Lawson, Church, and Protestantism; It’s Just That Simple
Paul – I think you are being too generous to Lawson, unless my antipathy towards Calvinism has got the better of me! I even looked up Wartburg Watch after about a decade, and the comment there that Lawson has yet even to mention his victim, the girl he had the affaire with, is very telling and indicates his repentance may be more remorse for what his actions have done to him. There is a history of men trying to get back into ministry via repentance but who don’t put things right with the victims. (I appreciate this is assuming she was not altogether willing due to the power differential, the internet is not party to all the details. I also don’t want to be pharisaiacal and deny him the very real forgiveness available if he genuinely turns away from his sins.)
Wartburg quoted Lawson on hell, and frankly he came across as a weirdo, something is clearly wrong with a man who talks like that.
In my observation of Calvinists and their strange doctrines in recent months I have been struck by the notion of regeneration being prior to faith, and indeed necessary for faith to be exercised. Now you have often pointed out the failure to see the the new birth goes beyond a ‘legal declaration’ of being righteous in the sight of God, but I wonder if Calvinists who have given mental assent to the facts of the gospel take this to mean they must be regenerate, their “faith” is evidence of new birth. How else would you know you are part of the elect? You have got to find some subjective evidence you have in fact been chosen for salvation.
What if they are ‘believers’ without the new birth, they have wrongly assumed they are born again? They could have any amount of theology and doctrine and Greek and Hebrew and church history, but no fundamental change has ever taken place, they are not new creations in Christ. They have biblical words, but do not possess what those words mean. Is this a possible explanation for Lawson?
___________________________________________
Whoa, where to start? First of all, Protestantism is Calvinism. Protestantism is founded on the Big Three: Augustine, Luther, Calvin. Luther and Calvin based their authority on Augustine, a Neo-Platonist. Platonism is the antithesis of the biblical new birth, which promotes the idea of deity being fused together with mortality. CLEARLY, authentic Protestant theology rejects the biblical new birth.
After the American Revolution, masses of people were reading the Bible for themselves, and along with influence from the Quakers, a more biblical view of the new birth took hold, and while the Protestant view of salvation continued to be reflected in formal church worship, Protestantism was taken over by a more individualistic biblical new birth mentality. Calls to return to the authentic Protestant gospel sprang up here and there, but fell on deaf ears. Most notably, as reflected by the book, “Disciplined By Grace” written by J.F. Strombeck in 1946. Note the title, and the idea that sanctification (the discipline of the Christian life) is effected by perpetual re-salvation (grace). Hence, discipline in sanctification is by salvation. Sanctification by justification.
The only problem with all of these attempts is they didn’t say the quite part out loud and in plain terms. Well, in 1970, the Australian Forum finally did. Their theological journal, Present Truth, was really a commentary on the Calvin Institutes and the writings of Luther. I document the history of the AF in The Truth About New Calvinism in painstaking detail (primarily chapter 4).
Fact is, the AF gave birth to the New Calvinism movement, which is a return to authentic Protestantism, and overtly denies the biblical new birth and the idea that salvation changes a person’s state of being. Hence, biblically speaking, this means that Protestants are still enslaved to sin with the behaviors we see coming out of church following. Church still advocates moral behavior as an entry level pretense, but then asserts that as people grow spiritually, they become Calvinists. This is why they handle those who “fall” they way they do…it’s all window dressing.
Lawson did what he did because he was taken captive by sin, and dragged away into death per the theology that he has preached for years. In addition, his peers knew it was going on. Hanging out with her publicly was hardly, “avoiding all appearances of evil.” Just consider the insanity of this affair; where did they think it was going to go or end up? They BOTH knew it was going to have a sorry end…but they couldn’t help themselves…they were enslaved to the sinful desire per their theology.
It’s just that simple.
Addendum:
Remember, all residual doctrines of Protestantism, like the idea that people are regenerated before salvation, are fruits from the poisonous tree. Furthermore, if the doctrines were true, the Bible would read differently. In context of cause and effect, God would be the cause in every sentence. Furthermore, in presenting the gospel, why do Calvinists attempt to persuade rather than just presenting the gospel and taking a wait and see posture? You never hear them say, “It’s not your decision, if God saves you, you will start going to church even though salvation doesn’t really change you, you are still totally depraved.” So, the Protestant gospel is not full disclosure by any stretch of the imagination. In addition, someone who hates their life and wants to change it would be misguided in believing the gospel for that reason. The only valid reason would be a strictly legal declaration and not a change in state of being, which the Bible contradicts (justification is apart from the law; a legal declaration is NOT apart from the law).
Protestantism is False Because of Romans 8:2
Most false gospels are based on interpreting soteriology from a single perspective on the law. Protestantism is included in this error as well. Romans 8:2 discusses two laws, “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ” and “the law of sin and death.” Both words for “law” in this passage are “nomos,” meaning a written law or moral code. Many Protestant theologians try to interpret nomos in this passage as two spiritual realms, which of course, is overt hermeneutical error. The word for a spiritual realm is a totally different word.
In addition, the correct interpretation of Romans 8:2 is confirmed by several other passages in scripture, particularly the Spirit’s two uses of the law to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come, and the Spirit’s use of the law to sanctify God’s children.
Because of Protestantism’s single perspective on the law, perfect law-keeping is the standard for righteousness, not the new birth. The so-called believer remains under the condemnation of the law, and being under grace is a covering for remaining under law. In other words, according to the Protestant gospel, a believer is both under law and under grace, or in other words, a “sinner (defined in the Bible as being under condemnation) saved by grace” (actually, being saved by grace because Protestantism teaches that salvation is a “process”).
Consequently, Protestantism denies a biblical definition of the new birth that plunges us into Jesus’ death resulting in the law of sin and death no longer having jurisdiction over us (because the old us is dead, and dead people cannot be indicted), and raising us together with Christ resulting in us being under the power of the Spirit’s use of the law for sanctification.
This doesn’t mean that a born-again Christian is free from all consequences concerning a poo-pooing of the law’s moralism. But, there is a clear biblical demarcation between condemnation and fatherly chastisement that is done from love and not wrath. Protestantism denies this distinction, and conflates condemnation with chastisement in the same way that it conflates all other distinctions between under law and under grace.
The unavoidable result of this is a salvation process that involves church. And by the way, 99.99% of all churches teach from a single perspective on the law. Church isn’t an option. No surprise then that the New Testament ekklesia is not church as we know it; church as we know it comes along about 300 years later.
paul
Death is NOT OK
If you are struggling with the death of a loved one, human or pet, please be free. You are not in bondage to “accepting it” or moving on. You are free to never accept it. Don’t worry, the body and mind will adjust and you will adapt through a new homeostasis because part of you is gone that you will never get back. You can be happy again because your body and mind will create a new normal for you.
This is because God doesn’t accept death. The Bible never states that “death is a normal process of life.” That’s pure nonsense. In fact, the Bible states that death is God’s “enemy” and will be the “last enemy that He will defeat.” This is one reason I love being a nurse; I am fighting God’s enemy. When we lose the fight, it’s not ok, but we know that we will eventually win the war through Christ. My father was a Mason, and I am not advocating for Free Masonry, but during their memorial service for my dad, the speaker, arrayed in his Mason uniform with a sword at his side, said, “We are here today to celebrate the life of Harry Dohse who has been struck down by this world.” I love that. That is so true. Death is not a natural process of life, it’s a homicide committed by a fallen world.
Of late, my favorite Bible verse is Hebrews 2:14,15, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” It’s ok to fear an enemy, though we overcome that fear in order to defeat them. Christ died to free us from enslavement to fear. But that doesn’t make death a part of life; death is God’s enemy. If you are not ok with death, that’s ok because God isn’t either. As nurses, we see it all the time with families and even doctors: requests or orders that reflect denial concerning the inevitable, and I am totally ok with that because death should be denied. Absolutely, I will reorder those eyedrops or Atorvastatin right away. This reflects last vestiges of hope, and is part of the mourning process. The patient is 100 years old and is Full Code? Why is that not ok? Too much life? Why would death be given permission at all? Has death become our friend because our life isn’t what it was?
We should never be in a hurry to surrender to death. In the dying process, dealing with it holistically and embracing God’s enemy is a fine line.
paul
Everything You Need to Know About Church: Steve Lawson
The target audience of this post is those familiar with the ministry circles of John MacArthur Jr., G3, and Ligonier. Hence, this post will not include a lot of background about the close relationship that “Lead Teacher” Steve Lawson had with those ministries. Suffice to say this circle of ministry is a substantial representation of the evangelical church. The internet is fraught with digital placards displaying profound unction by those who represent these ministries.
A lot could be said about the depths of this latest church scandal, but I want to focus on their rules for thee, but not for me mentality. This is because the church is an authoritative institution that has placed itself as an additional mediator between God’s children and God himself. Additionally, the church is not even a sanctified hierarchy, but obviously, a caste system where moral theological principles are not evenly applied on each level.
In this circle of “ministry,” which could also include TGC, G4, and many others, there is a very strong emphasis on the church commoners being willing to “place themselves under the authority of godly men” via the local church. The likes of John Piper and John MacArthur continually call into question those unwilling to be active members of a local church. John Piper has even stated that a willingness to be a member of a church and under its authority is synonymous with loving Jesus. This blog has posted the receipts for over 10 years and will not belabor the point here.
So, now, what do we find out? We find Trinity Bible Church, Ligonier, Master’s seminary, Grace Community Church, G3, et al, accepted a special designation for Lawson referred to as “Lead Preacher,” which excluded him from being a member of a church (and he wasn’t) or an elder. It is unclear how many leaders of these ministries knew about his 5-year relationship with a very young lady, but for certain they all knew that he wasn’t a member of a church, while demanding church membership for the church commoners. Furthermore, the only reason we know any of this is because the girl’s father threatened Steve Lawson with public discloser. Meanwhile, remember that the Reformed church has ruined thousands of lives via church discipline, and Mark Dever became a hero for placing 256 church members under church discipline for nonattendance.
So, how many parishioners will begin to rethink church in leu of this stunning hypocrisy? Few, because parishioners are getting what they want. For all practical purposes, Lawson was a hired entertainer at Trinity and everyone was fine with that. Furthermore, there is a human tendency to find assurance of salvation through expertism rather than Christ. Lawson was an expert theologian and proficient entertainer, that’s all that mattered.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, apparently, Lawson is living in Tennessee and is estranged from his wife. But, the beat goes on. This is business as usual in the church. Some could demand that leaders like Voddie Baucham confess about what they knew and when, but that’s what church discipline is for…
…those who ask relevant questions.
paul.
Where’s Steve? How Lawson’s Response Could Salvage the Church and Glorify Christ
Even though I believe church is a lie and nothing but a salvation marketing business, the church ought to consult me on many matters. I would even do it for free because I am a nice guy. As you know, the latest scandal trending in the church is the Steve Lawson disaster. This one is so bad that the ministries involved are trying to move on ASAP, and the usual clichés seem woefully worn-out and hollow. This one is really, really bad.
Or is it? When I went to church back in the day, a Reformed church, a respected elder had to resign under similar circumstances. The actions of this elder after his “fall” still speak to me today, about 24 years later. First of all, his post-actions emphasized the fact that he was still a member of that church and that was important. After the morning “worship service” (I believe the whole of our lives are worship and service) where he publicly confessed, he never missed a so-called “service” and remained faithful to the choir and other non-leadership ministries that he was involved in. If he wanted to send a message that everything else he did as a church member was important…the message was received loud and clear.
Also, when he walked forward to address the congregation with his confession, his wife was right behind him and sat in the front row while he spoke. I remember her powerful demeanor like it was yesterday, and I picture it in my mind some 24 years later. She was overtly defiant, as in, “Nothing is going to stand between me and this marriage.” The former elder and his family modeled godliness in that congregation for many years afterward. She later supported him in a significant professional endeavor.
So, where’s Steve? Imagine if his response was the same, and what a powerful testimony it would be. That’s where the focus would be, not the damage that has been done. These guys (the Reformed crowd in general) constantly preach about our response to trials, but I can tell you, so far, their response is becoming worse than the original sin.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments