It’s All About the “O” – Mohler, DeYoung, Lucas: We Own You
Originally posted September 15, 2012
Join an authentic Reformed Protestant Church if you will, but let it be known: they now own you. Newsflash for the husbands: Calvinist elders believe they have the ultimate say and authority in your home. And another thing: the gospel they hold to rejects synergism in sanctification as works salvation. So, guess what? If your wife buys into that, you are now in what they call a mixed marriage. You are now dangerously close to divorce court as the divorce rate in these churches has skyrocketed.
At the TANC 2012 conference, in his third session, author John Immel nailed it—it boils down to who owns man: in the Christian realm, does Christ own you or Reformed elders? In the secular realm, does man own man or does government own man? Recently, our President stated that government owns man. Recently, in a trilogy of articles by three Reformed pastors published by Ligonier Ministries, it was stated that the church owns Christians, and I will give you three wild guesses as to who represents the authority of the church. That would be the elders.
So it’s all about the “O.” It’s all about “ownership.”
As we shall see, these articles plainly state the Reformed tradition that came from Catholic tyranny. The Reformers never repented of the same underlying presuppositions concerning man’s need to be owned by enlightened philosopher kings. The Reformation was merely a fight for control over the mutton with the Reformers seeing themselves as the moral philosopher kings as opposed to the Romish ones. Their doctrine was just a different take on how the totally depraved are saved from themselves. But both doctrines reflect the inability of man to participate in sanctification.
The three articles posted were: Should I Stay or Should I Go? by Albert Mohler; Where and How Do We Draw the Line? by Kevin DeYoung; and, Who Draws the Line? by Sean Michael Lucas. All linked together for your indoctrination convenience.
Al Mohler states in his ownership treatise that Christians have “no right” to leave one church for another because of preferences. Emphasis by underline added:
Swami Albert Mohler
Far too many church members have become church shoppers. The biblical concept of ecclesiology has given way to a form of consumerism in which individuals shop around for the church that seems most to their liking at that moment. The issue can concern worship and music, relationships, teaching, or any number of other things. The pattern is the same, however – people feel free to leave one congregation for another for virtually any reason, or no reason at all.
Church shopping violates the integrity of the church and the meaning of church membership. When members leave for insufficient reason, the fellowship of the church is broken, its witness is weakened, and the peace and unity of the congregation are sacrificed. Tragically, a superficial understanding of church membership undermines our witness to the gospel of Christ.
There is no excuse for this phenomenon. We have no right to leave a church over preferences about music, personal taste, or even programming that does not meet expectations. These controversies or concerns should prompt the faithful Christian to consider how he might be of assistance in finding and forging a better way, rather than working to find an excuse to leave.
Where to begin? First of all, while many authentic Reformed Protestant churches will bring you up on church discipline for leaving because of “unbiblical” reasons, those reasons vary from church to church. So, not only do the reasons for leaving vary among parishioners, but so does what constitutes proper “biblical…. ecclesiology” in regard to departure varies as well. Mohler states in the same post that doctrine is a valid reason to leave a church, but yet, one of the more prominent leaders of the Reformed movement (CJ Mahaney), who is strongly endorsed by Mohler, states that doctrine is not a valid reason to leave a church. CJ Mahaney substantiated that Reformed position and clearly indicated what authentic Protestant theologians are willing to do to enforce that position when he blackmailed the cofounder of SGM, Larry Tomczak:
Transcript of Phone Conversation between C.J., Doris and Larry Tomczak on October 3, 1997 pp. 10-11:
C.J.: Doctrine is an unacceptable reason for leaving P.D.I.
Larry: C.J., I’m not in sync with any of the T.U.L.I.P., so whether you agree or not, doctrine is one of the major reasons I believe it is God’s will to leave P.D.I. and it does need to be included in any statement put forth.
C.J.: If you do that, then it will be necessary for us to give a more detailed explanation of your sins [ie, beyond the sin of leaving for doctrinal reasons].
Larry: Justin’s name has been floated out there when there’s statements like revealing more details about my sin. What are you getting at?
C.J.: Justin’s name isn’t just floated out there – I’m stating it!
Larry: C.J. how can you do that after you encouraged Justin to confess everything; get it all out. Then when he did, you reassured him “You have my word, it will never leave this room. Even our wives won’t be told.”
I repeatedly reassured him, “C.J. is a man of his word. You needn’t worry.” Now you’re talking of publically sharing the sins of his youth?!
C.J.: My statement was made in the context of that evening. If I knew then what you were going to do, I would have re-evaluated what I communicated.
Doris: C.J., are you aware that you are blackmailing Larry? You’ll make no mention of Justin’s sins, which he confessed and was forgiven of months ago, if Larry agrees with your statement, but you feel you have to warn the folks and go national with Justin’s sins if Larry pushes the doctrinal button? C.J., you are blackmailing Larry to say what you want!―Shame on you, C.J.! As a man of God and a father, shame on you!
This will send shock waves throughout the teens in P.D.I. and make many pastors’ teens vow, “I‘ll never confess my secret sins to C.J. or any of the team, seeing that they‘ll go public with my sins if my dad doesn‘t toe the line.”―C.J., you will reap whatever judgment you make on Justin. You have a young son coming up. Another reason for my personally wanting to leave P.D.I. and never come back is this ungodly tactic of resorting to blackmail and intimidation of people!
C.J.: I can‘t speak for the team, but I want them to witness this. We’ll arrange a conference call next week with the team.
Doris: I want Justin to be part of that call. It’s his life that’s at stake.
C.J.: Fine.
(SGM Wikileaks, part 3, p.139. Online source)
Of course, this example and many others makes Mohler’s concern with the “integrity” of the church—laughable. But nevertheless, Mohler’s post and the other two are clear as to what common ground Protestant elders have on the “biblical concept of ecclesiology.”
Besides the fact that parishioners “have no right” to leave a church based on preference, what do Protestants fundamentally agree on in this regard? That brings us to the article by Sean Michael Lucas :
Because the church has authority to declare doctrine, it is the church that has authority to draw doctrinal lines and serve as the final judge on doctrinal issues. Scripture teaches us that the church serves as the “pillar and buttress of the truth.”
So, even in cases where Protestants believe that doctrine is an acceptable reason for leaving a church, guess who decides what true doctrine is? “But Paul, he is speaking of doctrine being determined by the church as a whole, not just the elders.” Really? Lucas continues:
In our age, this understanding—that the church has Jesus’ authority to serve as the final judge on doctrinal matters— rubs us wrong for three reasons. First, it rubs us wrong because we are pronounced individualists. This is especially the case for contemporary American Christians, who have a built-in “democratic” bias to believe that the Bible’s theology is accessible to all well-meaning, thoughtful Christians. Because theological truth is democratically available to all, such individuals can stand toe to toe with ministerial “experts” or ecclesiastical courts and reject their authority.
Creeped out yet? Well, if you are a blogger, it gets better:
Perhaps it is this individualistic, democratic perspective that has led to the rise of websites and blogs in which theology is done in public by a range of folks who may or may not be appropriately trained and ordained for a public teaching role. While the Internet has served as a “free press” that has provided important watchdog functions for various organizations, there are two downsides of the new media, which ironically move in opposite directions. On the one side, the new media (blogs, websites, podcasts, Facebook, Twitter) allow everyone to be his own theologian and judge of doctrinal matters. But because everyone is shouting and judging, the ironic other side is that those who are the most well known and have the biggest blogs gain the most market share and actually become the doctrinal arbiters of our electronic age. In this new media world, the idea that the church as a corporate body actually has authority to declare doctrine and judge on doctrinal issues is anathema.
Lucas continues to articulate the Reformed tradition that holds to the plenary authority of elders supposedly granted to them by Christ:
For some of us, again reflecting our individualism, such understanding of the church unnecessarily limits voices and perspectives that might be helpful in conversation. But restricting access to debates and judgments about theology to those who have been set apart as elders in Christ’s church and who have gathered for the purpose of study, prayer, and declaration actually ensures a more thoughtful process and a surer understanding of Christ’s Word than a pell-mell, democratic, individualistic free-for-all. Not only do we trust that a multiplicity of voices is represented by the eldership, but, above all, we trust that the single voice of the Spirit of Jesus will be heard in our midst.
So, bottom line: the priesthood of believers is a “pell-mell, democratic, individualistic free-for-all.” Still not creeped out? Then consider how they answer the question in regard to elder error:
Of course, such slow and deliberate processes do not guarantee a biblically appropriate result. After all, the Westminster Confession of Faith tells us that “all synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred” (WCF 31.3). Sometimes, entire denominations err significantly as they prayerfully consider Scripture and judge doctrine. Such error, however, does not negate Jesus’ own delegation of authority to the church and set the stage for a free-for-all.
This brings us to another issue that DeYoung propogates in his post: since Reformed elders have all authority, their creeds and confessions are authoritative and not just commentaries. Hence, they declared in the aforementioned confession cited by Lucas that even though they may be in error, they still have all authority. Whatever happened to the Apostle Paul’s appeal to only follow him as he followed Christ?
DeYoung:
Those who wrote the ancient creeds, such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian Definition, were not infallible, but these creeds have served as effective guardrails, keeping God’s people on the path of truth. It would take extraordinary new insight or extraordinary hubris to jettison these ancient formulas. They provide faithful summaries of the most important doctrines of the faith. That’s why the Heidelberg Catechism refers us to the Apostles’ Creed, “a creed beyond doubt, and confessed through the world,” when it asks, “What then must a Christian believe?” (Q&A 22–23).
FYI: If you see something in your own Bible reading that contradicts a Reformed creed or confession, you are partaking in visions of grandeur.
This is the crux of the matter, the question of authority. It is almost crazy that Christians don’t have this issue resolved in their mind before they join a church. You could be in a church that is subtly indoctrinating your family with the idea that they are owned by the government; in this case, church polity.
Let there be no doubt about it, Reformed elders are drooling over the idea of another Geneva theocracy with all the trimmings. And someone shared with me just the other day how this shows itself in real life. “Mike” is a local contractor in the Xenia, Ohio area. He is close friends with a farmer in the area who lives next door to a man and his family that attend an authentic Reformed Protestant church.
One day, his new Protestant neighbor came over to inform him that he needed to stop working on Sunday because it is the Lord’s Day, and the noise of his machinery was disturbing their day of rest. Mike’s friend told him, in a manner of speaking, to hang it on his beak. Mike believes what transpired after that came from the neighbor’s belief that he was a superior person to his friend, and that his friend should have honored the neighbors request by virtue of who he is.
The neighbor has clout in the community, and to make a long story short—found many ways to make Mike’s friend miserable through legal wrangling about property line issues; according to my understanding, 8” worth. It was clear that Mike’s friend was going to be harassed until he submitted to this man’s perceived biblical authority.
Protestants have serious authority issues, and you don’t have to necessarily join in official membership to be considered under their authority. A contributor to Mark Dever’s 9 Marks blog stated that anyone who comes in the front door of a church proclaiming Christ as Lord is under the authority of that church.
It’s time for Christians to nail down the “O.” Who owns you? Are you aware of who owns you (or at least thinks so)? And are you ok with that?
paul
It’s All About the “O” – Mohler, DeYoung, Lucas: We Own You
Originally posted September 15, 2012
Join a New Calvinist Church if you will, but let it be known: they now own you. Newsflash for the husbands: Calvinist elders believe they have the ultimate say and authority in your home. And another thing: the gospel they hold to rejects synergism in sanctification as works salvation. So, guess what? If your wife buys into that, you are now in what they call a mixed marriage. You are now dangerously close to divorce court as the divorce rate in these churches has skyrocketed.
At the TANC 2012 conference, in his third session, author John Immel nailed it—it boils down to who owns man: in the Christian realm, does Christ own you or Reformed elders? In the secular realm, does man own man or does government own man? Recently, our President stated that government owns man. Recently, in a trilogy of articles by three Reformed pastors published by Ligonier Ministries, it was stated that the church owns Christians, and I will give you three wild guesses as to who represents the authority of the church. That would be the elders.
So it’s all about the “O.” It’s all about “ownership.”
As we shall see, these articles plainly state the Reformed tradition that came from Catholic tyranny. The Reformers never repented of the same underlying presuppositions concerning man’s need to be owned by enlightened philosopher kings. The Reformation was merely a fight for control over the mutton with the Reformers seeing themselves as the moral philosopher kings as opposed to the Romish ones. Their doctrine was just a different take on how the totally depraved are saved from themselves. But both doctrines reflect the inability of man to participate in sanctification.
The three articles posted were: Should I Stay or Should I Go? by Albert Mohler; Where and How Do We Draw the Line? by Kevin DeYoung; and, Who Draws the Line? by Sean Michael Lucas. All linked together for your indoctrination convenience.
Al Mohler states in his ownership treatise that Christians have “no right” to leave one church for another because of preferences. Emphasis by underline added:
Swami Albert Mohler
Far too many church members have become church shoppers. The biblical concept of ecclesiology has given way to a form of consumerism in which individuals shop around for the church that seems most to their liking at that moment. The issue can concern worship and music, relationships, teaching, or any number of other things. The pattern is the same, however – people feel free to leave one congregation for another for virtually any reason, or no reason at all.
Church shopping violates the integrity of the church and the meaning of church membership. When members leave for insufficient reason, the fellowship of the church is broken, its witness is weakened, and the peace and unity of the congregation are sacrificed. Tragically, a superficial understanding of church membership undermines our witness to the gospel of Christ.
There is no excuse for this phenomenon. We have no right to leave a church over preferences about music, personal taste, or even programming that does not meet expectations. These controversies or concerns should prompt the faithful Christian to consider how he might be of assistance in finding and forging a better way, rather than working to find an excuse to leave.
Where to begin? First of all, while many New Calvinist churches will bring you up on church discipline for leaving because of “unbiblical” reasons, those reasons vary from church to church. So, not only do the reasons for leaving vary among parishioners, but what constitutes proper “biblical…. ecclesiology” in regard to departure varies as well. Mohler states in the same post that doctrine is a valid reason to leave a church, but yet, one of the more prominent leaders of the New Calvinist movement (CJ Mahaney), who is strongly endorsed by Mohler, states that doctrine is not a valid reason to leave a church. CJ Mahaney substantiated that New Calvinist position and clearly indicated what New Calvinists are willing to do to enforce that position when he blackmailed the cofounder of SGM, Larry Tomczak:
Transcript of Phone Conversation between C.J., Doris and Larry Tomczak on October 3, 1997 pp. 10-11:
C.J.: Doctrine is an unacceptable reason for leaving P.D.I.
Larry: C.J., I’m not in sync with any of the T.U.L.I.P., so whether you agree or not, doctrine is one of the major reasons I believe it is God’s will to leave P.D.I. and it does need to be included in any statement put forth.
C.J.: If you do that, then it will be necessary for us to give a more detailed explanation of your sins [ie, beyond the sin of leaving for doctrinal reasons].
Larry: Justin’s name has been floated out there when there’s statements like revealing more details about my sin. What are you getting at?
C.J.: Justin’s name isn’t just floated out there – I’m stating it!
Larry: C.J. how can you do that after you encouraged Justin to confess everything; get it all out. Then when he did, you reassured him “You have my word, it will never leave this room. Even our wives won’t be told.”
I repeatedly reassured him, “C.J. is a man of his word. You needn’t worry.” Now you’re talking of publically sharing the sins of his youth?!
C.J.: My statement was made in the context of that evening. If I knew then what you were going to do, I would have re-evaluated what I communicated.
Doris: C.J., are you aware that you are blackmailing Larry? You’ll make no mention of Justin’s sins, which he confessed and was forgiven of months ago, if Larry agrees with your statement, but you feel you have to warn the folks and go national with Justin’s sins if Larry pushes the doctrinal button? C.J., you are blackmailing Larry to say what you want!―Shame on you, C.J.! As a man of God and a father, shame on you!
This will send shock waves throughout the teens in P.D.I. and make many pastors’ teens vow, “I‘ll never confess my secret sins to C.J. or any of the team, seeing that they‘ll go public with my sins if my dad doesn‘t toe the line.”―C.J., you will reap whatever judgment you make on Justin. You have a young son coming up. Another reason for my personally wanting to leave P.D.I. and never come back is this ungodly tactic of resorting to blackmail and intimidation of people!
C.J.: I can‘t speak for the team, but I want them to witness this. We’ll arrange a conference call next week with the team.
Doris: I want Justin to be part of that call. It’s his life that’s at stake.
C.J.: Fine.
(SGM Wikileaks, part 3, p.139. Online source)
Of course, this example and many others makes Mohler’s concern with the “integrity” of the church—laughable. But nevertheless, Mohler’s post and the other two are clear as to what common ground New Calvinists have on the “biblical concept of ecclesiology.”
Besides the fact that parishioners “have no right” to leave a church based on preference, what do New Calvinists fundamentally agree on in this regard? That brings us to the article by Sean Michael Lucas :
Because the church has authority to declare doctrine, it is the church that has authority to draw doctrinal lines and serve as the final judge on doctrinal issues. Scripture teaches us that the church serves as the “pillar and buttress of the truth.”
So, even in cases where New Calvinists believe that doctrine is an acceptable reason for leaving a church, guess who decides what true doctrine is? “But Paul, he is speaking of doctrine being determined by the church as a whole, not just the elders.” Really? Lucas continues:
In our age, this understanding—that the church has Jesus’ authority to serve as the final judge on doctrinal matters— rubs us wrong for three reasons. First, it rubs us wrong because we are pronounced individualists. This is especially the case for contemporary American Christians, who have a built-in “democratic” bias to believe that the Bible’s theology is accessible to all well-meaning, thoughtful Christians. Because theological truth is democratically available to all, such individuals can stand toe to toe with ministerial “experts” or ecclesiastical courts and reject their authority.
Creeped out yet? Well, if you are a blogger, it gets better:
Perhaps it is this individualistic, democratic perspective that has led to the rise of websites and blogs in which theology is done in public by a range of folks who may or may not be appropriately trained and ordained for a public teaching role. While the Internet has served as a “free press” that has provided important watchdog functions for various organizations, there are two downsides of the new media, which ironically move in opposite directions. On the one side, the new media (blogs, websites, podcasts, Facebook, Twitter) allow everyone to be his own theologian and judge of doctrinal matters. But because everyone is shouting and judging, the ironic other side is that those who are the most well known and have the biggest blogs gain the most market share and actually become the doctrinal arbiters of our electronic age. In this new media world, the idea that the church as a corporate body actually has authority to declare doctrine and judge on doctrinal issues is anathema.
Lucas continues to articulate the Reformed tradition that holds to the plenary authority of elders supposedly granted to them by Christ:
For some of us, again reflecting our individualism, such understanding of the church unnecessarily limits voices and perspectives that might be helpful in conversation. But restricting access to debates and judgments about theology to those who have been set apart as elders in Christ’s church and who have gathered for the purpose of study, prayer, and declaration actually ensures a more thoughtful process and a surer understanding of Christ’s Word than a pell-mell, democratic, individualistic free-for-all. Not only do we trust that a multiplicity of voices is represented by the eldership, but, above all, we trust that the single voice of the Spirit of Jesus will be heard in our midst.
So, bottom line: the priesthood of believers is a “pell-mell, democratic, individualistic free-for-all.” Still not creeped out? Then consider how they answer the question in regard to elder error:
Of course, such slow and deliberate processes do not guarantee a biblically appropriate result. After all, the Westminster Confession of Faith tells us that “all synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred” (WCF 31.3). Sometimes, entire denominations err significantly as they prayerfully consider Scripture and judge doctrine. Such error, however, does not negate Jesus’ own delegation of authority to the church and set the stage for a free-for-all.
This brings us to another issue that DeYoung propogates in his post: since Reformed elders have all authority, their creeds and confessions are authoritative and not just commentaries. Hence, they declared in the aforementioned confession cited by Lucas that even though they may be in error, they still have all authority. Whatever happened to the Apostle Paul’s appeal to only follow him as he followed Christ?
DeYoung:
FYI: If you see something in your own Bible reading that contradicts a Reformed creed or confession, you are partaking in visions of grandeur.
This is the crux of the matter, the question of authority. It is almost crazy that Christians don’t have this issue resolved in their mind before they join a church. You could be in a church that is subtly indoctrinating your family with the idea that they are owned by the government; in this case, church polity.
Let there be no doubt about it, New Calvinists are drooling over the idea of another Geneva theocracy with all the trimmings. And someone shared with me just the other day how this shows itself in real life. “Mike” is a local contractor in the Xenia, Ohio area. He is close friends with a farmer in the area who lives next door to a man and his family that attend a New Calvinist church.
One day, his new New Calvinist neighbor came over to inform him that he needed to stop working on Sunday because it is the Lord’s Day, and the noise of his machinery was disturbing their day of rest. Mike’s friend told him, in a manner of speaking, to hang it on his beak. Mike believes what transpired after that came from the neighbor’s belief that he was a superior person to his friend, and that his friend should have honored the neighbors request by virtue of who he is.
The neighbor has clout in the community, and to make a long story short—found many ways to make Mike’s friend miserable through legal wrangling about property line issues; according to my understanding, 8” worth. It was clear that Mike’s friend was going to be harassed until he submitted to this man’s perceived biblical authority.
New Calvinists have serious authority issues, and you don’t have to necessarily join in official membership to be considered under their authority. A contributor to Mark Dever’s 9 Marks blog stated that anyone who comes in the front door of a church proclaiming Christ as Lord is under the authority of that church.
It’s time for Christians to nail down the “O.” Who owns you? Are you aware of who owns you (or at least thinks so)? And are you ok with that?
paul
When Depression Wins
Originally published August 11, 2014
I just received news about two hours ago that the famous actor Robin Williams has died in what looks to be a suicide. This has not been confirmed. Williams has been suffering from severe depression of late according to reports. I am not able to write about this tomorrow because of a project, but as a two-time survivor of severe depression, I would like to write a short essay on this before I turn in.
I would not wish severe depression on anyone, not even the most brutal of terrorists like the ones wreaking havoc in Iraq right now—that should put it in perspective for you. Serious depression is one of those experiences that you really have to experience to understand. The tragic news about Williams should turn our attention to those who may come our way. Can we help them? We most certainly can. Please, don’t just talk about this problem and move on. And, I don’t care how great you think the guy was—why does that matter now? While eulogies abound to show people how caring we are, conspicuously absent are questions about the problem itself.
And Williams forgot something: he wasn’t just fighting for himself—his loss does not give hope to others in his shoes.
There is a lot for Christians to learn about this problem, but unfortunately, the present-day church believes sanctification is pretty much the same thing as justification and depression is definitely a sanctification issue. No, preaching the gospel to yourself will not end the depression. No, prayer alone will not end depression; God cares, but you have to participate in the cure.
I wish I could refer people someplace, but I really can’t. In the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, the biblical counseling movement was having great success in helping people with severe depression, but the fundamentals that drove that counseling have been discredited as “not vertical enough.” As far as finding a counselor, sorry to say, you are on your own, but I can share with you what I have learned about this very serious problem.
1. If you have lost interest in everything that gives you joy, feel like you are losing your mind, and are harassed and tormented by horrible thoughts, seek medical help as soon as possible. Depression can be caused by several different medical conditions and bad reactions to certain medications.
2. Be open to encouragement and help from non-Christians. Non-believers and Christians both played an important role in my recovery.
3. Though depression can be a medical problem, in most cases depression becomes a medical problem because of a person’s outlook on life. Specifically, wrongheaded thinking. I have no doubt at all, that depression is caused from chemical imbalance, but the question is, “Can one’s thinking and outlook on life cause those imbalances?” I think the answer is, “yes.”
4. If you struggle with anxiety problems, get the problem under control—anxiety can lead to severe depression.
5. Deal with guilt and relationship problems with others.
6. You are probably going to need medications to get you through the toughest part of your depression while you work on personal issues. Some doctors will say that you will need these medications for the rest of your life, but I know of many situations where this is not the case at all, including my own.
7. Put yourself under the care of a medical doctor and a good counselor. Do not isolate yourself, even if you feel like doing so. It will be necessary to do certain things whether you feel like it or not. Seek out friends that understand your problem.
8. Remember that thoughts invoke feelings and feelings invoke thoughts. Don’t think thoughts that make you feel bad for no good reason. When feelings invoke thoughts, talk back to them. Have a conversation with your thoughts. For me, when oppressed by horrible thoughts, I prayed a lot. Yes, find promises in the Bible and cling to them—by all means. Those horrible thoughts and bad feelings sure do make a strong case that you are helpless against them, but I do not think that is the case. Fight to think other thoughts by getting your mind on something else. Do not leave the thoughts unchallenged. One must ask when he considers what these loud, strong feelings are saying…
“are they telling the truth?”
9. Feelings are VERY important to life, but during a time of severe depression, feelings are your worst enemy. You must temporarily make feelings a lower priority during this time. Whether you feel like it or not, be other-person focused. Whether you feel like it or not, accomplish things. With the help of medications, you can stay productive, and this is important. Right feelings follow right doing, and especially right thinking.
10. This post may help: http://wp.me/pmd7S-Eu
We have much to learn about depression. Suicide is tragic for many reasons, but if people who feel like they are at the end of their rope would just wait one more day, in many cases a new day brings a totally different perspective. I am going to leave you with something very simple if you are a depressed person reading this. In the midst of my struggle, a man who had been through depression himself smiled at me and said, “You are going to be alright.” Oddly, if someone ambushed me with the question, “Right now, name the one thing that was most important in your recovery,” without even thinking about it, I would have to point to that one instance. I would add that life is worth fighting for. I would add that you need to fight because your family wants you to; fight to love them more than you hate your suffering. Win the fight for them. My friend, our great God assures us that trials are only for a time. Death will come soon enough…fight for the joy that will return. When depression wins, hope loses, and the world needs nothing more than hope. And…
“you are going to be alright.”
paul
Why is the Biblical Counseling Movement Obsessed with Sin Rather than Love?
Emotionally disheveled lives flowing from the present-day biblical counseling movement is now epidemic. If you are going to condemn counselees and beat them to an emotional pulp with their own faults in order to drive them back to the cross, at least tell them that’s the goal. However, as the logic goes, if the counselee is informed about the counseling agenda, any “change” would be their own decision and not the work of the Spirit.
Supposedly, any true work of the Spirit is going to be apart from anything the counselee knows. In order to teach the counselee to live a “lifestyle of repentance, for the most part ” you must help them see their sin and the “sin beneath the sin.” You must also show them the need to “repent of good works” or the belief that they are able to do a work pleasing to God. As the counselee learns to see their total depravity more and more, the works of Jesus are “manifested” in our lives and “experienced” as if we are doing them, but we are really passive instruments in any godly endeavors. In other words, when it gets right down to it, Jesus obeys for us lest we “have a righteousness of our own.” Any true good works done in the life of the “believer” are “experienced subjectively” and flow from the “objective gospel” which are works accomplished by Christ alone.
So, one really only knows when they commit definitive sin, but good works of any kind are either the “believer’s” sinful works of self-righteousness or the works of Jesus and this is the subjective part of the salvation process. If the “believer” testifies that they cannot do a good work of any kind, they may find forgiveness as long as they are “under the authority of godly men” (ie., Reformed pastors), but if they believe they themselves can do a work pleasing to God, that is mortal sin that cannot be forgiven, viz, they believe a false gospel. This is Martin Luther’s venial/mortal sin construct that formed the Reformation gospel.
Hence, the counselee, by design, is driven to a “despair of self-righteousness” but is unaware of what they are supposed to do about the despair. If the counselee is informed of what to do about the despair; that would be “jumping directly from the command to obedience.”
The result? A mass of confused people and broken lives marked by hopelessness and despair. If the Spirit so chooses to move after the biblical counselors have done their job of stripping the counselee of any “self-righteousness,” the counselee will be shown the gospel “treasure chest of joy” apart from any misguided leading from a counselor resulting in “fruit stapling.”
What’s behind this approach to counseling that is wreaking havoc on the lives of so many? To understand the answer one must take a specific look at how the Bible defines the word “sin.”
Genesis 4:3 – In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4 and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. 6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
Note that sin has a primary desire that drives it—it seeks to rule over people and control them. It’s simply what sin does. This is why world politics have always been dominated by war and conquest after sin entered the world. Further study reveals sin’s ultimate goal: to bring as much death as possible into people’s lives.
But what does sin use to control people? What empowers sin? What is its mojo? Answer: condemnation. Note that sin crouches at the door waiting for people to not do well. It waits for one to violate their conscience or God’s law and then it pounces. Sin uses condemnation to strip the individual of self-worth and confidence. This is why, for the most part, marriage counseling is dealing with two spouses who come to you with condemnation lists. This is each one’s case for why the other spouse is inept and should submit to the other’s control. This is different from love and why love does not keep a record of wrong (1Cor 13:5).
And this is why Christ endured the cross; to end the law (Rom 10:4); to end condemnation; to strip sin of its power.
1Corintians 15:56 – The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Sin remains in the born again believer because he/she still dwells in mortality, but it has been stripped of its power to condemn because Christ put an end to the law. Without a way to condemn, sin can only harass the believer with sinful desires that the believer is no longer enslaved to. Instead, the believer is now enslaved to righteousness (Rom 6:17,18). Hence, Christians fail to fulfill the law through love from time to time because they are “weak” NOT because we are “sinners.” The Bible NEVER refers to believers as “sinners.” It is markedly past tense in the Bible when speaking of the believer…“but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). We are not “sinners saved by grace.” If you are still a sinner, you are not saved.
So why then the law? God created the law as a two-fold covenant. Before Christ came, all sin was imputed to the law.
Galatians 3:19 – Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Don’t be mistaken, the older covenant is still in effect but passing away:
Hebrews 8:13 – In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The present sins of unbelievers are still imputed to the law. When and if they believe in Christ, their sins will be ENDED not merely covered. Christ came to end sin, not cover it. Christ is not a covering for sin, He ended sin. Those who do not believe on Christ will be judged by the law at the final judgment. This is because they are still “under law” (Rom 6:14, 15). Believers will not be present at the final judgment or the “second death.” That judgment concerns the law.
So what does it mean to be under grace? It means that when we were born again the old us under law literally died and was resurrected to new creaturehood. We were given a new heart that loves the law and truth. We are no longer indifferent to the same law that once condemned us.
Romans 7:1 – Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 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.
How do we serve the law under the new covenant? By putting our faith to work in obeying God’s word for loving Him and others:
Galatians 5:6 – For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
Romans 13:10 – Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
John 14:15 – If you love me, keep my commands (NIV).
The Christian is free to aggressively love God and others without any fear of condemnation. But, others aside from Christ cannot control you unless they sell you on the idea that you are still under condemnation. And as much as I hate to say it, for the most part, that’s what the institutional church is all about: a desire to control many people through condemnation. That means they must keep you under law and a justification defined by perfect law-keeping which of course requires ongoing forgiveness for “present sin” which of course can only be obtained under the “authority of godly men ordained by God.” Really? Fact is, there is a difference between condemning sin under law and a failure to love as a member of God’s literal family that can bring chastisement. The problem here is a single perspective on law and sin by functioning under the “written code” and calling it “under grace.”
And this is the purpose of the biblical counseling movement; it serves the institutional church in keeping people under law so they can be controlled. Supposedly, they have been given authority by God to grant you forgiveness under their authority because you are still a “sinner.” You are supposedly still under law. You can only obtain ongoing forgiveness by acknowledging that you are a totally depraved saint under the authority of some “man of God.”
It is the epic lie of the ages.
This is why the biblical counseling movement focuses on sin rather than love. This is why when you deny that you are a sinner they ask rhetorically: “Did you sin today?” The question should really be: “Did you love today?” But they ask the wrong question because their basis for justification is the law and not the new birth.
1John 3:9 – Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (KJV).
And that’s supposedly ok because Jesus supposedly kept/keeps the law for us. But that is still NOT the manifestation of righteousness “APART from the law” (Rom 3:21).
Mark it well: an emphasis on sin in your life that condemns by other “Christians” is a doctrine of devils and this is nothing new.
Zechariah 3:1 – Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?” 3 Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. 4 And the angel said to those who were standing before him, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” And to him he said, “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.” 5 And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord was standing by.
6 And the angel of the Lord solemnly assured Joshua, 7 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here.
Revelation 12:10 – And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.
Now, many try to make a case that salvation is only a covering for sin and not an ending because of the biblical “coat” analogy. But such coats represent one’s standing, not a covering for sin that is ended. Even if such a case could be made it would only apply to the old covenant and its imputation of sin to the law.
There is only one mediator between God and man; Christ. In Matthew 28:18 we find that “all” authority has been given to Christ and “all” means just that, All, viz, everything. The body of Christ only has one head; Christ Himself. No man or woman has authority to condemn you…
…flee the biblical counseling movement and pursue love.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment