Lawson, Church, and Protestantism; It’s Just That Simple
Paul – I think you are being too generous to Lawson, unless my antipathy towards Calvinism has got the better of me! I even looked up Wartburg Watch after about a decade, and the comment there that Lawson has yet even to mention his victim, the girl he had the affaire with, is very telling and indicates his repentance may be more remorse for what his actions have done to him. There is a history of men trying to get back into ministry via repentance but who don’t put things right with the victims. (I appreciate this is assuming she was not altogether willing due to the power differential, the internet is not party to all the details. I also don’t want to be pharisaiacal and deny him the very real forgiveness available if he genuinely turns away from his sins.)
Wartburg quoted Lawson on hell, and frankly he came across as a weirdo, something is clearly wrong with a man who talks like that.
In my observation of Calvinists and their strange doctrines in recent months I have been struck by the notion of regeneration being prior to faith, and indeed necessary for faith to be exercised. Now you have often pointed out the failure to see the the new birth goes beyond a ‘legal declaration’ of being righteous in the sight of God, but I wonder if Calvinists who have given mental assent to the facts of the gospel take this to mean they must be regenerate, their “faith” is evidence of new birth. How else would you know you are part of the elect? You have got to find some subjective evidence you have in fact been chosen for salvation.
What if they are ‘believers’ without the new birth, they have wrongly assumed they are born again? They could have any amount of theology and doctrine and Greek and Hebrew and church history, but no fundamental change has ever taken place, they are not new creations in Christ. They have biblical words, but do not possess what those words mean. Is this a possible explanation for Lawson?
___________________________________________
Whoa, where to start? First of all, Protestantism is Calvinism. Protestantism is founded on the Big Three: Augustine, Luther, Calvin. Luther and Calvin based their authority on Augustine, a Neo-Platonist. Platonism is the antithesis of the biblical new birth, which promotes the idea of deity being fused together with mortality. CLEARLY, authentic Protestant theology rejects the biblical new birth.
After the American Revolution, masses of people were reading the Bible for themselves, and along with influence from the Quakers, a more biblical view of the new birth took hold, and while the Protestant view of salvation continued to be reflected in formal church worship, Protestantism was taken over by a more individualistic biblical new birth mentality. Calls to return to the authentic Protestant gospel sprang up here and there, but fell on deaf ears. Most notably, as reflected by the book, “Disciplined By Grace” written by J.F. Strombeck in 1946. Note the title, and the idea that sanctification (the discipline of the Christian life) is effected by perpetual re-salvation (grace). Hence, discipline in sanctification is by salvation. Sanctification by justification.
The only problem with all of these attempts is they didn’t say the quite part out loud and in plain terms. Well, in 1970, the Australian Forum finally did. Their theological journal, Present Truth, was really a commentary on the Calvin Institutes and the writings of Luther. I document the history of the AF in The Truth About New Calvinism in painstaking detail (primarily chapter 4).
Fact is, the AF gave birth to the New Calvinism movement, which is a return to authentic Protestantism, and overtly denies the biblical new birth and the idea that salvation changes a person’s state of being. Hence, biblically speaking, this means that Protestants are still enslaved to sin with the behaviors we see coming out of church following. Church still advocates moral behavior as an entry level pretense, but then asserts that as people grow spiritually, they become Calvinists. This is why they handle those who “fall” they way they do…it’s all window dressing.
Lawson did what he did because he was taken captive by sin, and dragged away into death per the theology that he has preached for years. In addition, his peers knew it was going on. Hanging out with her publicly was hardly, “avoiding all appearances of evil.” Just consider the insanity of this affair; where did they think it was going to go or end up? They BOTH knew it was going to have a sorry end…but they couldn’t help themselves…they were enslaved to the sinful desire per their theology.
It’s just that simple.
Addendum:
Remember, all residual doctrines of Protestantism, like the idea that people are regenerated before salvation, are fruits from the poisonous tree. Furthermore, if the doctrines were true, the Bible would read differently. In context of cause and effect, God would be the cause in every sentence. Furthermore, in presenting the gospel, why do Calvinists attempt to persuade rather than just presenting the gospel and taking a wait and see posture? You never hear them say, “It’s not your decision, if God saves you, you will start going to church even though salvation doesn’t really change you, you are still totally depraved.” So, the Protestant gospel is not full disclosure by any stretch of the imagination. In addition, someone who hates their life and wants to change it would be misguided in believing the gospel for that reason. The only valid reason would be a strictly legal declaration and not a change in state of being, which the Bible contradicts (justification is apart from the law; a legal declaration is NOT apart from the law).
Protestantism is False Because of Romans 8:2
Most false gospels are based on interpreting soteriology from a single perspective on the law. Protestantism is included in this error as well. Romans 8:2 discusses two laws, “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ” and “the law of sin and death.” Both words for “law” in this passage are “nomos,” meaning a written law or moral code. Many Protestant theologians try to interpret nomos in this passage as two spiritual realms, which of course, is overt hermeneutical error. The word for a spiritual realm is a totally different word.
In addition, the correct interpretation of Romans 8:2 is confirmed by several other passages in scripture, particularly the Spirit’s two uses of the law to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come, and the Spirit’s use of the law to sanctify God’s children.
Because of Protestantism’s single perspective on the law, perfect law-keeping is the standard for righteousness, not the new birth. The so-called believer remains under the condemnation of the law, and being under grace is a covering for remaining under law. In other words, according to the Protestant gospel, a believer is both under law and under grace, or in other words, a “sinner (defined in the Bible as being under condemnation) saved by grace” (actually, being saved by grace because Protestantism teaches that salvation is a “process”).
Consequently, Protestantism denies a biblical definition of the new birth that plunges us into Jesus’ death resulting in the law of sin and death no longer having jurisdiction over us (because the old us is dead, and dead people cannot be indicted), and raising us together with Christ resulting in us being under the power of the Spirit’s use of the law for sanctification.
This doesn’t mean that a born-again Christian is free from all consequences concerning a poo-pooing of the law’s moralism. But, there is a clear biblical demarcation between condemnation and fatherly chastisement that is done from love and not wrath. Protestantism denies this distinction, and conflates condemnation with chastisement in the same way that it conflates all other distinctions between under law and under grace.
The unavoidable result of this is a salvation process that involves church. And by the way, 99.99% of all churches teach from a single perspective on the law. Church isn’t an option. No surprise then that the New Testament ekklesia is not church as we know it; church as we know it comes along about 300 years later.
paul
Death is NOT OK
If you are struggling with the death of a loved one, human or pet, please be free. You are not in bondage to “accepting it” or moving on. You are free to never accept it. Don’t worry, the body and mind will adjust and you will adapt through a new homeostasis because part of you is gone that you will never get back. You can be happy again because your body and mind will create a new normal for you.
This is because God doesn’t accept death. The Bible never states that “death is a normal process of life.” That’s pure nonsense. In fact, the Bible states that death is God’s “enemy” and will be the “last enemy that He will defeat.” This is one reason I love being a nurse; I am fighting God’s enemy. When we lose the fight, it’s not ok, but we know that we will eventually win the war through Christ. My father was a Mason, and I am not advocating for Free Masonry, but during their memorial service for my dad, the speaker, arrayed in his Mason uniform with a sword at his side, said, “We are here today to celebrate the life of Harry Dohse who has been struck down by this world.” I love that. That is so true. Death is not a natural process of life, it’s a homicide committed by a fallen world.
Of late, my favorite Bible verse is Hebrews 2:14,15, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” It’s ok to fear an enemy, though we overcome that fear in order to defeat them. Christ died to free us from enslavement to fear. But that doesn’t make death a part of life; death is God’s enemy. If you are not ok with death, that’s ok because God isn’t either. As nurses, we see it all the time with families and even doctors: requests or orders that reflect denial concerning the inevitable, and I am totally ok with that because death should be denied. Absolutely, I will reorder those eyedrops or Atorvastatin right away. This reflects last vestiges of hope, and is part of the mourning process. The patient is 100 years old and is Full Code? Why is that not ok? Too much life? Why would death be given permission at all? Has death become our friend because our life isn’t what it was?
We should never be in a hurry to surrender to death. In the dying process, dealing with it holistically and embracing God’s enemy is a fine line.
paul
Everything You Need to Know About Church: Steve Lawson
The target audience of this post is those familiar with the ministry circles of John MacArthur Jr., G3, and Ligonier. Hence, this post will not include a lot of background about the close relationship that “Lead Teacher” Steve Lawson had with those ministries. Suffice to say this circle of ministry is a substantial representation of the evangelical church. The internet is fraught with digital placards displaying profound unction by those who represent these ministries.
A lot could be said about the depths of this latest church scandal, but I want to focus on their rules for thee, but not for me mentality. This is because the church is an authoritative institution that has placed itself as an additional mediator between God’s children and God himself. Additionally, the church is not even a sanctified hierarchy, but obviously, a caste system where moral theological principles are not evenly applied on each level.
In this circle of “ministry,” which could also include TGC, G4, and many others, there is a very strong emphasis on the church commoners being willing to “place themselves under the authority of godly men” via the local church. The likes of John Piper and John MacArthur continually call into question those unwilling to be active members of a local church. John Piper has even stated that a willingness to be a member of a church and under its authority is synonymous with loving Jesus. This blog has posted the receipts for over 10 years and will not belabor the point here.
So, now, what do we find out? We find Trinity Bible Church, Ligonier, Master’s seminary, Grace Community Church, G3, et al, accepted a special designation for Lawson referred to as “Lead Preacher,” which excluded him from being a member of a church (and he wasn’t) or an elder. It is unclear how many leaders of these ministries knew about his 5-year relationship with a very young lady, but for certain they all knew that he wasn’t a member of a church, while demanding church membership for the church commoners. Furthermore, the only reason we know any of this is because the girl’s father threatened Steve Lawson with public discloser. Meanwhile, remember that the Reformed church has ruined thousands of lives via church discipline, and Mark Dever became a hero for placing 256 church members under church discipline for nonattendance.
So, how many parishioners will begin to rethink church in leu of this stunning hypocrisy? Few, because parishioners are getting what they want. For all practical purposes, Lawson was a hired entertainer at Trinity and everyone was fine with that. Furthermore, there is a human tendency to find assurance of salvation through expertism rather than Christ. Lawson was an expert theologian and proficient entertainer, that’s all that mattered.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, apparently, Lawson is living in Tennessee and is estranged from his wife. But, the beat goes on. This is business as usual in the church. Some could demand that leaders like Voddie Baucham confess about what they knew and when, but that’s what church discipline is for…
…those who ask relevant questions.
paul.
Inside the Mind of Tyranny
Paul,
My intent is to be helpful. To that end, you misspelled ‘definition’ in the title of your blog.
It seems to me that the ‘church gospel’ you’re fighting against doesn’t exist. You’re trying to catch people in their words through specifically formulated questions which creates the impression to the hearer / reader of your blogs that there is apostasy where there is none. Please stop. 2 Timothy 2:14 – “Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” There are CRYSTAL CLEAR forms of apostasy all around us (prosperity gospel, ‘New Apostolic Reformation’, etc). Why don’t we battle against that together, OK?
Scott, I am only replying for demonstrative purposes. At least in regard to myself, I have a strong tendency to interact with people based on my assumptions. And what are those assumptions? That people can be persuaded by sound logic. Actually, Scott, your email, this email, may be a historic event in my life because I am finally going to put feet to what I have seen for more than ten years now, but have never acted upon a final resolution. And what is that resolution? Tyrants can’t be reasoned with, and where applicable, they must be defeated. Once someone is defined as a tyrant, you avoid them, but if they are somehow interfering with your endeavor to accomplish the things that are self-evident, all resources must be invested towards their defeat while any attempt to persuade them is a fool’s errand.
Why is this, and how did I reach this and other related conclusions? By reading a lot of Martin Luther. The author John Immel inspired me to understand philosophy and gave me some important first principles, but Martin Luther, the consummate tyrant of the ages, is the one who enabled me to put it all together. And as demonstrated in your email, good people must understand that at times they are dealing with people who view reality differently. You can’t persuade someone who doesn’t share your perception regarding how the world works.
Let’s start with you correcting my grammar. This is such a basic, and telling principle. But first, let me explain something. I am not a laymen, that’s a bad word to use and feeds a whole church worldview that must be completely dismantled for saints who want to a leave a decent legacy in this life. The Bible makes no distinction whatsoever within the body of Christ concerning vocation or so-called “bi-vocational.” I am an elder in the body of Christ, that’s my gift, and I got it from the Spirit when I was born again. And by the way, because of that, I don’t need Al Mohler or any other disgusting stuffed shirt to give me permission to practice my gift. With that said, I practice that gift as an elder of this ministry, I am going to nursing school, and my wife and I are performing more ministry in the life of others than we ever did being under the thumb of the church lie. Hence, when someone like you, a typical overpaid sycophant of the church industrial complex, who has paid staff to boot, points out one of my errors in the midst of a dizzying life effort, it is offensive, but even more offensive is the motive behind the correction.
Such a tiny little detail, but really a gargantuan principle. In the Bible, a very important truth about sin is revealed; it’s not just doing naughty things that God disapproves of, sin seeks to control others. And the Bible is very specific about how that process works. Sin crouches in hiding waiting for a reason to condemn, and when everyday mortal weakness produces the reason, or outright sin, sin pounces with condemnation. Sin really doesn’t care if it was an honest mistake or outright sin, the goal is to use condemnation to enslave. That’s why slander is often used to condemn people; if said target doesn’t produce a reason, one will be made up. It goes something like this: “See what a loser you are? Hence, you need someone like me that is better than you, smarter than you, more moral than you, to rule over your life.” For ten years I have watched this in our marriage counseling: marriage counseling is two people bringing their condemnation lists to you as a case for why one should be able to rule over the other. The diminishing of other people’s self-esteem is also critical to controlling them which is behind the doctrine of total depravity…obviously. Once you understand this dynamic, you see it everywhere, particularly when a women shares with me that her husband says things like this: “You couldn’t make it without me.” This ministry has set several women free from financial slavery and we are happy to do it.
Love makes a legitimate marriage, not some law. Staying in a situation where there is no respect or love whether a job, a church, or a marriage is typical under-law thinking. Love fulfils the law, not law-keeping for the sake of law-keeping. Recently, in a meeting with a runaway slave wife, her tyrant husband, and the tyrant’s pastor, said pastor stated that the goal of the meeting was to “maintain the marriage covenant.” I saw straight away what the pastor’s agenda was going to be: husband confesses sin; wife confesses sin; and since “Christians” are obligated to forgive each other “the way we have been forgiven” the runaway slave wife must now go back to the tyrant husband. Like the church, such husbands refuse to repent of the essence of sin; a lust to control others through condemnation. It’s no accident then that Christ didn’t “come to condemn the world, but to save it.” No accident then that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ.”
Again, this dynamic can be seen in the smallest milieus of life to the most epic examples of politics and statecraft. So, why did you correct my grammar? It goes something like this: “look at you, you are contending against men of God, men of renown (you can’t see it, but I am laughing right now), and you can’t even spell correctly!” Nice try Scott, but that doesn’t work on me. The most egregious example of this is ABWE’s public letter of response to the “Missionary Kids” who stood up to a church coverup of unspeakable crimes for something like 40 years. In quoting what the MKs had stated in a formal letter to ABWE previously, one or more “[sic]”s were included to indicate grammar corrections. You see, what had happened to the MKs was nether here nor there in light of the so-called greater church good, and leaving no attempt to regain control of the situation untried, they sought to shame the MKs by pointing out their supposed intellectual anemia. As an aside, for this reason and a book full of others; namely, our ministry’s latest publication, I believe the church to be utterly evil. And why is it evil? Because of its false gospel and skewed version of reality.
Now let’s look at that version of reality; the worldview of tyranny. It’s the oldest and only religion. All other religions flow from it; all politics flow from it. Of course, my illustration is a crassly simplistic version, but conveys the general idea. The material world and everything that can be ascertained by the five senses is evil. The invisible world and all things that cannot be ascertained by the five senses is good. The good, having grace and mercy, decided to save mankind. How all of this supposedly came about is the eschatology of philosophy and will not be included here. In doing so, the good chose those with special wisdom to lead the unwise to the good. And what is that wisdom of the wise? The knowledge that mortal man cannot know anything including reality. Wisdom is knowing that man cannot know. Believing that one can know is the height of all arrogance. Now, this doesn’t include “practical knowledge” that makes things work in the evil material world, and Luther, in the tradition of Dualism, divided that knowledge into “wisdom from above” and “wisdom from below.” Luther’s specific designation was his “Theology of the Cross” defined by the “glory story” versus the “cross story” and Christocentric philosophy which I have written on extensively and will not continue to do so here.
Supposedly, the greatest danger to the survival of mankind is mankind thinking that it has value and can know. The wise must therefore save humanity from itself. Hence, Plato’s philosopher kings, warriors, and producers. The warriors enforce the wisdom of the wise appointed by the good to save mankind. Until the Enlightenment Era produced Americanism, world history was little more than utter darkness accordingly. And what does this have to do with the rest of your email? Pretty much everything. Your email is a glaring example of what I have experience incessantly for ten years when dealing with church advocates. Regardless of what exemplifies our articles and books; ie., systematic arguments comprised of several points of persuasion, those are all summarily dismissed in exchange for some authoritative unction. In the article you write about in your email, you do not supply one counterpoint to the points made in the article. Why? Because the article uses logic and reason as a means to persuade, and the ideology of the tyrant rejects that view of reality out of hand. This is a pattern this ministry has seen over and over and over again for ten years. Salvation comes by doing one thing and one thing only: obeying the philosopher kings, or as Al Mohler states it, “those appointed by God to save his people from ignorance.” He was speaking of pastors. Therefore, dear tyrant, since you are appointed by God to save me from ignorance (because others paid for you to obtain a seminary degree and Al Mohler therefore christens you as such), why would any argument by me have any validity at all in your mind? It wouldn’t.
Like the so-called “looney left” in politics who are not looney at all and know exactly what they are doing, your lame arguments merely cover for the fact that you don’t think anyone who disagrees with you is in touch with reality. Even though I articulated the Protestant gospel in painstaking detail and backed it up with a Protestant holding a Doctorate degree in the discipline, you claim that no such gospel even exists! Does this not make my point in no uncertain terms? You go on to name the real apostates, but based on what? An objective evaluation of their doctrine? No, based strictly on your supposed God-given authority. It is also interesting to note that in our dialogue with parishioners, they respond in the exact same way; they see themselves as speaking with authority because they are repeating what their pastors tell them. Consequently, they also reject all reason out of hand.
This is my advice to all: when giving an account of the sum and substance of your life to the one who granted it to you, no one will be standing there in your defense, not even Christ. In this life, that is the only mind that can be yielded to that will make a difference. Even He seeks to persuade you, and not control you. Obviously, if Christ wanted to control you, He would. He is the only mediator between God and mankind, and when you die, His mediation role is over. “This is my Son, hear ye Him.” Read the Scriptures for yourself, what does Christ use to persuade? Over and over again; reason, period.
The apostle Paul asked rhetorically to the ekklesia at large: “What saith the Scriptures?” Not, “What saith the philosopher kings…and queens?” Christ said, “Consider carefully what you hear.” Clearly, the onus is on the individual alone. All people will stand before God as individuals and that’s where the responsibility ends.
In all life matters, identify the tyrant and avoid them. Do their offers result in you depending on them? Do they lift you up and bolster self-confidence or make you less confident? Do they advocate a forward look towards love or a backward look towards sin? Avoid them in your journey, and if they hinder your journey, defeat them, but waste no time in reasoning with them; it only delays your own journey towards God.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments