The Church Meme
The meme displayed in this post, and also the subject of this post is just one more piece of evidence pointing to the false religion of church. Church banks on lazy thinkers; however, if one gives this meme but a little thought, it speaks to the horrid reality of church and its history.
The most overt message of this meme follows: “You are obligated to be faithful to church no matter what happens there, and if you leave church for whatever reason, you never knew God. So, in order to prove that you have faith in God, you remain faithful to church. Part of persevering in the faith is being faithful to church no matter what. After all, church involves people, and where you have people—you have sin.”
Therefore, if something really, really bad happens that the leadership will not deal with; one does not dare question the premise of church, but rather finds another salvation franchise where they can continue to get salvation on the installment plan. Plainly, in the black and white pages of orthodoxy, the church has always proclaimed itself as God’s salvific authority on earth. Martin Luther and John Calvin were not the least bit ambiguous about it. Calvin clearly stated that water baptism made a person an official member of church, and continued forgiveness for present sin is only available through church membership.
4.15.1 – Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. Moreover, the end for which God has given it (this I have shown to be common to all mysteries) is, first, that it may be conducive to our faith in him; and, secondly, that it may serve the purpose of a confession among men. The nature of both institutions we shall explain in order. Baptism contributes to our faith three things, which require to be treated separately. The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed, be baptised for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Calvin Institutes).
4.15.3 – Nor is it to be supposed that baptism is bestowed only with reference to the past, so that, in regard to new lapses into which we fall after baptism, we must seek new remedies of expiation in other so-called sacraments, just as if the power of baptism had become obsolete. To this error, in ancient times, it was owing that some refused to be initiated by baptism until their life was in extreme danger, and they were drawing their last breath, that they might thus obtain pardon for all the past. Against this preposterous precaution ancient bishops frequently inveigh in their writings. We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of Christ was therein offered to us, always is in force, and is not destroyed by any stain: it wipes and washes away all our defilements. Nor must we hence assume a license of sinning for the future (there is certainly nothing in it to countenance such audacity), but this doctrine is intended only for those who, when they have sinned, groan under their sins burdened and oppressed, that they may have wherewith to support and console themselves, and not rush headlong into despair. Thus Paul says that Christ was made a propitiation for us for the remission of sins that are past (Rom. 3:25). By this he denies not that constant and perpetual forgiveness of sins is thereby obtained even till death: he only intimates that it is designed by the Father for those poor sinners who, wounded by remorse of conscience, sigh for the physician. To these the mercy of God is offered. Those who, from hopes of impunity, seek a license for sin, only provoke the wrath and justice of God (Calvin Institutes).
Hence, you may not like what is going on in church, but according to Protestant orthodoxy, it is the only place that you can get continued forgiveness; ie., salvation. Many churches will vehemently deny this, but watch how they function; they strongly emphasize getting people saved and repentance while putting little emphasis on practical Christian living lest we have a “righteousness of our own.” Rather than love/obedience, we must instead, “revisit our baptism.”
But, if you are in a church that totally looks the other way in regard to scandalous sin, or isn’t relevant to real life, you may find a “good church.” Or can you? Such people are often labeled “church hoppers” or brought up on church discipline and declared unregenerate. And besides, “no church is perfect anyway,” right?
Secondly, note the grammar shell game always invoked by the Protestant liars. This meme, in true Protestant tradition, subtly denies the new birth. Notice that church is only God’s actual family when it serves their purpose, but when referring to reprehensible behavior, church is made up of mere…”people.” Otherwise, if true biblical grammar was actually utilized, it would read: “If being hurt by God’s family causes you to lose faith in God; then your faith was based on being in God’s family and having expectations accordingly.” Ya think?
Thirdly, the meme subtly endorses Protestantism’s Gnostic roots. This goes along with the denial of the new birth and a literal family of God state of being. There is a strict dichotomy between a godly spiritual realm and “people” who are of the material realm. The “Christian” is called on to accept church as the only conduit between the material and the spiritual while expecting any and every kind of evil to take place in the church accordingly.
Fourthly, and lastly, the reality of new birth is rejected while making the so-called authority of church foundational to true faith.
In contrast, wherever born again believers are, the body of Christ is manifested. Whether gathering together for fellowship or serving, the assembly of Christ’s body is present. “People” are not the church, and besides, there is NO “church” to begin with. There is only the manifestation of God’s family members edifying each other and serving with their individual gifts.
paul
If You Are a Protestant; i.e., Baptist, Methodist, ect., You Represent a False Gospel
The Protestant Reformation was never about interpreting the Bible literally, or by its plain sense. The official interpretive policy of the Reformers was historical-redemptive. What’s that? It means the Reformers interpreted the Bible as a salvific metaphysical narrative. This philosophy calls for reality to be interpreted as a prewritten movie of sorts, and the Bible is the script. Bible “stories” are prototypes for interpreting our lives according to redemption, and prophecies foretell how the movie will unfold historically. Supposedly, God decided to write the narrative for His own glory and self-love.
The soteriology of the Reformation is a product of this worldview. That’s why orthodoxy plainly contradicts the plain sense of Scripture or its grammatical sense. Of course, Reformers past and present claim they are grammarians, but that refers to grammatical sentences that explain redemptive-historical state-of -being. In other words, historical-grammatical hermeneutical processes are only a means to explaining historical-redemptive metaphysics which enables them to claim grammatical interpretation. They do this knowingly lest they would be found telling the truth about something.
Before we focus on how Protestant orthodoxy defines itself as biblically unregenerate, let’s answer the question in regard to Protestants being so confused about this very simple truth; how did it happen? From the Reformation moving forward in time, people started interpreting the Bible grammatically from a state-of-being perspective. This was never meant to be, but the natural inclination of people is to interpret reality grammatically, or literally so to speak. This resulted in Protestantism, and all of its various stripes, being half pregnant with “under grace.” The Bible’s definitions of the lost and saved, viz, “under law” or “under grace” became confused.
Actually, it became very confused. Historical-redemptive interpretation enables one to interpret every verse of Scripture as being about salvation while grammatical interpretation demands a dichotomy between Christian living and salvation. The former calls for a salvation process while the latter calls for salvation being a onetime finished work. In 1970, a think tank known as the Australian Forum rediscovered this fact and has brought the church back to its authentic roots via the New Calvinist movement.
Now let’s look at how Protestantism defines the so-called “Christian” as being “under law.” There are myriads of examples, but I will use a select few. John Calvin stated the following in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
3.14.10 – Even were it possible for us to perform works absolutely pure, yet one sin is sufficient to efface and extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness, as the prophet says (Ezek. 18:24). With this James agrees, “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all,” (James 2:10). And since this mortal life is never entirely free from the taint of sin, whatever righteousness we could acquire would ever and anon be corrupted, overwhelmed, and destroyed, by subsequent sins, so that it could not stand the scrutiny of God, or be imputed to us for righteousness. In short, whenever we treat of the righteousness of works, we must look not to the legal work but to the command. Therefore, when righteousness is sought by the Law, it is in vain to produce one or two single works; we must show an uninterrupted obedience. God does not (as many foolishly imagine) impute that forgiveness of sins once for all, as righteousness; so that having obtained the pardon of our past life we may afterwards seek righteousness in the Law. This were only to mock and delude us by the entertainment of false hopes. For since perfection is altogether unattainable by us, so long as we are clothed with flesh, and the Law denounces death and judgment against all who have not yielded a perfect righteousness, there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins. Wherefore the statement which we set out is always true, If we are estimated by our own worthiness, in everything that we think or devise, with all our studies and endeavors we deserve death and destruction.
3.14.11 – We must strongly insist on these two things: That no believer ever performed one work which, if tested by the strict judgment of God, could escape condemnation; and, moreover, that were this granted to be possible (though it is not), yet the act being vitiated and polluted by the sins of which it is certain that the author of it is guilty, it is deprived of its merit. This is the cardinal point of the present discussion.
Calvin makes two things perfectly clear from the Reformed perspective: “Christians” are still judged by the law and its demand for perfection, and therefore, no “Christian” can please God via a righteous work. Simply stated, “under law.” Anyone reading this post should be familiar with many Bible verses that call us to please God with our works, but nevertheless, I will cite the following:
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
In this passage, the apostle Paul clearly delineated between the lost and the saved, and in regard to “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God,” John Calvin would say, “Yep, that’s us!” While Paul clearly stated that Christians are no longer under the law’s demand for perfection; Calvin clearly contradicts him. While Paul defines a true believer as someone who CAN please God, Calvin flatly denies it…in writing.
Calvin defines the Christian as under “the law of sin and death” while Paul defines the Christian as under “the law of the Spirit of life” which is the same as being under grace. If you reread the excerpt from the Institutes, Calvin defines the Christian in nearly the exact same way that Paul described the unregenerate. Paul distinguishes how the Spirit uses the law in regard to the unsaved versus the saved. For those under law, the Spirit uses the law to condemn only. The Reformed concur because they say this continually drives the Christian back to the cross for continued atonement for “present sin.”
In contrast, the Spirit uses the law to sanctify believers (John 17:17), and does not use the law to keep so-called Christians under condemnation. This demands a progressive salvation versus a salvation that is finished. The Australian Forum framed it this way:
The Holy Spirit gives the sinner faith to accept the righteousness of Jesus. Standing now before the law which says, “I demand a life of perfect conformity to the commandments,” the believing sinner cries in triumph, “Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, His suffering and dying; mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, and suffered, and died as He did . . . ” (Luther). The law is well pleased with Jesus’ doing and dying, which the sinner brings in the hand of faith. Justice is fully satisfied, and God can truly say: “This man has fulfilled the law. He is justified.”
We say again, Only those are justified who bring to God a life of perfect obedience to the law of God. This is what faith does—it brings to God the obedience of Jesus Christ. By faith the law is fulfilled and the sinner is justified (Present Truth: Law and Gospel; Volume 7, article 2, Part 2).
John Piper, the contemporary “elder statesman” of the New Calvinist movement stated it this way:
We all sense intuitively-and we are encouraged in this intuition by the demands of God-that acceptance with God requires perfect righteousness conformity to the law (Matthew5:48; Galatians 3:10; James2:10). We also know that our measures of obedience, even on our best days, fall short of this standard (Counted Righteous in Christ: Page 123; 2002).
To be under the righteous and perfect demands of the law to remain justified is clearly… “under law.” Also, note that both contemporary Reformers and Calvin always cite James 2:10 as a proof text:
For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
But it is no mere oversight that they fail to contrast that with love fulfilling the whole law as well (Gal 5:14, Matt 22:40, Rom 3:10). James 2:10 is “under law” while Galatians 5:14 ect. refers to “under grace” (Rom 6:14).
Those who call themselves Protestants identify with a false gospel, but granted, could be confused enough to be saved. However, confusion in the Christian life is not good and is obviously indicative of what we see in the church.
paul
Imputation
Calvinism = false gospel because it calls for a progressive imputation. Instead, imputation only happens once, and in full via the new birth
— Paul M. Dohse (@PaulMDohse) March 14, 2016
God Predetermines Hope, Not the Fate of Individuals; Genesis 11:1-9
The primary problem with Bible interpretation is the simplicity of its truth. The Bible itself notes that diligent study is needed by every believer, but the Bible’s call to study assumes that individual understanding is the outcome (2Pet 3:16, 2Tim 3:15).
The whole seer thing and hierarchy of understanding are a scam that started in the garden with Eve’s conversation with the serpent and has dominated the world ever since. Obviously, the serpent presented himself as an additional mediator to aid in her understanding. This is what makes America so unique in human history: its tacit nod towards individualism has made it the greatest nation ever, and even at its worst, the greatest defender of freedom and a formidable foe of tyranny’s blood-lust.
And, determinism has always been a major pillar of the caste worldview; it is the premise for caste authority, and it saturates the psyche of humanity. In a stunning rewriting of historical truth, contemporary evangelicals like John MacArthur Jr. claim determinism is a ultra-unique Protestant distinctive. According to them, the nature of mankind continually clamors to be free of authority and is helplessly self-willed. Therefore, especially among the New Calvinist leadership, Americanism, and individualism, in particular, are disdained.
However, Protestantism is just another spiritual caste system like the ones that have dominated human history from the beginning. Again, the Protestant claim of uniqueness is an absurd rewriting of history. From the beginning, mankind has been plagued with fear and condemnation leading to the pursuit of pseudo-comfort in other men. Mankind has always struggled with trusting in the one Mediator alone and instead seeks counsel from the so-called experts, or sub-mediators, aka, the traditions of men. The Bible continually exhorts people to not put their trust in princes and the wisdom of men. The traditions of men, always a dumbed-down version of the law of love or, at least, the relaxing of it is the means to fulfill the righteousness of God via spiritual caste. Read the book of Galatians, that’s what Paul was addressing. While Protestants claim to be the antithesis of the Judaizers, they are in fact a prototype.
Freewill is a major pillar of God’s created state of being, and for the most part, God only predetermines an overall outcome of His choosing. Therefore, when necessary to obtain His desired outcome, He intervenes and overrides the freewill of men when necessary. We see this throughout the Scriptures, and Genesis 11:1-9 is no exception. In this passage, how can the contrast between individualism and collectivism be denied? Protestants claim that a one-world religion would be bad unless it’s Protestantism. This should make us very uncomfortable because it is also the claim of all other religions; in other words, Protestantism is just another party among many seeking control of the world…, but of course, for the “collective good and God’s glory.” Buyer beware. Please note that many of the major Protestant confessions were written for, and addressed to, world leaders. There is a reason for that.
Determinism is so entrenched in Western culture that reading the Bible for what it really says, and plainly so, is a daunting mental exercise in overcoming presuppositions. The Protestant Platonist philosopher kings have totally redefined almost every Bible word and completely co-opted the terminology. When we read the word, “elect” in the Bible, we read it as synonymous with individual choosing, rather that what it is: a classification. God predetermined the hope of salvation for all men, that’s election. The means and purpose of salvation were elected, not individuals. This is the only construct that unifies the Bible…period. Without this construct, the Bible is thrown into total confusion.
Let’s look at an example. In Romans 8:30, Paul states that whomever God calls, He justifies and glorifies. But in Matthew 22:14, we find that many are called, but few are chosen. Huh? If you look at this from individual election or choosing, it is an outright contradiction. John Calvin dealt with this contradiction by teaching that there is a class of temporarily elected who suffer a greater condemnation for God’s glory. That’s a fact that many Calvinists conveniently leave out of the conversation.
In contrast, this is understood via the major context of Romans: the mystery of the gospel. What’s that? Oh my, this is soooo simple. Ephesians 3:6 ESV starts with, “This mystery is….” Any questions? It’s a definitive definition of the mystery of the gospel:
…that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
In other words, Paul was telling the Gentiles at Rome that if God called the Gentiles into the commonwealth of Israel (Eph chapter 2), that it was a legitimate invitation with no strings attached. The call to the Jews and Gentiles was, and is, without favoritism or respecting of some people over others. The calling is without regret by God on any wise regarding the Gentiles—they are not a lower class of elect. Paul uses the letter to the Romans to articulate the Jew/Gentile relationship to justification in painstaking detail. The calling regards a call to full and complete adoption into the family of God as equal heirs. All who are called are justified and glorified the same way.
Now Matthew 22 makes perfect sense. God invites Jew and Gentile both into the commonwealth of Israel, but only those who accept the invitation are the elect. Many, meaning both Jew and Gentile are called, but only those who accept the invitation to the wedding feast become the elect. In other words, they accept the invitation to become part of God’s elected plan of salvation and therefore are of the elect. Jesus was also making the point that being a Jew did not guarantee your salvation as was often taught by the Pharisees. They got the point and didn’t like it much. Read Ephesians 2, Romans 8, and Matthew 22 together and the clarity of this is stunning. Then start reading your Bible with this context in mind, and it becomes clearer and clearer. The common English rendering of “many called, few chosen,” should rather read, “many called, but few elect ones.” In other words, many are called, but few Jews will accept the invitation. This didn’t go over well at all.
God predetermines outcome; that is, hope and salvation for mankind and invites them accordingly. They either accept or reject the invitation via their own freewill. God, or His gospel, is not boxed in by man’s definition of Him; that is, God is supposedly limited by His intrinsic sovereignty. Though God applies His sovereignty, He is not defined by it; the love of His gospel is what defines Him…“God is love.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment