churches. They are used to intimidate and escort individuals from church premises making use of assumed authority by those who submit to their intimidation.
The following are the primary elements of a cult and ever present in Reformed churches as well:
I. Control mechanisms.
A. Small groups.
B. “Accountability”
C. “Mentors”
D. Unearned fast friendships.
a. Part of a reporting structure.
E. Time control.
a. Lots of events scheduled.
II. Love Bombing
A. Love is from the heart and transcends propositional truth.
III. Exclusiveness
A. The “unadjusted,” “underestimated,” “scandalous” gospel.
IV. Authoritative interpretation of truth.
A. The elders are the final authority on what the Bible teaches.
B. Parishioners have no authority to interpret the Bible for themselves.
C. Spiritual growth must include elder preaching.
D. Thinking for yourself is a dangerous stunt that shouldn’t be tried at home.
V. Authority to proclaim salvation status.
A. If the elders proclaim an individual unregenerate, whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.
Reformed theologians control independent interpretation of the Bible through academic intimidation and the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic. To say that most parishioners of our day have been brainwashed into to thinking that they are not qualified to interpret the Bible on their own is a gargantuan understatement. But on top of this, the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic (uniquely of the Reformed tradition) demands a redemptive application for every verse in the Bible. Exegetical propositional truth has been replaced with gospel contemplation and an art (seeing the gospel in every verse of the Bible) reserved for the spiritually enlightened Reformed elders. The totally depraved herd should only be concerned with Jesus saving them more and more each day and not drawing any objective conclusions from the Bible that might disagree with Reformed ideas. Diverting the saints away from a many-faceted application of truth to the narrow mystic prism of Redemptive Historical hermeneutics is the focused and intentional blitzkrieg of the Reformed oligarchy. The sole purpose of this hermeneutic is to stifle independent thought and free thinking.
Yesterday, a reader sent me a review of a new book published from the monstrous New Calvinist propaganda machine which has all but completely polluted mainstream Christianity. A vast majority of Christians now depend on para-Bible information as the “subordinate” truth to live by. While recognizing its subordination to the Bible, they also recognize that they can’t understand the Bible. God’s anointed must interpret it for us.
The email heading was entitled, “Geneva Coming?” Probably not, but only because this is America. However, it is more than fair to say that Calvin’s Geneva was cultish to say the least, and New Calvinists will do everything they can to improvise within the present restrictions. It’s who they are—they can’t help it—they are driven by the same philosophy that drove Calvin. And that is what the new book is about: how to control people with church discipline without getting sued, or at least winning the court case if you do get sued as a church.
This is a necessary book for New Calvinists because what drives their church discipline is not based on a literal interpretation of the Bible—it’s based on controlling ideas and free thinking. Furthermore, non-New Calvinistic churches do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against the rampant bogus church discipline plaguing the church. Hence, out of frustration, many seek justice in the civil courts—especially because some of the issues are criminal in nature and not merely civil. In many cases, victims are held hostage at New Calvinist churches; elders disallow departure from membership because the reasons for leaving are “not biblical.” Departure would then result in excommunication. Calvinists believe they have the authority to declare someone unsaved, and whether right or wrong, God will honor it. Hence, to disobey the elders could cause you to lose your salvation. Furthermore, in Reformed circles, to be a member of a church is synonymous with salvation; as one Reformed elder has stated: “Since the church is the Body of Christ, a person cannot be “in Christ” unless he is in the church.” Therefore, to be excommunicated for any reason is synonymous with NOT being “in Christ.” In many states the threat of excommunication to control or stop a decision to leave a church is technically kidnapping. Ohio is a prime example:
Route: Ohio Revised Code » Title [29] XXIX CRIMES – PROCEDURE » Chapter 2905: KIDNAPPING AND EXTORTION
2905.12 Coercion.
(A) No person, with purpose to coerce another into taking or refraining from action concerning which the other person has a legal freedom of choice, shall do any of the following:
(1) Threaten to commit any offense;
(2) Utter or threaten any calumny against any person;
(3) Expose or threaten to expose any matter tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, to damage any person’s personal or business repute, or to impair any person’s credit;
(4) Institute or threaten criminal proceedings against any person;
(5) Take, withhold, or threaten to take or withhold official action, or cause or threaten to cause official action to be taken or withheld.
(B) Divisions (A)(4) and (5) of this section shall not be construed to prohibit a prosecutor or court from doing any of the following in good faith and in the interests of justice:
(1) Offering or agreeing to grant, or granting immunity from prosecution pursuant to section 2945.44 of the Revised Code;
(2) In return for a plea of guilty to one or more offenses charged or to one or more other or lesser offenses, or in return for the testimony of the accused in a case to which the accused is not a party, offering or agreeing to dismiss, or dismissing one or more charges pending against an accused, or offering or agreeing to impose, or imposing a certain sentence or modification of sentence;
(3) Imposing a community control sanction on certain conditions, including without limitation requiring the offender to make restitution or redress to the victim of the offense.
(C) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (A)(3), (4), or (5) of this section that the actor’s conduct was a reasonable response to the circumstances that occasioned it, and that the actor’s purpose was limited to any of the following:
(1) Compelling another to refrain from misconduct or to desist from further misconduct;
(2) Preventing or redressing a wrong or injustice;
(3) Preventing another from taking action for which the actor reasonably believed the other person to be disqualified;
(4) Compelling another to take action that the actor reasonably believed the other person to be under a duty to take.
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of coercion, a misdemeanor of the second degree.
(E) As used in this section:
(1) “Threat” includes a direct threat and a threat by innuendo.
(2) “Community control sanction” has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.
Effective Date: 01-01-2004
The name of the book that was the subject of the review is, “A Tale of Two Governments” by Robert J. Renaud and Lael D. Weinberger. The review was written by David V. Edling (http://goo.gl/gvPed). Edling is co-author of “Redeeming Church Conflicts”(Baker, 2012) and was the director of church relations at Peacemaker Ministries before his retirement. Peacemaker Ministries was formed to deal with the onslaught of lawsuits resulting from the recent resurgence of authentic Geneva style Calvinism and its tyranny.
The authors and the reviewer bemoan the fact that lawsuits may prevent churches from moving forward with church discipline, and the book apparently offers a clear path to overcoming those fears by implementing protocols that will prevent lawsuits or prevent a negative legal judgment against a church. According to Edling:
While fear of having to interact with the secular courts and fear of man may dampen the zeal to follow the biblical prescription when a church member hardens his or her heart and remains stuck in sin, these authors effectively refute the idea that such excuses hold any validity. The most significant contribution these authors make to life together in the church today is to provide church leaders and members with confidence—confidence that these common fears can be replaced with the knowledge that being biblical is protected by the laws that govern both church and state.
One should note with much ado that “sin” is anything that Reformed elders say it is. Parishioners often assume that Reformed elders define sin worthy of church discipline by a literal biblical definition. While such naivety is adorable, it is far from reality.
Edling continues with the following statement that is chilling to anyone one who knows the real truth about Reformed doctrine and history:
The foundation for their argument is Scripture. They effectively exegete the relevant passages, including an explanation of how Jesus proclaimed he would build his church by giving men “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19), that is, the unique authority both to open the kingdom (through the preaching of the gospel) and to regulate its internal administration (through the practice of church discipline, binding and loosing sin). Using a threefold approach of (1) church history (specifically a “high point” review of 2,000 years of church-state relations); (2) a concise review of the common law and American jurisprudence (the development of the current legal doctrine called “church autonomy”); and (3) practical theology (how to keep your church out of court), Renaud and Weinberger deftly weave together their “tale” that leaves the reader with only one conclusion: if we are wise, we need not fear the courts or the reaction of our church members as we fulfill the call of Christ to love his people and build his church as he has directed using church discipline to restore, protect, and keep pure that for which he died.
Did Christ give Reformed elders a “unique” authority to “bind and loose sin” on earth? The apostles claimed no such “unique authority,” but rather constantly referred to the authority of Scripture and the ability of the saints to interpret it for themselves (Acts 17:11). The apostle Paul called on everyday saints to judge what the true gospel is for themselves (Galatians 1:8), and to only follow leaders AS they follow Christ. Furthermore, you can be certain that the authors only cover the “high point[s]” of Reformed history as it is saturated with the blood of those who disagreed with the Reformers. In the same way that people pick their noses in their cars and somehow think others cannot see them, Reformed elders think that the bloody oligarchy of Reformed history cannot be read. And “church autonomy” was not intended to protect either church or state from each other. With Reformed history fresh in their minds, the framers of the constitution sought to prevent cooperation between the two for the expressed protection and well-being of the people.
The reviewer continues with the following statement that can only be said to reveal how ignorant they believe the saints are:
What does it mean for the church to “be wise” from a secular legal perspective in light of the many court cases that have been decided over the years? As these authors summarize, church leaders must be aware of legal principles that will protect the church in its practice of discipline. Failure to stay within these boundaries may leave the church unprotected. The “church autonomy” doctrine is built on the First Amendment’s embedded theology that God established two separate but equal governments, but the First Amendment doesn’t necessarily bar all claims that may touch on religious conduct. To protect the legal distinction church leaders must understand that their jurisdiction to practice discipline depends on following the law. Central to understand is the “implied consent” that exists in a truly voluntary relationship between church and member (typically through formal membership), that an act of discipline must be grounded in a church’s doctrinal commitments that have been clearly articulated and are supported by recognized religious belief and practice, and that the church must have a clearly stated policy for the practice of biblical church discipline (usually set forth in its constitution or bylaws). Further, church leaders must help members understand the limits of confidentiality because church discipline, by definition, requires others knowing of the continuing sin in the life of one who fails to repent and change.
Here is the assertion that the church and the state are two separate “governments” with the church having its own “jurisdiction.” This mentality should send cold chills running up the back of any thinking person while running to reread the membership covenant they signed. The First Amendment has an “ embedded theology”? Really? I will say this as lovingly as I can: if you sign a membership covenant with any church, you need your head examined—the Reformed claim that church membership equals being saved notwithstanding.
In his conclusion, the reviewer states the following:
Consider whether your church may be failing to obey God’s appointed means of soul care through the faithful and consistent practice of redemptive church discipline.
“Redemptive church discipline”? What’s that? The Scriptures never use the term “church discipline” let alone the former. That term should alert you that something may not be exactly right. I address church discipline issues in detail via a free ebook available on this blog: https://paulspassingthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ebook-church-discipline.pdf and for good measure: https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2012/02/09/new-calvinism-and-hotel-california/
Meanwhile, don’t join a little Geneva. And if you’re in one get out. You’re in a cult. A doctrine/philosophy of control equals cult regardless of the nomenclature.
paul
The Potter’s House: Sunday, November 11, 2012
Divine Anthropology: Jews, Gentiles, and the Law; Romans 2:9-10
It is obvious from the book of Romans that the apostles were fighting a spiritual caste system that divided Jew and Gentile, and this divide was detrimental to individual spiritual growth and the spiritual wellbeing of the church. The church was fundamentally Jewish in its conception, and the Gentiles were eventually included as recognized, equal members with much controversy. Acts, chapter 10 makes this abundantly clear. Before this, Gentiles were of the proselyte class, and their participation was confined to the Court of the Gentiles. Now, the Gentiles have become coequals with God’s chosen people, the Jews. We will develop this as we progress in the book of Romans, but the Western church’s relentless propaganda against Jewish uniqueness and its embodiment of the church is no less than utterly diabolical.
As we will see as we progress in Paul’s letter to the Romans (and don’t miss this), the stature of the Jews, and their future, and how that fits into end time prophecy is efficacious to THE GOSPEL. Many in the church have been dealt a woefully bad hand by the academics of our day through the idea of “secondary” or “less essential” (“essential” and “non-essential”) doctrine. Matthew 4:4 and 2Timothy 3:16,17 clearly brings this idea into doubt, and for very good reason. Eschatology is GOSPEL. We will see that one’s belief regarding the relationship of the law to grace will determine their eschatology—particularly in regard to the resurrections and judgments.
Therefore, Paul is laying the groundwork in his divine anthropology for an understanding of how law, grace, Gentile, and Jew relate to each other and the outworking thereof. The whole of Scripture is GOSPEL. Scripture is truth (John 17:17), GOSPEL is truth. All of these terms are used interchangeably throughout Scripture. When one merely believes in the saving work of Jesus Christ to be saved, the only authority for that information comes from the Bible. There is no reasonable criterion for accepting that part of the Bible, and not the rest.
Whether wittingly or unwittingly, gospel belief unto salvation recognizes the authority of the Bible for life and godliness—it is “obedience to the gospel.” The obedience does not save; you are saved when you recognize such and want it for your own. Certainly everyone agrees that saving faith is not a mere mental ascent to the facts of the gospel. It is also a commitment to mix the remainder of the Bible with our faith (see the book of James). Deciding to marry someone and getting their agreement is what makes us married. The commitment. Certainly, all agree that marriage is a commitment and participating in the marriage itself is not what makes us married.
However, some approach the gospel like they approach marriage: “We are going to live with each other for a while to see if we are compatible.” Hence, there is no trust in the idea that this marriage is the right idea; therefore, they are going to take it for a test drive. Many in our day approach the gospel the same way. Some gospel presentations beckon, “Try Jesus.” “Experience Jesus.” This goes along with the idea that salvation is primarily a “personal experience”; ie, “I have a personal relationship with Jesus.” This also often results in the idea that, “I tried Jesus and didn’t like Him, but since I decided to take Him for a test drive, I am still saved.”
We must remember that Christ’s own way of presenting the gospel was, “FOLLOW ME.”
Matthew 8:22
And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”
Matthew 10:38
And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Matthew 16:24
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Matthew 19:21
Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Matthew 20:34
And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they recovered their sight and followed him.
There you have it. Saving faith is a commitment to follow the Lord. The following doesn’t save you; the commitment to follow saves you. A cursory observation of the gospels reveals many who engaged in a test following of Jesus and decided following Jesus wasn’t their cup of tea. They wanted to live with Jesus for a while and give Him a try. But that’s not trust. That’s not putting your trust in things yet unseen. That’s having faith in something that is verified; and usually, something that you prefer: “God agrees with me, so I will follow Him.” Christ Himself stated it this way:
Luke 9:62
Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”
The vast majority of gospels in our day define salvation as an ambiguous “personal relationship” that is higher and more virtuous than, “a bunch of rules.” This is hyperbole for the purpose of rejecting the true gospel which advocates following Jesus for not only who He is, but also what He SAYS. To not follow Jesus according to that, starting with the basic truth that He alone made a way for us to be kingdom citizens is to follow a God of our own making. And frankly, a supposed “intimate” relationship with Jesus that is supposedly based on things of higher virtue than propositional truth is to lend credibility to a realm of uncertainty. Myriads of belief systems and theories are directly related to the abandonment of a goal to “be one mind in Christ”; ie, the Bible is God’s full truth statement to mankind for life and godliness.
The verse we begin with today begins with a contrast conjunction (“but”), so we must back up a little to understand the contrast. Hence:
Romans 2:6 – He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.
Here, we have the criteria set before the crippled Romans who had angst regarding their significance in the church, but yet were serving with full diligence to the point of their service being known throughout the world (1:8). Regardless of their handicap, they served faithfully. Why? Let me use Japanese American citizens during World War II as an illustration. Though their families were interned and treated as second class citizens, Japanese American soldiers gave their all in the American military—despising the idea that they were “fighting against the motherland.” Why? They had faith in America, and deemed it as their best hope for a worthwhile future. Therefore, they strived to prove their worthiness as American soldiers and earn the respect of the American public. This is what was going on at Rome.
And Paul wanted to completely eradicate that misconception. He wanted to remove that handicap completely. If they were doing well as it was, just think how much better they would do if this hindrance was removed! Much of the letter is dedicated to completely explaining why the Gentiles were coregents with Israel at every level. Be sure of this: such is one of the primary themes of this letter and seen throughout. And it is not enough that Paul simply states the idea as fact, or the what, he fully explains the why in painstaking detail:
Romans 2:9 – There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.
Whether Jew or Gentile, Paul reiterates the ONLY standard for the standard in verses 6-8. But verse 7 is packed with theological depth:
to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
Why does it take “patience” to partake in “well-doing”? In this one verse, Paul eradicates volumes of hideous antinomian doctrine in our day. Oh the power of God’s wisdom! What men invest millions to propagate, God destroys with twenty human words! The fact that it takes patience to do well indicates a conflicting force within in us. Certainly, God doesn’t need patience to do well; it’s obviously talking about us. And if Christ obeys for us, why do we need patience? Is it saying that we need patience in order to let Christ obey for us through a Reformed formula of passivity lest we not live by faith? Then why would Paul not simply say so? To the contrary, Paul will revisit this later in the letter, explaining in detail why we struggle to obey Christ, and why it takes patience (hupomone).
Another element that can be seen in this verse that also disavows antinomian theology (especially of the Reformed sort) is Paul’s affirmation that we can partake in “well-doing.” This is also confirmed by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 5:9
So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.
By “away,” Paul is referring to being at home with the Lord. In context, the “pleasing” is the same whether here as Christians or in heaven. The goal is the same. Christians are able to please the Lord with our works here and now, and it goes without saying that we will be able to do so in heaven after our transformation is complete. As Christians, we look forward to the day when pleasing Him will not take patience. Coupled with the fact that the law is the standard for pleasing God, one must come to the sobering realization that those lifted up as the Doctors of Grace in our day refuted the idea that Christians are able to keep the law. John Calvin made his concurrence of this abundantly evident in the Calvin Institutes (book 3, chapter 14, sections 9-11). The crux is the issue of keeping the law in order to please God, versus the keeping of the law for justification (salvation). Calvin, like many others, though via nuance and doublespeak, saw no difference in the role of the law in justification versus the goal of sanctification: pleasing God with His truth as the standard for doing so. The result was all Christian works being “deprived of its merit” (Inst. Book 3, Ch.14, sec.11).
Paul will teach us the different roles that the law has in salvation versus a life that pleases God this side of glory; specifically in regard to salvation, the law has NO role. In fact, Paul will teach us posthumously that the law was completely abolished in regard to judging our fitness for heaven. This was the grave error of the Reformers: the law remained the standard for our justification; hence, Christ must keep it for us. Thus, it logically follows that we had better not try to keep it IN salvation—it still being the standard for justification. This would be, “legal fiction.” Yet, here is what Paul will teach us:
Romans 3:21- But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe…. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
No one is justified by “works of the law,” and I contend that means a work of the law by anyone—by us or for us. Righteousness is imputed to our account because of the “law of faith” that believes in the one act of Jesus Christ that demonstrated the righteousness of God:
Romans 3:25 – whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Paul will explain how being “under the law” is set against those who are no longer under the law in any respect. Christ doesn’t have to keep the law for us because we are no longer under it for justification like those who are still under it and will be judged by it:
3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
This is why the eschatological understanding of end-time judgments harkens back to the gospel that one believes in. If Christians will be judged by the law (whether Christ keeps it for us or not), we are still “under the law” rather than the “law of faith.” Yet, the difference between the law in sanctification verses justification can be seen in the way Paul writes to us. We are not under it for justification though we are informed by it for purposes of faith (underline added):
3:21 – But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
The law informs us about salvation and how to live, but it is not a standard for our justification. That standard is only the “law of faith.” But in regard to being guided in life, Paul states, “For what does the Scripture say?” (Romans 4:3).
The law is marriage wisdom, but mere commitment to the marriage covenant makes us married. Continuing in the marriage doesn’t make us anymore married than what we were when we made the commitment, but does verify that we were really committed to the marriage. Turning away from the marriage means we never really understood what marriage was about. Marriage can never make one married. Only the original decision to be married makes one married. The carrying out of the commitment only assures us that there was a real commitment to begin with.
And there are only two people groups. Those who obey the gospel, and those who obey unrighteousness. We saw this in a previous study. To not obey the gospel is to suppress truth and righteousness. We continue in using the verses prior to the conjunction of contrast:
2:8 – but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.
This is Paul’s point: in regard to salvation, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile; the only distinction is two different forms of obedience—obedience to truth or obedience to self. Jew and Gentile are both in the same boat. This is a metaphysical law that the Jews do not get a pass on because God chose them first as the nation from which He would disseminate His gospel. Though, “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), they are saved individually by the same law of faith. This is the beginning of Paul’s dissertation to remove the Gentile angst. Jew and Gentile are in the same soteriological boat. The Jew has NO advantage over the Gentile because they are the vanguards of God’s law. The days of the proselyte and the Court of the Gentiles are gone. But what of the law and its special relationship to the Jew? Paul will unravel that further as we progress. Paul was not satisfied with the all-important primary argument—he wants the Romans to be deeply appraised of the issue. And we will glean the gospel treasure thereof.
But we must conclude with this: there are only two commitments among all those that breathe upon the Earth: a commitment to damnation, or a commitment to righteousness. In regard to justification, or salvation if you will, you can’t work for righteousness because there is no standard to work for. Christ cancelled the law by declaring the full righteousness of God by going to the cross. But in regard to the only other alternative, one can work for more and more wrath and damnation because they are still “under the law.” Choosing to be “under the law” is a choice to be judged by it. They are being judged daily by a spiritually discerning law while not being spiritually discerning themselves. They will stand at the judgment with the golden rule as a defense of how well they measured against the demand of God’s law. Every idle word will be on the indictment. Every bad thought will be on the indictment. Every unkind word will be on the indictment. Every half-truth will be on the indictment.
Those who follow Christ escape such a judgment. Our sin, past and present (see Romans 8:30), has been forgiven because Christ paid the penalty thereof. We will not stand in the judgment under the law. This goodness and mercy of God leads us to repentance. We want to be like the Holy God that saved us. Our hearts are changed.
We uphold the law that we will not be judged by. We uphold the law that cannot condemn us or touch us. We don’t have to obey God.
We simply want to as new creatures in God’s family.
Lawless
Lawlessness abounding is the boast of our day,
Leading to cold souls as our Lord did often say.
Lawlessness abounding is the grace of our day,
Boldly proclaiming Jesus in the fray.
The man of lawlessness framing the latter days,
Ignorant of the kinship and claiming Christ the same.
Boasting mighty grace as their final plea,
casting those He never knew into eternal decay.
Southwood is a Sad Mirror of the Contemporary Church: Pastors Have Diplomatic Immunity
Dear concerned Presbyterian (in response to this post),
Great to hear from you friend. Stay strong in the Lord. I have no qualms about revealing the information, though the source requested anonymity. Time/priorities have been the issue, but I could go to press without revealing my source. If anybody who could do something about it, and wants to, is interested in the information--have them contact me. But sadly, he's a philosopher king, and has diplomatic immunity with the Session. Sad but true. May the Lord come quickly. paul
3 comments