Paul's Passing Thoughts

Achieving Total Conquest Over Depression, Part 5: Paul and Susan Christian Living Series on Blogtalk Radio Program 7

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on February 19, 2016

Paul and Susan

Live Broadcast link for tonight 2/19/2016 @ 7pm: 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/falsereformation/2016/02/20/paul-and-susan-christian-living-series-on-blogtalk-radio-program-7

Links open in separate pages so you can view without going back and forth reopening pages.   

Paul and Susan will have a conversation regarding practical ways to overcome depression. The conversation will focus on the article, “10 Small Steps You Can Take Today to Improve Bipolar Disorder” by Margarita Tartakovsky M.S. Paul will also comment on information sent to him by PPT readers and Blogtalk listeners.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/10-small-steps-you-can-take-today-to-improve-bipolar-disorder/

Of course, everything starts with a proper view of salvation. Assurance of salvation is foundational to “being much more than conquerors” (Romans 8:37).

Also in regard to the gospel:

http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2011/01/gospel-defined-part-1.html

Self Condemnation and Self Esteem. 

blog-radio-logo

What is Love?

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on February 11, 2016

“Love (agape) suffereth long, and is kind; love (agape) envieth not; love (agape) vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love (agape) never faileth:”
~ 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

This passage of scripture is one of the most well-know sections of the Bible. It is most often referred to as the great love chapter, and often the chapter is used in the context of marriage. And while it certainly has application to married couples, the apostle Paul had a much larger context in mind when he began his treatise.

The context actually begins in chapter 12 and extends through chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians. Paul was addressing a specific problem in the assemblies in Corinth and the province of Achaia. The issue was with regard to spiritual gifts among believers, and there were those who regarded certain gifts as more important or of higher esteem than others. More specifically, the Corinthians viewed tongues as the most important gift, and so if you didn’t speak in tongues, then you were considered a lower-class of believer. As a result, everyone wanted to speak in tongues. In 1 Corinthians 12:31 he said you earnestly covet the best gifts (or what they thought were the best). But Paul rebuked them by showing them that this was not loving behavior. This is what prompts the apostle to launch into his in-depth dissertation on the definition and characteristics of love. Let’s consider each one of these characteristics in detail.

“Suffereth long”
μακροθυμει (mak-roth-oo-my) – To be long-spirited. Forbearing or patient. Love hangs in there for the long run.

“Is kind”
χρηστευνεται (chray-styoo-neh-tie) – Derived from the word χρηομαι (chray-oh-my), having to do with the hand in a sense where one is furnishing that which is needed. “Lending a hand”. To show oneself useful. Acting useful. Benevolent. Love does what is needed for another’s benefit.

“Envieth not”
ου ζηλοι (oo dzay-loy) – “oo” being the negative particle meaning “no” or “not”. “Dzay-loy” is derived from the word which means “heat”. To be boiling with heat. Zeal in an unfavorable sense. “Hot headed”; petulant. Love does not behave like a petulant child who doesn’t get his way.

“Vaunteth not itself”
ου περπερευεται (per-per-you-eh-tie) – The prefix “peri” has the meaning of going beyond or further. The double use of “per” in this word gives emphasis of going farther beyond what is necessary, which is what a braggart does. Giving oneself more honor than one should; elevating oneself. Love does not boast, brag, or elevate itself.

“Is not puffed up”
ου φυσιουται (foo-see-oo-tie) – From the root word φυω (foo-oh) meaning to swell up or grow. To inflate or puff up. Used figuratively, to become proud. Love is not proud.

“Doth not behave itself unseemly”
ουκ ασχημονει (ah-schay-mo-nie) – A compound word with the negative particle “a” meaning “no” or “without” and a derivative of two closely related words; εχω (ech-oh) which means to possess some ability, and σχημα (schay-ma) which is some figure, form, or pattern. Literally, it means not being able to possess its form. If someone is behaving in a manner that is considered indecent, he is not behaving the way one would expect him to. Love behaves in a way that would be congruent with what one should expect of love.

“Seeketh not her own”
ου ζητει τα εαυτης (“oo dzay-tie ta heh-ow-tays) – Literally, “not seek of herself”. The key word in this expression is ζητει (dzay-tie), and it has the idea of plotting or making a plan. But it is also used as a “Hebraism” (a Jewish idiom or figure of speech) to indicate worship to God. Either meaning has application. Love does not plan for its own self-interest. Love does not worship itself.

“Is not easily provoked”
ου παροξυνεται (par-ox-oo-na-tie) – A compound word from the prefix παρα (para), meaning along or beside, and οξυς (ox-zoos) meaning keen or sharp or swift. Literally, to sharpen beside. To make “on edge”. If someone is “on edge” they are irritated or frustrated. Love does not become frustrated quickly. Think about how this is related to the first quality of “suffering long”.

“Thinketh no evil”
ου λογιζεται το κακον (oo log-idz-eh-tie to ka-kon). The key word in this expression is λογιζεται (log-id-zeh-tie), and it means to take an inventory. Love does not take an inventory of evil. Or as Paul Dohse says, “don’t keep a sin list.”

Rejoiceth not in iniquity
ου χαιρει επι τη αδικια (oo chai-rie epi tay ah-di-kee-ah) – The word αδικια (ah-di-kee-ah) is a compound word from the negative particle “a” meaning “no” or “without”, and the word δικη (dee-kay) meaning right or just. So this expression literally means “not cheerful about unjustness.” Love does not show joy over unrighteousness.

“Rejoiceth in the truth”
συγχαιρει δε τη αληθεια (soon-chai-rie deh tay a-lay-thie-ah) – The word for truth is interesting. It is a compound word from a negative particle “a” meaning “no” or “without”, and the word “lathano” which means “to lie hidden” or “to be ignorant”. Truth in this sense is literally that which is no longer hidden, or something revealed. Truth is the opposite of ignorance. But notice now that the word “rejoice” translated here has the prefix “soon” before it. The prefix “soon” means “together”. In this one statement, we are to understand that two things are joyful; love AND truth. Each are dependent upon the other. Love shares a joyful symbiotic relationship with truth.

Paul sums up his dissertation on love with four concluding statements.

“Beareth all things”
παντα στεγει (pan-ta steh-geh-ee) – Literally, “to roof over”, that is, “to cover with silence”. In other words, to keep quiet about something. Think about how this relates to “suffering long” and “not taking an inventory of evil”. Love does not bring up past wrongs. It is all-enduring.

“Believeth all things”
παντα πιστευει (pan-ta pis-tyoo-eh-ee) – To have faith in someone or something. To have faith in someone means that you assume the best about them. Love does not automatically think the worst about others. It is all-believing.

“Hopeth all things”
παντα ελπιζει (pan-ta el-pid-zie) – To anticipate with joyful expectation. The Greek word for “hope” does not describe a wishful sort of thinking. It is a looking forward to with absolute certainty, like a child anticipates Christmas morning. He knows it’s going to happen. Love anticipates with certainty the best from others. It is all-expecting.

“Endureth all things”
παντα υπομενει (pan-ta hoo-poh-meh-nie) – A compound word from the prefix “hupo”, meaning “under” and the word “meno”, meaning “to stay or remain”. Literally, “to remain under”. The implications here are both one of submission but also one of support. Love remains supporting even when it has been wronged. It is all-supporting

Something you should notice about chapter 13 is that there is a distinct change in the literary style. To this point, Paul’s style has been logical and conversational. But Paul’s Hebrew cultural influence becomes apparent in chapter 13 as he switches to a very poetic style. One of the most defining characteristics of Hebrew poetry is parallelism. This can be seen in Psalms, where the writer expresses a thought and then restates that same though another way in the next line. The thoughts can either be comparative or contrasting. Paul uses a more complex form of parallelism called inverse parallelism, and you can see it here in 1 Corinthians 13:7. The relationship between these four aspects of love looks like this:inverse parallel 1
If you go back and consider the commentary we just discussed on each expression, you should notice how closely the inner two characteristics are related and how closely the outer two are related. Another way to see this inverse parallelism is like this:

inverse parallel 2
Paul uses parallelism as a poetic way to express his thoughts by restating the same idea in a different way in order to make his point understood. If you look closely at the definitions you will see that the ideas of “bearing” and “enduring” are very much the same thought. Love does not bring up past wrongs (all-bearing/enduring); it remains supporting even when it has been wronged (all-enduring/supporting). It endures those wrongs. Likewise, the ideas of “believing” and “hoping” are also very much the same thought. Love does not automatically think the worst (all-believing), but it anticipates the best with certainty (all-hoping/expecting).

In fact, if you go back and consider the first 8 characteristics of love in verses 4 through 6, they are also arranged in a much larger and even more complex inverse parallelism construct, where one is related to eight, two is related to seven, three is related to six, and four is related to five. Here is a summary of all the characteristics of love just discussed. To help you better see the parallelism just described, I have grouped them accordingly.

Love hangs in there for the long run.
        Love does what is needed for another’s benefit.
                Love does not behave like a petulant child who doesn’t get his way.
                        Love does not boast, brag, or elevate itself.
                        Love is not proud.
                Love behaves in a way that would be congruent with what one should expect of love.
        Love does not plan for its own self-interest; it does not worship itself
Love does not become frustrated quickly.

 

Love does not take an inventory of evil.
        Love does not show joy over unrighteousness.
        Love shares a joyful symbiotic relationship with truth.

 

Love does not bring up past wrongs. It is all-enduring.
        Love does not automatically think the worst about others. It is all-believing.
        Love anticipates with certainty the best from others. It is all-expecting.
Love remains supporting even when it has been wronged. It is all-supporting.

 

Love will never let another down!

Paul’s final statement on love in verse 8 has no parallel line of though with it, but rather it becomes the opening statement to a series of contrasts which we won’t discuss here. Nevertheless, it is still a characteristic of love worth considering.

“Never faileth”
ουδεποτε εκπιπτει (oo-deh-poh-teh ek-pip-tie) – The word for “faileth” is a compound word from the prefix “ek”, meaning “out of” and the word “pipto”, meaning “to fall”, literally or figuratively. In this sense, it does not describe something that comes to an end, but rather something that no longer measures up to a perceived standard of excellence. Love will never let another down.

Think about how these characteristics apply to the use of spiritual gifts among believers. The purpose of gifts is for the mutual edification of the Body of Christ so that each of us may be properly equipped to tell others the good news of the Kingdom. If we are distracted being envious or jealous over each others’ gift or preoccupied over petty disputes or offences toward each other, then we have disqualified ourselves from serving our Father in the mandate He has given us as ambassadors.

Furthermore, think about how love is the antithesis of control. Love does not change behavior by controlling another. It persuades. If we are preoccupied trying to control others, we are not loving them. I am reminded again of the second greatest commandment; love thy neighbor as thyself. Have you ever noticed that it doesn’t say love your neighbor MORE than yourself? No man hates himself. In fact, we are pretty good at loving ourselves. God’s word says to love others JUST AS MUCH AS you love yourself! This means, treat another the same way you want to be treated. That is the definition of love.

Andy

It’s All About the “O” – Mohler, DeYoung, Lucas: We Own You

Posted in Uncategorized by pptmoderator on January 26, 2016

ppt-jpeg4Originally posted September 15, 2012

“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.”

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.

In our recent TANC 2012 conference, 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:

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:

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, 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

Depression: My Testimony

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on January 14, 2016

Paul and SusanPart 2 on depression, and program 4 of our sanctification series. Paul will share his own testimony regarding depression as an unbeliever and believer. The testimony segment of the live program is posted below. Call in and comment or ask a question. Here is the live link for tonight’s program: Thursday night, January 14 @ 7pm

My story starts with fear of something that I was terrified of that was out of my control. It is a testimony of choosing death unto death. I was tricked into choosing a major death decision among many other death decisions. It starts with the importance of properly defining words. This is so very ironic that my story starts as an unbeliever 43 years ago with a major theme of this ministry today: the utter importance of properly defining words. Those who define words define reality and how you live in it; let me strongly suggest that you let God define the words that define life. We are talking about the historical grammatical interpretation of reality. Words mean things that determine life and death. No mass grave has ever been filled without the issue of realty present. No adult person laying in a mass grave is guiltless of letting others define reality and the meaning of words for them. It is also a pity that children die with them. If for no other reason, think for yourself because of our children.

This is the beginning of my testimony, and it starts with fear. As a rebellious teen, I chose my life and death carefully. I didn’t want too much death, just enough to have fun and fulfill my lustful desires without ending up dead. Of course, I didn’t have enough information to frame it that way at the time, but that’s how I functioned. Those who want to control you care little about what you understand, how you function is what they are after. That’s why you must define words for yourself. Never let anyone tell you what a word means—you must understand it in your own mind.

So, as far as taking LSD, that was too much death for me. I made sure I stayed with Death Lite. Therefore, I took a drug called “Window Pane” that was a lesser hallucinogen than LSD. I didn’t want to see monsters and stuff like that; too much death. I just wanted to see fluid running through the veins of leaves and wall paint dancing. But herein is the huge problem: Window Pane is LSD—they just changed the name. I chose a death that I would not have ordinarily chosen; I let others define the word for me, and the result was a death that I didn’t see coming.

I had an absolutely horrible “bad trip.” I was riding in a car tripping with friends and was in a trance for an undetermined amount of time. I came out of the trance upon some kind of physiological trauma experienced with vomiting colors out of my mouth. As I yelled while lurching forward, clouds of colors came out of my mouth. I suspect my heart momentarily stopped or something of the sort. My friends were delighted and wanted to know, “What did you see?! What did you see?!”

After that, I went into some sort of anxiety frenzy that had me walking and walking the same day well into the night until the trip ended. I think maybe I knew that I nearly died. Well, my drug days were over at that point and I stuck with safer death like alcohol and marijuana. Then things get even more ironic. I wasn’t aware that LSD use could lead to flashbacks. Someone handed me one of those Jack Chick-like cartoon tracks with the various and sundry narratives (chick.com). This particular one was a story of a girl who used LSD, became a Christian, and later died from an LSD flashback. I wasn’t aware that one could have LSD flashbacks. Funny, the track didn’t have its intended impact, I didn’t think, “Oh, I will become a Christian just in case I have a flashback and die.” No, I focused on the fact that I could possibly re-experience that fateful day without any warning. Of course, like most religious stupidity, the track exaggerated the flashback experience by stating that one could die as a result of a LSD flashback which is highly improbable, but I was focused on the fear of having that horrible experience again. This began my long journey of a life dictated by fear.

Why didn’t I then go to an expert to see if flashbacks could be prevented some how, or at least dealt with some way in case I had one? The answer to this is simple: experts are adults, and I didn’t want to reveal that I had taken LSD. My fear escalated into anxiety attacks and hyper-ventilation which also feel like near death experiences. Add more fear. I ended up being taken to a doctor by my grandmother who diagnosed me with an “anxiety disorder,” which “runs in the family.” Listen, in the vast majority of adolescent severe anxiety problems complete with panic attacks, this is reality: it’s caused from death choices they have made. In this kingdom, anxiety is epidemic because of death choices—period. And you know what, we just might get into the death/life sanctification paradigm in this depression segment of our Christian living series. Sooner or later we are going to do it in this series, and we just might do it in this depression segment of the series.

The doctor prescribed anxiety medication, but I wouldn’t take it because the former bad trip experience was so horrific that I was afraid of any kind of medication. Also, because one of the pranks practiced by my friends was slipping drugs into other people’s drinks, I wouldn’t drink from any container that had escaped my monitoring for any length of time. This is an example of how particular fears can lead to all kinds of paranoid behavior deemed quirky by others: “The guy takes his beverage to the bathroom with him; gee, that’s strange.”

Next I want to talk about my first panic attack. I was riding around with some new friends that had not yet initiated me into their click with their favorite prank. There was a paved road that terminated into a gravel road, but at the point of termination, the gravel road elevated sharply. Driving towards it at night, it looked like you were headed straight into a concrete wall. Of course, they made sure I was riding in the front seat for the event. Well, the joke ended up being on them as I went into severe hyper-ventilation and ended up being taken to the hospital. See how the underlying fear of other things led to this? In addition, panic attacks are also very terrifying, so that was one more thing added to my life that I was afraid of. Add more fear. See how all of this leads to a downward spiral of paralyzing fear? Not only that, I was conditioning myself to react in fearful ways. In other words, we can habituate ourselves with fear to the point where fear becomes a way of life.

So where do we go next with this? As a young man, I continued to make death decisions. Between circa 1976 and 1982, I led a very promiscuous lifestyle. Then came the news that aids had been around since 1969, and could lay dormant for ten years! Nobody knew that during the disco 70’s when one-night “hook ups” where all the rage. Ooops. Again, due to bad information, I thought I was only choosing Death Lite. In my mind, it was likely that I had contracted it when the statistics were considered. Add more fear. See how this works? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my lifestyle, decisions, and compounding fear coupled with a guilty conscience to boot led up to my major depression. The anxiety came first, and the experts tell us that anxiety always walks side by side with depression. I could go on and on about how decision after decision led to more and more fear in my life.

However, when I got saved, it was a pretty dramatic transformation. And I will be honest with you, I think if someone could have sat down with me and explained what I know now about justification today, I don’t think fear would have ever crept back into my life. My salvation experience was so dramatic and accompanied by so much joy that I doubt I gave much thought to sin early on. But I began to become very troubled about remaining sin in my life.

I was totally dedicated to the idea that the Bible had all answers to life’s questions, I just couldn’t find the answers. I was really, really serious about being a Christian; that’s why I joined a Southern Baptist church and attended a Southern Baptist seminary. But then orthodoxy happened. There is no doubt in my mind that my conversion was genuine, but I joined up with a religion that keeps one under law; so, in regard to how I eventually began to function, I was no whit better off than my miserable former life. In fact, I might have been worse off.

Certainly, my Christian life had far less “big sin” than before I was a believer, but Protestantism calls for the “believer” to remain under the fear of condemnation—that’s just Protestant orthodoxy plain and simple. It has now become plain to me that fear of condemnation is what led me into depression as a believer. Also, condemnation is what empowers sin. To the degree that there is doubt that you are not under condemnation, the sin within can use that to provoke you to sin; the Bible is VERY clear on this. Then, condemning sin committed just gives more fodder for further condemnation; it’s just another downward spiral of fear and condemnation. Let’s note 1Corinthians 15:56-58 on this:

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. 58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

This passage is soooo major. First, what in the world does “the power of sin is the law” mean? This is the condemnation of the law—this is being under law. In Paul’s letter to the Romans, he explains how the sin within uses the law (if it condemns) to provoke us to sin.

Romans7:7 –  What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment,deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

I don’t rightly understand the ins and outs of how this works, but the Bible is clear that the possibility of eternal condemnation empowers sin. Somehow, sin uses the possibility of eternal condemnation to create desires that tempt us to sin. This is why Christ came to end the law (Rom 10:4). And this is why men fear death; the judgment that follows. Hence, “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” This is what is so important about a proper understanding of the new birth. The old us that was born under law and its condemnation literally dies with Christ, and we are now free to serve another master, not the Sin master:

Romans 7:4 – 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.

This is the “Therefore” in 1Corinthians 15:58; we are now totally free to aggressively love God and others without fear of condemnation. And…

1John 4:18 – There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected [or matured] in love.

Fear of condemnation provokes one to sin, leading to sin, and more and more condemnation and fear. Yet, Protestant orthodoxy calls for saints to remain under law and fear of its condemnation. The Protestant formula follows: Christ continues to cover our sin if we live by faith alone in the same gospel that saved us. Sin is not ended, it is only covered. And, don’t miss this…if we are not still under condemnation, well, what do we need Christ for? This very question is posed rhetorically as if you are an idiot if you think we are not still under condemnation. Well, if you no longer “need the gospel,” you have tossed Christ aside and moved on to “something else other than the gospel.” Come now, be honest, we hear this constantly among Churchians.

Hence, we can expect that depression is just as prevalent in the institutional church as it is in the world. We can also expect more sin in the church because of double temptation. The world is only tempted to sin by the law of conscience, Churchians are tempted by both. Moreover, the prescription according to Protestant orthodoxy for condemnation is a “return to the same grace that saved you.” The likes of Jerry Bridges call for a re-contemplation of the gospel rather than a change of behavior to deal with the condemnation that shouldn’t be their in the first place. What will this effect? It will bring about a “searing of the conscience with a hot iron.” True, Christians shouldn’t be under the condemnation of the law to begin with, and true, if you change behavior while under the law, that is works righteousness, or merely lesser wages for death, but this approach is a further regression from the truth and makes Christians just as indifferent to the law as unbelievers—they are not free to love the law and to use it for love—they are still enslaved to its condemnation. LOOK! This is NOT rocket science, this is EXACTLY why the church looks like what it does.

Consider the mentality that I had as a depressed Christian. Sure, I was a huge proponent of obedience, but I had a very uneasy relationship with it. Why? I never knew for certain that my obedience wasn’t for purposes of self-justification because of my Protestant single perspective on the law and sin. And in essence how can you? You can’t. Therefore, there is always going to be some level of condemnation in your life provoking sin and leading to more and more condemnation. And going to church adds to that, no? Sure it does; week after week you go there and hear about how terrible you are, and if you are under law—that’s probably true!

Listen to what I said to the elders who interviewed me because I joined a new church in the midst of my depression: “God is the last person I want to see right now.” What’s that? Right, that’s clearly fear of condemnation! When I began counseling with the pastor of that church, consider what I came to him with in regard to how I was dealing with the problem: “I read my Bible (contemplationism) for two hours today and prayed for three hours!” Note that while I deemed myself a proponent of obedience, in reality I was a functioning Christian mystic. When the pastor started instructing me to think differently and do things differently, I expressed my concern as to whether or not “obedience is curative.” He focused on teaching me to cling to the promises of God, and to obey, but we were both confused about obedience being love and not lesser condemnation. Sure, if you cling to the promises of God, and keep a clear conscience before Him, you are going to eventually come out of the depression, and that’s what happened to me eventually, but that’s just putting a Band-Aid on the symptoms. The real problem is condemnation with fear following. A person can reap the benefits of a clear conscience while still functioning as someone who is under some degree of condemnation, but with a proper understanding of justification, there is NOW…NO condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8:1).

No condemnation leads to less and less sin and more and more love. Love “covers a multitude of sin” and “fulfills the whole law.”

Protestant orthodoxy calls for the “Christian” to remain under condemnation of the law and its fear of condemnation. Martin Luther believed that all works performed by Christians need to be “attended with fear” [of condemnation]. John Calvin stated the same in no uncertain terms. In Protestantism, the catalyst for sanctification is fear of condemnation and a continued need for the same gospel that saved you. That is a root source of depression. The present-day biblical counseling movement produces mental illness through its own churchianity, and then cures it by teaching people to sear their consciences with a hot iron. Protestantism produces mental illness, and then presents itself as the cure.

Next week, we will examine concrete actions that one needs to take in order to have complete victory over major depression.

Why Jay Adams Had to be Neutralized by the New Calvinists

Posted in Uncategorized by pptmoderator on December 5, 2015

ppt-jpeg4Originally posted March 11, 2012

Susan and I had a glorious fellowship with another Christian couple this afternoon.  They are in a ministry of significant influence and will be unnamed. At some point, the conversation turned to New Calvinism. As Susan and I sat and listened to the husband’s testimony concerning what he valued in John Piper’s teachings, I was filled with an understanding in regard to why Piper’s teachings are so attractive. I might add that I was very impressed with his calm, articulate answer immediately following my comment that I believe Piper to be one of the premier heretics of our day.

What this brother described was the fact that serious Christians were looking for an alternative to the fallout from the first gospel wave in contemporary Christian History: raise your hand, sign a card, don’t drink, smoke, chew, or hang out with girls that do. Christianity had been reduced to living by a list of do’s and don’ts by people who didn’t have any life to show for it. Fair enough. Guilty as charged.

But the fact of the matter is that Jay Adams did offer a viable alternative. It was based on hearing the word of God and applying it to our lives according to the whole counsel of God’s wisdom and not just, “stop doing that.” I saw firsthand how this “first generation” biblical counseling movement changed lives in radical fashion, including my own. And the movement continues to do so today even though the fact of that matter is covered up by a whole lot of New Calvinist noise.

To me the crux of the matter is in this brother’s testimony. New Calvinists have effectively sold the idea that they are offering the only alternative to easy believeism in our day. That’s only true because they got rid of the other alternative through slander and persecution, and they know it. Jay Adams’ “first generation” biblical counseling was a threat to the emerging New Calvinist tsunami.  Why? 1) Because it worked and God used it to change lives. 2) It was/is the antithesis of New Calvinism because the latter fuses justification and sanctification while first generation counseling doesn’t. Furthermore, this is what New Calvinist David Powlison said was the fundamental difference between the two while teaching at John Piper’s church:

This might be quite a controversy, but I think it’s worth putting in.  Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for conversion.  And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification.  And actually even came out and attacked my mentor, Jack Miller, my pastor that I’ve been speaking of through the day, for saying that Christians should preach the gospel to themselves.  I think Jay was wrong on that.

If we associate justification with “conversion,”  and we do, Powlison’s statement can be reworded as follows for clarification:

Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for justification (justification cannot be separated from conversion).  And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification.

Second generation counseling/New Calvinism is sanctification by justification, and that was also propagated by his mentor that he mentions. New Calvinists choose their words carefully. Imagine how far the movement would get if they didn’t replace “justification” with “gospel”:

The same finished work of justification that saved you also sanctifies you. Or, we must preach justification to ourselves every day. Or, sanctification is the finished work of justification in action.

I explained to the brother that the other alternative was relentlessly persecuted, and that’s why it would seem that there is only one alternative. He concurred that he perceives criticism of Adams taking place on a continual basis. Why? Because the truth he teaches is the competition. It’s a threat.

This is an approach that I have never used before: 1) Powlison admits a fundamental difference between first generation and second generation counseling; ie, sanctification by the cross (justification) verses sanctification by the Spirit apart from the finished work of justification. 2) An alternative is confirmed. 3) You only have the New Calvinists’ testimony that they are the only alternative. 4) Why not investigate and find out for yourself?

He agreed, and was sent off with a copy of The Truth About New Calvinism. Please pray for the situation. Christianity doesn’t need a second gospel wave. The first wave devalued sanctification by focusing on justification only; the second devalues it as well by making it the same thing as justification. Both are just as deadly, and when the novelty of New Calvinism wears off, the results will be worse.

paul