The Hijacking of Charlie Kirk
The church is a hijacker. It began by hijacking the ekklesia, which was never an institution and never functioned as one, and it was never called, “church.” In fact, “church” is not even a biblical word. People will protest this assertion by citing many versus from English translations where “church” appears. I kid you not.
Then, during the American Revolution, the church hijacked the Enlightenment movement, which was the driving force behind the American Revolution, and renamed it “The Great Awakening.” Today, we hear incessantly that America was “founded on Christian principles.” Hold on to that thought for a moment because I want to revisit it later; the idea that principles are either good or evil, and not common.
How did it happen? The hijacking of Charlie Kirk is almost a perfect prototype. Kirk’s movement, Turning Point USA, was primarily a commonsense conservatism movement, while Kirk was also a professing Christian. Actually, Kirk, an independent thinker, was more of a seeker who hadn’t landed totally on any particular orthodoxy, though his wife is Catholic.
However, the bulk of the movement was spawned by conservatism, not religion. In light of Kirk’s assassination, religion has seized the opportunity to hijack the movement. The full court press hijacking officially took place during the memorial service on Sunday complete with contemporary “praise and worship” music and several atonement-based gospels by pastors and political figures.
Church is by definition an institution, and is driven by an atonement gospel rather than a new birth gospel. EVERY sermon during the memorial was an atonement gospel. In other words, sins are only “covered,” and not ended. Churches need reoccurring monthly revenue, and obviously, an ending of sin doesn’t fit an RMR business model. Since Kirk’s death, thousands have been encouraged to “join a church.” I haven’t checked, but I am fairly confident that church attendance has skyrocketed in recent days.
So, be sure of this: instead of Turning Point USA being a conservative movement that includes Churchians, it is now a church movement that includes conservatives. And more and more, the Trump administration is appearing the same way. The danger here is this: people who have no need for church or religion, share common principles according to God-given conscience, and their exclusion is at least inferred if not clearly stated by in-your-face religion. If you offend them enough by constantly calling them sinners, they invariably end up on the other side to make a statement, or just disengage from the arena of ideas all together since they are neither “good” or “evil.” Is the left totally whacko because you have to be one or the other?
By the way, Trump’s huge popularity is due to his focus on common, practical ideas. He is a man of the forgotten and left behind people, but now we have his cabinet members preaching the church gospel at Kirk’s memorial. Trust me on this: if church can also hijack the Trump administration, they will.
Let me be clear: Senator Tim Kaine is an insufferable dumbass, but yet, we should note something that he stated recently; “The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Sharia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians and other religious minorities, and they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling. I think the motto over the Supreme Court is ‘equal justice under law,’ — the oath that you and I take pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not arbitrarily defined natural rights.”
If you want to know what Kaine is talking about, you need to look no further than America’s history when the Puritans ruled over the colonies. That would be the same Puritans lauded by the American church. In no church anywhere are they not lifted up as heroes of the faith. Yet, historically, they were superstitious tyrants that Britian wouldn’t even suffer.
Then, we have Ted Cruze’s response to Kaine: “I just walked into the hearing as he was saying that, and I almost fell out of my chair, because that ‘radical and dangerous notion’ — in his words — is literally the founding principle upon which the United States of America was created,” He then went on to quote the Declaration of Independence, citing, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator’ — not by government, not by the Democratic National Committee, but by God-‘with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”
Do you see the twist? Do you see the slight of hand? The source is not anyone’s interpretation of what God intended, which is inevitable whether a Puritan or an Ayatollah, the source, according to the Declaration of Independence, is what is “SELF-EVIDENT.” Get it? Common sense. What evidently works in real life, according to God-given conscience, and common knowledge hammered out in the arena of ideas. These are Enlightenment ideas, not religious ideas. And frankly, this was the hallmark of Kirk’s organization. Was.
With all this being said, what is going on is interesting. What is going is massive functional ecumenicalism. Oh yes, it will be denied intellectually, but functionally, it’s massive ecumenicalism. Was not the Arizona memorial an unprecedented massive lovefest? Yes it was, and everything but the kitchen sink was in there hugging and kissing. Do I think those of the New Calvinist movement will have to fall in line or lose cultural relevance? Yes, absolutely.
The church is a hijacker, and perhaps the result, particularly their latest conquest, is a segue to the latter-day ecumenical movement we have been watching for.
paul
John MacArthur: A Squandered Legacy
I woke up this morning to the news that John MacArthur has passed. Here are my thoughts. First, what made him the premier preacher in evangelical circles? Because he went beyond the gospel and preached practical application of the Bible…period. Church, in the tradition of the Reformation, made everything about the gospel. Conflating justification and sanctification was the primary thrust of the Reformation gospel. Clearly, the Reformation redefined the new birth, and made sanctification the progression of justification through the practice of church ritual.
Most born again Christians in the 80s were like me, they had a zeal for living a life that promoted God, his Son, and the Christian life. But, what did we find in church? The gospel, the gospel, the gospel, the gospel, the gospel, and compromise with sin. The 70s and 80s were an evangelical wave produced by the failed spiritual movement of the 60s, otherwise known as the hippie movement or the so-called Age of Aquarius. When that movement failed, churches in the 70s were flooded with new converts, particularly in California where MacArthur’s church was located.
However, understand, that during the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s, churches functioned according to the tradition of the Reformation, particularly the order of service, which reflected progressive justification, but denied its soteriology with a new birth concept that was relatively close to the Bible. Of course, being recreated, and secured forever as a literal child of God would have been appealing to those who experienced the spirituality of the 60s. Consequently, sanctification was seen as being chosen out of the free will of a changed heart, and church was a primary help for doing that; it was a place where zealous believers went to encourage each other unto good works. But, this was definitely NOT the ecclesiology or soteriology of the Reformation. More than likely, the confusion occurred during a time of independent/individual interpretation after the Revolutionary war. Fact is, Reformation theology as expressed by the Puritans in the colonies, and the tyranny thereof, was a major factor in igniting the Revolutionary war.
That was the landscape. Churches functioned according to Reformation theology, but intellectually, believed more like the Quakers, whom the Puritans hated, and routinley hanged, burned, and drowned whether men, women, or children. The mix resulted in an overemphasis on the gospel and the Bible being taught according to generalities and cliches. Furthermore, anemic sanctification led to the church looking like the world. MacArthur’s leadership was different. During the 80s, it was common for people to pick up roots and move to LA in order to be a member of MacArthur’s church. I almost did it myself. Single people, and even some families, just packed up their stuff and drove to LA without a place to live or a job, and just showed up at MacArthur’s church. Why? Hunger for practical application of the Bible.
In the 90s, the New Calvinism movement came calling. Why MacArthur capitulated to spiritual misfits like John Piper is yet a mystery to me. However, before then, MacArthur did show signs of being confused like the time he put a disciple of Larry Crabb in charge of biblical counseling at his church. That was a big head-scratcher for me.
Here, apparently, is what MacArthur didn’t understand: his congregation would have followed him regardless of anything; that’s how it works. In fact, if he hadn’t jumped on the New Calvinist bandwagon, I think the 80s would have repeated itself and his ministry would have been a refuge for escape from the spiritual herd mentality that church is famous for. Plenty of churchians wanted to flee the New Calvinism movement, but truly had no place to run. This is no surprise because the evangelical church was already primed for takeover because of its order of service that had never changed. And, even though he only had the gospel half right, I think he would have entered heaven as the most relavant church teacher since the apostle Paul.
But he capitulated. He let New Calvinism, which is a return to the original Reformation gospel of progressive justification, steal his full reward. In other words, they talked him into adapting the same everything-gospel preaching that people fled during the 80s to find refuge at his church. With that said, I don’t think God sends people to an eternal hell for being confused. Yes, I do believe that motives matter, and there is no doubt his motives were honorable. I believe he truly loved God with all of his heart, mind, and soul, and we will meet with him in heaven.
But like the Bible states, bad company corrupts good manners, and obviously, right thinking.
paul
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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment