Paul's Passing Thoughts

The Equivocation of Sin

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on September 15, 2017

Equivocation – noun;

  1. The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.
  2. Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.

Protestantism is a fraud because it plays upon the presumptions of the unsuspecting laity by allowing them to assume the normative definition of words while gradually indoctrinating them to a redefinition of terms. In this year’s TANC Conference, Paul Dohse gave a list of over 45 terms (and I think the list is up to 47 now and still growing) that Protestantism has redefined. This redefinition of terms is accomplished using various logical fallacies, the most seductive of which is equivocation.

To best understand the use of equivocation, consider the following example:

The Cleveland Browns are always looking for good players for their team.
Yo-Yo Ma is an excellent cello player.
Therefore, the Cleveland Browns should try to get Yo-Yo Ma to play for them.

I’m sure there are many in Cleveland who would say that the Browns couldn’t do much worse if they did sign Yo-Yo Ma to play for them. Now this may seem like a silly example, but the reason it seems silly is because the problem is obvious: it assumes a single definition of the word “player”. There is no regard given for context or perspective. In reality, the word “player” can have several meanings, and that meaning is defined by its usage.

In the first statement the word “player” is used to describe someone who plays sports. We know this because the Cleveland Browns are a professional football team (of course one could argue if the Cleveland Brows actually play anything that resembles football). In the second statement the meaning of the word changes to describe someone who plays a musical instrument. Same word, but two different meanings. The fallacy of equivocation occurs in the concluding statement because a single definition is assumed.

Context and usage define meaning.

Consider this example:

Anyone who is a Christian is a member of Christ’s church.
Joe is a member of his local Protestant church.
Therefore, Joe is a Christian because he a member of the church.

This example is probably a little more confusing, but that is what makes it a better example of the use of equivocation. The obvious question one should ask is which “church” do you mean? The definition of the word “church” is made ambiguous because of the switching of context and usage. Are we talking about “church” being the Body of Christ or do we mean the local institutional place of assembling?

Protestant pastors and elders want to have it both ways, and so their use of language is purposefully confusing. In one breath, they will declare that “the church is a body and not a building.” In the next breath they will suggest that if you are a Christian then you must be a member of a local church. Such a subtle conflicting of terms will eventually indoctrinate the laity to the underlying truth of what they really mean; that church membership equals salvation. While no one would consciously acknowledge that, such a reality works itself out in practice and behavior.

If you really want to understand just how confused the Protestant laity is, then consider how your typical Protestant understands the meaning of the word sin.

The penalty for sin is death.
Man is saved from the penalty of death through “faith alone” in Jesus for the forgiveness of sin.
Christians still sin
Therefore, Christians still need forgiveness of sin.
Therefore, Christians need to live daily by “faith alone.”

Protestantism sees the word “sin” and maintains a single definition of it throughout scripture. What are the implications of that?

  • Sin = condemnation (death)
  • Since Christians still sin and need forgiveness, they are still under condemnation.
  • Nothing really changes for the Christian. He is still the same as an unbeliever.
  • Christians’ lives are characterized by constant fear of condemnation and lack of assurance.

So what exactly is sin anyway? Protestantism would define it this way:

Sin – noun

  1. A transgression of God’s Law
  2. “Falling short” of God’s standard of “perfection”

It is worth noting that there is not necessarily anything wrong with such a definition. In fact a Biblical case can be made for defining sin in this way with regard to those who are unbelievers. It is true that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, for by one man sin entered the world, and with sin came death. But the problem is that this is not the limit to the Biblical understanding of sin. We must also consider that the Bible teaches that sin is:

  1. Personified as an Entity that seeks to control others through condemnation
  2. A violation of one’s own conscience
  3. Anything not done in faith (not being fully persuaded by reason)
  4. A failure to show love

To maintain a correct grammatical understanding, sin as a noun is also used as a verb. A person then “committing sin” can be said:

Sin – verb

  1. to transgress God’s Law
  2. to “fall short” of God’s standard of “perfection”
  3. to seek to control others through condemnation
  4. to violate one’s own conscience
  5. to engage in some behavior without faith (without being fully persuaded)
  6. to fail to show love

It should also be noted that all of these definitions of sin may be applied to one who is unsaved. The world is full of unsaved people who understand the difference between right and wrong and can choose to act in accordance to their conscience. The world is full of unsaved people who know how to show love to another but from time to time will not do so. But the problem for the unsaved person is not because he fails to obey the law perfectly. The problem is that because he is under law, such transgressions bring condemnation.

However, because Protestantism limits the meaning of sin to a single definition, sin can only be understood in the context of condemnation. Therefore, when the Protestant sees the word “sin” in the Bible with regard to the one who is saved, there can be only one conclusion, and that is that believers still need on-going forgiveness of sin because they are still under condemnation.

This cannot be the case because the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 8:

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” ~ Romans 8:1-2

Why is there no condemnation for the believer? Because when a person is born again, the law is ended for him. He is no longer “under law”. The old man who was under law dies and in his place is reborn a new creature who is the literal offspring of the Father.

“For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” ~ Romans 5:13

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin!” ~ Romans 6:6-7

Paul understood that sin can only condemn where there is a law that condemns. Sin for the believer has a different meaning.

Sin – noun

  1. A transgression of God’s Law
  2. “Falling short” of God’s standard of “perfection”
  3. The personification of an Entity that seeks to control others through condemnation
  4. A violation of one’s own conscience
  5. Anything not done in faith (not being fully persuaded by reason)
  6. A failure to show love

Notice that the first two definitions of sin no longer apply to the one who is Born Again.  Because the believer is no longer under law, any definition of sin can no longer include any meaning that implies condemnation because there is no law that can be used to condemn him. Therefore, sin for the believer cannot be defined as a transgression of God’s Law (that law was ended). Neither can it be defined as falling short of God’s standard of perfection because the believer is righteous as a state of being as a result of the New Birth.

However, because the new creature still resides in a body of flesh that is “weak” (not evil!), the personification of Sin as an Entity still tries to tempt the believer and have control over him. Such temptation can still lead believers to violate their own sense of right and wrong (conscience). Believers may still be doubtful about the liberty they have to engage in behaviors that aren’t wrong in and of themselves. (Think of the example of meats offered to idols that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 8. Such a behavior would be a violation of conscience). Believers can, and often do, fail to show love to God and others as they ought to.

Please notice – while the Bible might use the word “sin” to describe these behaviors, none of them bring condemnation to the believer!!! They might bring about Fatherly chastisement through the natural consequences of one’s actions, but Fatherly chastisement is not the same as condemnation. Fatherly chastisement does not alter or nullify one’s righteous state of being.  This is because the law which condemns was ended!

I have often stated that any time someone asks me if I sinned today that my usual response is “No.” But since we need to be sure there is no equivocation when it comes to understanding the word “sin”, perhaps we need to employ a new strategy.

Protestant: “There is no one who is righteous. Believer’s are only declared righteous because they are covered in Christ’s righteousness.”

Me: “The Bible says that anyone who is born of God does not commit sin and he cannot sin.”

Protestant: “Did you sin today?”

Me: “How do you define sin?”

Protestant: “You know, sin. Not obeying God’s Law.”

Me: “So your definition of sin means to not obey the law. My righteousness has nothing to do with whether or not I obey the law. I am not under law because the law was ended for me when I was born again. So since the law is ended and there is no law to condemn me then, no, I did not sin today according to your definition.”

In fact, when talking about defining sin and the law, we can take this strategy one step further.

Protestant: “Sin is transgressing the law; falling short of God’s standard of perfection.”

Me: “Which law are you talking about? The Law of Sin and Death or the Law of the Spirit of Life?”

Protestant: “Ummm…uh…well…huh?”

Me: “If you mean the Law of Sin and Death, then that law no longer rules over me. I am free from it. It cannot condemn me. The Law of the Spirit of Life does not condemn. It is our means to show love to God and others. Therefore, ‘sin’ for the believer is defined as a failure to show love, NOT condemnation.”

You see, it is really the same law, but the same law has two functions. Which function depends on if you are “under law” or “under grace”. For the one “under law” – the unbeliever – it is the Law of Sin and Death which can only condemn. For the one “under grace” – the one who is born again – it is the Law of the Spirit of Life which cannot condemn and is a means to show love to God and others. Therefore, a failure to keep the Law of the Spirit of Life is not “sin” as defined by Protestantism.

With a single perspective on sin and law, the equivocation of Protestantism keeps the laity perpetually confused, which only serves to foster continuous doubt and fear. The only way the laity is going to shake off this cloud of confusion is to start asking simple questions and reject the long-standing assumptions in which they find themselves entrenched.

~ Andy

Why the Protestant Gospel Cannot Save: Todd Friel Defends Josh Duggar

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on May 24, 2015

f2f8c-wreTodd Friel is a Reformed radio host and also MC for some very prestigious Reformed conferences. The name of Friel’s radio show is simply “Wretched.” The title is predicated on authentic Protestant soteriology: the new birth ONLY changes a person’s ability to see how wretched they are.

It’s not that the person doesn’t change per se; their ability to see the depths of their depravity improves. However, the saved person possesses no righteousness; ALL righteousness remains outside of the saved person. This is Martin Luther’s alien righteousness.

Because Protestantism is a super-cult that uses deceptive communication for the sole purpose of deceiving, Luther’s alien righteousness is often framed as “having no righteousness of our own.” Hence, the hearer is allowed to assume that “our own” denies that the means of righteousness originated with the believer. The biblical definition of the new birth is therefore deliberately skewed. The gift of new life is framed as an ownership issue rather than a supernatural embodiment of new being. To believe we are righteous is to make ourselves equal with God.

At any rate, and via many truisms, Protestants seek to keep the new birth in an ambiguous light. To say that we have “the righteousness of Christ” can be interpreted many different ways in regard to the new birth, and that is the idea. The goal is to keep people in a sliding mode of assumption until they are fully indoctrinated. This is Cult 101. For example, the assumption that Protestant pastors talk about the gospel every Sunday “because there might be some lost people present or members who are self-deceived.” Eventually, this assumption leads you to where they want to take you—you need the gospel every day to keep yourself saved and the gospel is only legit in the institutional church.

Another favorite deceptive truism is the idea that we focus on our depravity so that we will appreciate our salvation more, and then all obedience is sanctified and flows from “gratitude.” This seems perfectly logical, but wait a minute, what is the nature of the obedience if we are totally depraved to begin with? If a totally depraved person can obey, doesn’t that make them at least partially righteous?

Very good question, but most Protestants have been conditioned to not think that deeply, and are temporarily satisfied with such an answer until they are fully indoctrinated.

The citations from Friel’s defense of Duggar speak to what I am saying above. Yes, the disaster here, according to Friel, is not that the Gentiles have cause to blaspheme God because of the molestation of children, but rather…

There are two groups of people who should not be shocked to discover that a member of the Duggar family is a sinner: Christians and non-Christians. Surprisingly, both camps seemed to be surprised by this revelation.

That is what makes the Josh Duggar story a disaster.

Remember, this guy is not a Reformed lightweight by any stretch of the imagination, and often partakes in ministry projects with the likes of John MacArthur Jr. and RC Sproul.

He continues…

Based on his own admission, Josh sinned, repented and got saved. Why in the world would Christians be appalled to discover an unregenerate 14-year-old boy acted wickedly?

According to Josh himself, “I sought forgiveness from those I had wronged and asked Christ to forgive me and come into my life.” Sounds like a pretty typical conversion story to me.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (I Cor.6:9-11).

Have we forgotten that the Apostle Paul was a murderer before God saved him?

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life (I Tim.1:15-16).

Stop right there. Notice how Friel proffers an angle that we would all agree with: what the guy did was horrible, but it led to his salvation. He even cites verses that speak of the behavior in the past tense. But then watch what he does in the very next sentence,

Josh is no worse than the Apostle Paul. Josh should not be shunned by Christians; he should be comforted by Christians who are just as wicked and just as forgiven as he is. Josh is nothing more, and nothing less, than a story of God’s amazing grace.

See how he slides from the past tense to the present tense without a transition? Something changes, but obviously NOT our nature. People are left to assume what the specifics of the changes are. Folks, this is classic cultic communication.

And…

This might be the bigger tragedy of the Josh Duggar story: unbelievers consider it a bombshell when it is discovered that a Christian has a shameful past. This ought not to be.

If we Christians were doing our job proclaiming that the Gospel is for sinners, of whom we are the foremost, the world would yawn when it discovered that Josh was a hound dog.

If Christians were as loud about the Gospel as we are about being the moral majority, I suspect there would be five results:

  1. Unbelievers would not see Josh Duggar as a hypocrite; they would see him as a typical born-again believer who is forgiven by an amazingly gracious God.
  1. Unbelievers would not see Christians as a mere special interest group that seeks to impose values on other people.
  1. The Gospel would be shining brightly.
  1. Somebody might get saved.
  1. Josh Duggar and his family would be going about their business today as a typical Christian family saved by grace alone.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that any of those things are happening. I don’t blame the world; I blame us.

Is it possible we have become so obsessed with imposing our values on unbelievers that the world sees us as self-righteous Pharisees and not as blood-washed sinners?

Have we been so consumed by the culture wars that we have failed to engage in the spiritual battle for souls?

Notice again how Friel confuses the past condition of Christians with the present. A difference is delineated, yet it’s not defined; the change that takes place is ambiguous, and the logical conclusion cannot assume an actual ability to be righteous. Really, it boils down to a mere positional status rather than an actual change of being.

However, in his closing paragraph, Friel leaves no doubt as to the identity of believers in Reformed soteriology:

Josh tendered his resignation to the Family Research Council and they accepted it. While none of us know all of the details, if Josh were in my employ, I would not have accepted his resignation.

I would have shouted from the rooftops, “If you think Josh is wicked, you should meet the rest of us! That is why we are Christians! We need forgiveness for being wretched, vile, wicked rebels. If you are a rebel too, Jesus died for you! Run to Jesus! Join the wretched club.”

Let’s not squander this opportunity to share the great good news that Jesus died for perverts, liars, thieves, drunkards, abortionists, Wall Street fat cats, skid row bums, suburban housewives, blue collar workers and every sinner who will come to Him in repentance and faith.

Josh Duggar’s story is more than a Gospel tragedy; it is a Gospel opportunity. Don’t waste it.

This gospel cannot save, and will only attract those who do not want to undergo the radical change of new birth. It will only attract those who think they can sin all the more so grace will abound.

paul

Get Over It: Calvin and Luther Propagated a Blatant False View of Justification

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on May 7, 2015

FACT is, Luther and Calvin propagated a false view of justification and the theological math is very simple. It’s a religious empire built on a big fat lie. Luther and Calvin belong in the infamous Hall of False Gospels, not Christian folklore.

Why is this? Justification is not a legal covering that God “sees.” It is not a legal declaration of covering, it is a legal declaration of fact concerning the true being of the individual who is now a family member. He now deals with us as sons. When God looks at the new family member, He sees a righteousness that is like Christ’s because Christ is the brother, but it is also the righteousness of the individual. When God “sees” one of His children, He sees the righteousness of one born of Him. “A righteousness of our own” argument is intellectually dishonest; it attempts to make us the originators of righteousness because we received it as a gift.

“But Christians still sin.”

This very contention is a false gospel smoking gun. This simple four-word contention (one of Calvin and Luther’s primary arguments for progressive justification) is all one needs to completely discredit the Reformation from the plain sense of Scripture. This perspective obviously sees Christians as still under the law and needing a COVERING to satisfy the law.

But here is the good news of the true gospel: sin is not merely covered, it is ended, and where there is no law, there is no sin.

But that doesn’t mean “under grace” equals not being under any law. It’s just a different use of the law: for love, NOT condemnation. Authentic Protestantism clearly keeps Christians under the law of condemnation, and therefore needing a covering of righteousness not their own. Supposedly, Christ came to not only die for our sins, but to obey the law perfectly so that His perfect obedience can be imputed to our Christian life by faith alone.

There are many problems with this view of justification known as “double imputation.”

First, it makes the law of condemnation a co-life-giver. That’s Paul’s whole point in Galatians chapter 3. Also, the law now sits on a third throne with God the Father and Christ. In fact, Reformed tradition often pontificates about “An offering given to satisfy the law from the empty hands of faith which only bring the righteousness of Christ as an offering.”

Whoa! Really?

Secondly, it denies that the old person died with Christ via the baptism of the Spirit. Why in the world would believers need a covering to protect them from a law that they are no longer under? A dead person cannot be found guilty under the law—they are dead. This is Paul’s whole point in Romans chapter 7.

Thirdly, because of the Reformation’s single use of the law, that of condemnation only, the ability of the Christian to love is circumvented. The Christian is not free to “serve another.” The law of sin and death, the ministry of death, is made the same as the law of liberty, the law of Christ, and the law of the Spirit of life that He uses to sanctify us (John 17:17).

Fourthly, because the believer is still under the law of sin and death confirmed by the fact that he/she still needs a covering of righteousness that is not their own imputed by the new birth, he/she is still enslaved to sin.

Fifthly, the principles of GIFT and REWARD in the Bible now have to be the same. Therefore, salvation is the reward for living by faith alone in the same gospel that saved us. This, according to Calvin, “keeps us in the family of God.”

Hence, salvation is a reward for living by faith alone rather than a gift. This problem speaks for itself and is the crux of “already not yet.”

Is it any wonder that the Protestant church is a train wreck? It’s that way because of its false gospel.

paul

%d bloggers like this: