Paul's Passing Thoughts

John MacArthur’s Protestant False Gospel of Progressive Justification

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on April 7, 2017

Strange Fire Conference: John MacArthur’s Insufferable Hypocrisy

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on February 24, 2016

ppt-jpeg4Originally published October 16, 2013.  See addendum below.

John MacArthur may go down in church history as one of the most confused pastors ever to step into a pulpit. His steroidal cognitive dissonance constantly results in insufferable hypocrisy.

For certain I thought he could not outdo himself in this regard, but he has. After writing Charismatic Chaos in 1992, he partnered with Charismatic CJ Mahaney for eight years in the Resolved conferences sponsored by his church, Grace Community in Sun Valley, California. One year after the last Resolved conference, MacArthur is hosting the 2013 Strange Fire conference that is fustigating Charismatic doctrine in no uncertain terms. The hypocrisy of it all is staggering.

MacArthur also seems to have a problem with the mysticism promoted by Charismatic theology, but yet is a close confidant of John Piper who not only has Charismatic leanings himself, but led the 2012 Passion conference in the mystic practice of Lectio Divina.

Furthermore, Geneva style Calvinists (also at the conference: Sproul, Lawson, Phil Johnson, et al) criticizing Charismatics is beyond the kettle calling the pot black. Calvin and Luther both attributed their theology to Neo-Platonist St. Augustine. The practical outcome is sanctification by faith alone through gospel contemplationism resulting in realm experience/manifestation. MacArthur himself now claims that he only explains the word of God and the Holy Spirit applies it resulting in his followers obeying God without realizing it (http://wp.me/pmd7S-1In).

Moreover, Calvinism is based on Hindu-like sanctification that posits perpetual mortification followed by vivification. As we dwell on our sin only, we are brought to despair (mortification) leading to the joy of our original rebirth (vivification).  Calvinists Paul Washer and Michael Horton have both referred to this as continually “reliving our baptism.”

In MacArthur’s keynote address at this year’s Strange Fire conference, he also criticized Charismatics for their misrepresentation and overemphasis on the Holy Spirit leading to the dishonoring of the other two Trinity members. But likewise, Calvinists do the same thing with their Christocentric approach to the Scriptures. In the forward to Rick Holland’s book, Uneclipsing The Son (an in-your-face Gnostic treatise), MacArthur stated that ANY emphasis on ANYONE or ANYTHING other than Christ hinders the sanctification of God’s people.

All in all, Charismatics are barely any different than Calvinists. They both partake in epistemology that sees the horizontal as purely subjective and the vertical as purely objective. The goal is to experience the spirit realm horizontally through mysticism. For the Calvinist it is gospel contemplationism. For the Charismatic it is speaking in tongues.

What’s the difference?

paul

Addendum:  John MacArthur is one of the scheduled speakers at the 2016 T4G conference in Louisville, KY.  He will be sharing the stage with John Piper, CJ Mahaney, and other influential reformed leaders.

A Disturbing Post by John MacArthur

Posted in Uncategorized by pptmoderator on June 9, 2015

JM Road SignOriginally published March 22, 2014

Confusion over sanctification, thanks to the Reformed camp, continues to reign in Christianity. The few who do get it in the institutional Reformed church are not calling out the perpetrators by name, and I think that is a big mistake. A post by John MacArthur is indicative of the horrible confusion being propagated among God’s people in regard to sanctification.

Per the typical, the grave concern is “Counterfeit Sanctification.”  This concept in and of itself is confusing and unbiblical. The overriding concern among the apostles and Christ was counterfeit justification, not a micromanaging of our motives in sanctification. To this point, in vogue among the Reformed is the idea that Galatians is primarily a sanctification concern. Hence, the tone of Galatians is lent to confusing justification and sanctification. The post by MacArthur reflects the reason that paralyzing fear and confusion are rampant in Christianity. Most Evangelicals in our day are ill prepared to lead others to Christ because they are unclear themselves on the difference between justification and sanctification.

Though much of the post is agreeable (no surprise since error always swims in the lake of truth), MacArthur begins to state confusing concepts in the third paragraph:

But that’s not true spiritual growth—it’s counterfeit. If you truly love the Lord, you can’t be willing to move the goalposts on biblical sanctification.

Then in the next paragraph…

There are many varieties of counterfeit sanctification. Some are easier to spot than others, but all lead to the same kind of spiritual shipwreck. Here are a few to be on the lookout for in your own life.

For sure, sanctification is deep waters, but notice the close correlation MacArthur makes between properly understanding sanctification and the separate issue of justification; viz, “If you truly love the Lord,” and “all lead to the same kind of spiritual shipwreck.” And there are “many varieties” with varying degrees of difficulty in ascertaining. But then MacArthur follows that up with warnings about things that the Bible specifically tells us to practice in sanctification!

Restraint is another possible kind of counterfeit sanctification. People don’t always avoid sin in favor of righteousness—sometimes they’re simply afraid to face the consequences of sin. They don’t necessarily have a heart to obey God or His Word. They’re just afraid of pursuing temptation because of the results.

The Bible instructs Christians to “abstain” (2Thess 4:3) from unrighteousness and even posits the fear of judgment as a motivation (2Thess 4:6). When offering an example of “counterfeit sanctification” that is something the Bible instructs us to do, it would seem that further qualification would be in order to prevent confusion. Nevertheless, MacArthur continues:

That fear could be the sign of a well-trained conscience. Maybe the person was raised in a Christian home and has built-in convictions about right and wrong. Maybe he grew up under the moral standard of God’s Word and can’t shake the nagging of his conscience. Rather than face a troubled conscience or the consequences of his sin, he’ll simply not do it.

But again, the New Testament, in many places, commands us to “keep a clear conscience before God.” The New Testament writers had much to say about utilizing and developing the conscience for purposes of spiritual growth. The Bible even speaks directly to a well-trained conscience being the opposite of spiritual immaturity (Romans 14).

My primary point of contention here is MacArthur’s steroidal hypocrisy. While chiding others for not being biblically clear and concise, he warns Christians against specific biblical imperatives with little qualification.

It’s eerily similar to the whole Reformed motif of sanctification being something that we shouldn’t try at home without the infinite wisdom of Reformed thought. Learn and do is a concept that is grasping at shadows without their deep knowledge of God’s word.

paul

Lying About Tchividjian: Exhibit B; Jerry Wragg the Rabbit Hunter

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on May 28, 2014

Beagle

“Pastor” Jerry Wragg was called on by John MacArthur Jr. to bring “clarity” to the sanctification issue at the 2014 Shepherds’ Conference held annually at MacArthur’s church. Wragg split the sanctification controversy into three camps within the present-day Neo-Calvinist resurgence: Reformed, T4G, and gospel-centered. While making Tullian Tchividjian the scapegoat for all of the confusion, the fact remains that these groups all believe the same thing. And frankly, like all of them, Wragg knows this. They all know that the Reformation was founded on a Dualism interpretation of reality as opposed to a grammatical interpretation of reality. None of this is about Bible doctrine—it’s about philosophy and they know it.

The contention is really about the communication of what they all believe to the masses. Wragg et al take exception to Tchividjian’s straight forward approach to Reformed metaphysics. Like John Piper has stated openly, God’s people are not ready for the hard truth of the authentic Reformed gospel.

I grew up rabbit hunting with my grandfather. We always hunted them with our favorite rabbit dog, “Jack.” Rabbit dogs are of the beagle breed. When you jump a rabbit, they run away in a big circle and will end the circle where they were originally jumped, but will then go to their hole or another hiding place. If a hunter does not ambush the rabbit while waiting in the general area of the original jumping point, the beagle, or beagles will be left running in circles as they follow the rabbits scent.

beagle 2This is why all Reformed teachers are rabbit hunters. The rabbit is orthodoxy, and Reformed followers are a huge pack of beagles. The exception to this analogy is the Reformed hunters never shoot the rabbit—the goal is to keep the doggies running in circles. This hunting technique can be seen clearly in Wragg’s message. And hence, the pastor beagles at the conference will go back to their local churches and run the beagle puppies in the same circles accordingly.

In the message, Wragg makes Tchividjian the central point of contention while propagating the exact same thing that Tchividjian teaches. This is not commendable; even beagles know when the scent is different. To me, thousands of nodding pastors sitting under this academic bunny trail is no different from the saluting masses who listened to Adolf Hitler in the 30’s.

Wragg’s bunny circle was a big one, a whopping 12,000 words. He states the reason for this early in the run:

Hi. Well, I have the unenviable task of dealing with a subject that really could go about five or six different ways. In fact, this could be a whole seminar on law versus gospel or law and gospel relationship. This could be a whole seminar on the sanctification process itself and a host of other things. But since I’ve called it the new antinomianism, obviously, you know that I’m trying to deal, in this session, with this entire discussion of the relationship between justification, sanctification, and particularly as it relates to how we change and some of the terminology that is going around today.

First of all, none of these guys believe we change as people, that’s just a big fat lie and they know it. They believe we experience righteousness and God uses us to manifest righteousness in a realm. Righteousness is done to us while we are unable to do righteousness. Likewise, in regard to salvation, the ability to be persuaded is to act on righteousness instead of righteousness acting upon us. Again, they condone all of the assumptive language concerning the idea of obedience because we are not “ready” for the deep hard truths that they are gifted to accept with all joy concerning the majesty of God. As church historian John Immel aptly points out, these Reformed beliefs have significant kinship to Stoicism and the glorification of fatalism. The definition of bravery is to accept hopelessness and its supposed Theocentrism.

When we consider the great teachings of Scripture, they are not there just to give us information and they are not to teach us what we can do in our own strength. In Musings 34 (http://www.godloveshimself.org/?p=2018) we looked at how believing that the doctrine of justification is true is not the same thing as being justified. The new birth was also mentioned at the end. In the passage above (John 3:3-5) Jesus speaks pointedly and with power in a way that reflects on the issue being mused on here. Jesus did not tell Nicodemus that he must know the truth about the new birth in order to enter the kingdom. Jesus also did not tell Nicodemus that he must believe the truth about the new birth in order to enter the kingdom. Instead of that, Jesus told Nicodemus that he must actually be born again in order to enter the kingdom. There is a huge difference between believing what is true and what is true actually happening to you (God Loves Himself .wordpress .com: Musing 35; February 10, 2014).

And why is the relationship between gospel and law so complicated? It’s not complicated at all; the Bible will either judge those who are under its condemnation, or it will free those who now learn it and obey it as a way to love God and others:

Romans 8:2 – For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

The reason it is complicated is because it is the integration of Scripture with Augustinian Neo-Platonist philosophy. This is conspicuous church history for anyone who will investigate it on their own without a play by play from the rabbit hunters. That play by play is a circle. The beginning of the circle, and the fact that these guys don’t believe anything different is revealed by Wragg early on:

So on one side there is this group of people who are strongly believing that the lion share of their reformed brothers and sisters are drifting into sort of a legalism. They’re drifting away from the freedom of gospel grace. That’s the concern on the part of some, that somehow striving to obey the gospel is going back to the very law from which we’ve been freed in justification. And so they talk about believing in grace and remembering grace, and they major on the indicatives of our union with Christ. And so the warning goes up that they are concerned about the danger of becoming like a Pharisee and performing commands with no heart. The legalism term gets thrown around quite a bit at fellow Christians especially those who might talk about submission or duty to Christ or effort in sanctification. And even there’s a suspicion on the rise of any sermon or ministry that emphasizes obedience to commands rather than this language of the high thoughts of God’s grace.

Stop right there. If I didn’t know any better, and I am not sure that I do, the likes of Jerry Wragg think this is all a cute game in how they talk in code. They seem to be amused at how they can say something plainly and in broad daylight while knowing that the simplicity of the words they use will go right over the heads of those listening. It’s an arrogant show of intellectual superiority enjoyed by the other philosopher kings looking on in amusement. They think the Lord looks on in approval because they are telling the truth on a higher spiritual plane while pontificating the truth to the peasants in understandable mythological narratives. This is the mythological noble lie to keep the masses calm which was dignified by the Sophists, and integrated into Scripture resulting in orthodoxy. It reminds me, to a “T” of the dialogue between Socrates and his understudies.

What am I speaking of? Supposedly, Wragg is speaking against all obedience flowing from gospel contemplationism. He knows, for the most part—that beagle won’t hunt. But note carefully how he frames the issue at hand; viz, obedience in sanctification:

That’s the concern on the part of some, that somehow striving to obey the gospel is going back to the very law from which we’ve been freed in justification.

Please note: “obey the gospel” is a salvation term. It is a term that is exclusive to justification. Wragg is clearly talking about this term in a sanctification context:

Romans 10:16 – But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

2 Thessalonians 1:8 – In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1 Peter 4:17 – For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Wragg uses this exact same term regarding obedience in the Christian life—it’s no different than anything Tchividjian is saying. Wragg continues:

On the other side, there is this group of people that are strongly believing that this teaching either wrongly minimizes an outright – or a role of the law in the Christian’s life or outright ignores it. There is this concern on this other side of the aisle that reformed brothers and sisters are abandoning what it truly means to know and love Christ in the imperatives and are running headlong into full-blown antinomianism. If you think it’s nothing more than an intramural debate, I’ll tell you that so far I’ve been contacted by dozens and dozens of friends and churches who have said their churches are dividing over this.

Here’s how the typical situation goes. At some point, a pastor or a leader or a group of pastors and elders will be rightly teaching and emphasizing the doctrine of justifying grace, and then they begin to give emphatic cautions about terms like duty and striving for holiness. And so their sermon starts to become laced with cross-centered terminology, free grace terminology. They speak of obedience as unrequired or spontaneous and rising only from love and gratitude as legitimate motive. And so that leadership team will make strong contrast between being gospel-centered and obeying rules. And this dichotomy is created. And then that’s when the word “legalism” starts to be generously applied to any emphasis on self-discipline, submission, and keeping commands. People in the congregation are hearing these new emphases, and they become concerned at what seems like a significant shift in the way we live the Christian life, in the way change occurs in the Christian life. And some in the church get together and they confirm their mutual concerns and they approach the leadership but unfortunately doesn’t seem to be a way to bring these reformed gospel loving groups to agree on the problem, what is the core of the problem or to bring some biblical balance.

What balance? You mean talking about being sanctified by justification in a more balanced way? Wragg then launched into a massive treatise regarding the supposed history of antinomianism through the prism of Reformed understanding. This is the Indy 500 of rabbit trails. These guys use a distorted definition of antinomianism to say the same thing in a way that seems more palatable to those who trust orthodoxy. Here is the way Wragg qualified antinomianism in light of the discussion:

Yet, while it’s true that only the power of the gospel can save, here’s how Tullian draws the implications from this story of Zacchaeus and his assumption that Jesus never told him what to do. He goes on to say that the law prescribes good works but only grace can produce them. I agree. The requirements of the law, listen, spring unsummoned from a forgiven heart. By definition, good works can’t be forced or coerced. They are instinctive, reflexive, and spontaneous. Then this, underserved grace creates a new life of unrequired obedience bringing forth more good works than any laying down of the law ever could. So basically, notice the terminology. Jesus never tells him what to do. Requirements of the law spring unsummoned from a forgiven heart. Undeserved grace creates a new life of unrequired obedience. And what the free grace movement is continuing to promote is the idea that the grace of justification generates works without any relationship to the obligations of the law, no relationship to the obligation sense of it at all. The need for holiness is never completely put out, but it’s become kind of this, I like to call it, I told my staff, it’s like a red-headed stepchild to the issue of grace.

The claim is that when believers fully understand grace, then vices, the kind that Hebrews says so easily entangle us, will be exposed for the fraudulent promises they are, and we will enjoy the liberating grace of God, listen, without having to strive, without having to struggle, or without having to obey from a sense of obligation. In other words, obedience, they say, out of duty is always wrong. Now I’m convinced that this conflates, intermingles, and blurs the issue of justification, the freedom we have in justification, it conflates that with progressive sanctification. And the free grace movement often bleeds the believer’s no condemnation status into the progressive sanctification dynamic so that the will is viewed as passive in spiritual growth and only moved upon by the motives of gratitude. That’s how they get there. That’s the tracing of the line. And this, by the way, beloved, was the battle of 17th century antinomianism. Antinomianism has always said that the promises of the gospel are the exclusive motivations for obedience. They’ve always denied that the Bible standards and the Bible’s warnings are a means God uses to motivate his people. They’ve always said that.

Now listen, this 12,000 word drone is designed to wear out the beagles and save the orthodox rabbit, so let me boil it all down for you. If you would like, you can view the transcript here Jerry Wragg in all of its literary marathon glory. Like all of these guys, Wragg is propagating a sanctification by faith alone, but is making the crux of the issue…the way sanctification by justification is experienced. He objects to Tchividjian et al narrowing sanctification to a joyful passivity that flows from gratitude alone; this is his definition of antinomianism. He asserts that even though  sanctification is by faith alone, it is experienced “subjectively.”

And I don’t like talking about change that is always about visceral evaluations and experiential terminology. I don’t like that. I like the language of faith. It’s very clear to me, self-emptying and trusting myself to what God says. Is that subjective? Yeah, it affects me. And then I’m called subjectively to live out the truth. I get that. But my power to do so is not grounded in me or in my experience or even my evaluation of it. God has to accept a pretty imperfect duty and delight from Jerry Wragg every day. He has to accept a pretty imperfect version of all of that. And by his grace, I’m under no condemnation, but he empowers me to do that and the greater and more strong my faith, the more my everything will mature, emotions included. So people sometimes will list passages where God commands us to delight in him and love him and rejoice in him. In response to those things, I just say amen. But what seems missing quite often is the language of faith. And so by drifting into the place where you largely define and evaluate your spiritual condition by internal subjective senses, it becomes a bit of a dead end.

This is exactly what Tchividjian teaches. This is the hard work of “self-emptying” or stated another way by others, including Tchividjian, “a lifestyle of repentance.” Wragg seems to be accusing the “other” camp of rejecting any use of the law in sanctification, including its supposed purpose of showing our…as stated by others, “sinfulness as set against God’s holiness.” This isn’t so, but like the others, Wragg states that the subjective results are not grounded in anything we actually do, but…

my power to do so is not grounded in me or in my experience or even my evaluation of it.

Nothing different is being said here. The problem is: how it is being stated by the likes of Tchividjian is giving the beagles a heads up. It is causing the beagles to pause in the chase and say, “Is it just me, or are we running in a circle?” Moreover, John MacArthur has framed the discussion in the exact same way that Wragg contested at MacArthur’s 2014 conference; eg, that obedience is “always sweet, never bitter,” and the idea that Christians obey commands that they are mentally unaware of because the Holy Spirit is the one who applies truth. MacArthur has stated he only preaches the word, and the Holy Spirit applies it to life, comparing biblical instruction, disparagingly, to telling people how to get a parking spot at the mall.

Wragg seemed to be primarily addressing the following perceived problem within the overall beagle and rabbit show: Christians shouldn’t evaluate their spiritual condition by their joy level; they shouldn’t put any credence in that at all—they should merely come empty handed back to Christ by faith alone in the promise alone (as a Christian). You could barely slip a playing card between the two “differences.” This reveals a possible, and sad reality: the primary bone of contention that Wragg was addressing was not the sanctification by faith alone that James attacked in his epistle, but the supposed assertion by the “other” camp that joy is synonymous with the presence of saving faith.

I will close with this excerpt that clearly reveals that there is really no difference in the camps:

So I would suggest that what this sensual, culture-immersed generation needs is not another excuse for their guilt and weakness but a message of real power, real power, the power that God assures us in the very gospel of grace and the power that comes by the means God chose. The Bible never pits indicatives against imperatives. The grace that affected and secured my justification is the same grace that empowers me in the use of God’s intended means, which are the word and prayer and service and praise, et cetera. And the key that unleashes the Spirit’s power in sanctification is through faith. When you entrust yourself to God’s word in the moment of temptation, that’s what starves the flesh. That’s mortification. The Scripture teaches us that Christ’s victory over sin and death in the past assures us of dynamic power over sin in the present, Romans 6:11 and following. And when we’re weak and experiencing defeat, the Bible’s answer has never been hit reset on your justification and stop trying. On the contrary, even an exhausted believer who’s been wrongly trying to perform for God shouldn’t gloss over the sorrows or some fresh-coated justification because they need to get at the roots of unbelief that prevent them from dying to self.

Wragg makes the definition of antinomianism those who rely on feelings only and reject any use of the law, but only hit a justification reset bottom. His answer is to strive in sanctification and feel the pain, but it is a striving to use the law for revealing how evil we are (as Christians), and the trusting of what Christ did in His life of obedience which is imputed to our Christian life: “The Scripture teaches us that Christ’s victory over sin and death in the past assures us of dynamic power over sin in the present.” It’s the same old Reformed double imputation that has always plagued the church for centuries:

The grace that affected and secured my justification is the same grace that empowers me in the use of God’s intended means, which are the word and prayer and service and praise, et cetera. And the key that unleashes the Spirit’s power in sanctification is through faith….[ALONE IN SANCTIFCATION!].

It’s all the same antinomianism that is really a rejecting of the believer’s participation in fulfilling the law of the Spirit of life. Instead of the law of the Spirit of life setting us free from the law of sin and death, the Reformed gospel keeps us under that law so that the Christian life must be lived the same way we were saved: by faith alone. Faith alone in sanctification keeps the law of sin and death satisfied because the works of Christ are perpetually applied to it by faith alone.

That’s what they all believe. And that antinomian dog will not hunt.

paul

 

 

The Divine Right of Calvinist Kings and Lourdes Torres-Manteufel

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on April 24, 2014

ppt-jpeg4How can the Catholic Church still be in business and stronger than ever? The fruits of this institution are well documented. Nevertheless, the likes of people such as Sean Hannity who represent everything goodie two-shoes proudly proclaim themselves to be Catholics. Hannity, a contemporary warrior for individualism, liberty, and the American way identifies himself with an institution rivaled by none in regard to oppression, torture, and tyranny.

How can this be?

In case anybody hasn’t noticed recently, in regard to sex scandals and other questionable behaviors, Protestants of all stripes are looking a lot like the Catholics complete with cover-ups and the same lame excuses. The same excuses are absent from the secular realm; Penn State threw icon Joe Paterno to the dogs without hesitation because he knew of child rape that was going on with the football program, reported it, but did not pursue the issue far enough. And, his knowledge of it wasn’t even firsthand. His memorial was torn down from Penn State’s football stadium, and was rescued from being melted down into disremembrance by some supporters who will install a new one in front of a local tavern two miles from the Penn State campus. Not only that, the removal location, at least until recently, seemed to be deliberately unfinished for purposes of a memorial of disdain. As someone who has been in commercial construction, I know that some kind of masonry veneer on that location is no more than a one-day job. Seems to me somebody wanted to send a very strong message.

1AA-Joe-Paterno-Statue

Gone

How can “church” have such demonstrably lower humanitarian standards than secular institutions?

Philosophy; logic if you will. The Bible is like a two-part epoxy; it has no significant bonding power without a proper understanding of reality. Protestantism is not a biblical worldview; it’s a Protestant worldview. A proper grounding in world philosophy and the Bible makes it abundantly clear why people act like they do.

Point in case: one of the most recent of a plethora of Protestant scandals to hit the blogosphere is a lawsuit brought against Patriarchy/homeschool icon Doug Phillips by Lourdes Torres-Manteufel, his former nanny. Instead of Phillips being thrown to the dogs by his peers, the focus is now Manteufel’s supposed complicity in the “affair.” Of course, this is an attempt to defend Phillips by default. If there are two inconvenient “truths,” emphasize the one that you want people to function by for your own purposes. It isn’t exactly rocket science. This enables people to function anyway they want to, while acknowledging inconvenient truth as truth but making the “emphasis” most important. It wouldn’t be right to just emphasize Phillips’ failure because someone else is involved, but because the someone else is more expendable, we will emphasize the latter. This helps the former inconvenient truth to be minimized or even forgotten. In fact, Phillips and his wife are now claiming that the affair was a good thing because their marriage is now stronger than ever: http://www.kens5.com/news/KENS-5-Exclusive-Religious-leader-speaks-out-after-allegations-he-kept-a-woman-as-a-sex-object-255556621.html

Manteufel bad—Phillips good. God used the evil Manteufel to bring about good for his faithful servant Doug Phillips. Ahhhhmen.

But this is where we get into Sean Hannity contra reality. Even in the blogosphere, and by those who deem Manteufel a victim, and are grievously offended by those who accuse her of being complicit and unmanipulated, Phillips is never called a Calvinist Protestant. In the exact same way that Catholics separate the institution from the behavior, Protestants are following suit.

Why is this? To understand this madness you must not separate the Bible from true world philosophy and its true history. Let me give you an example: the large-scale promotion of the Puritans as spiritual heroes in our churches and Christian schools is totally unmerited. History shows clearly that they were superstitious murdering tyrants. And please spare me the excuse that they were not all equally murderous; excuse me, the rest were at least tacitly complicit. If I receive one more John Owen, Hey guys, I don’t think you should burn heretics, but who am I to argue with the Westminster Divines? quote, I am absolutely going to puke. Really, am I here right now?

I don’t know anything about Lourdes Torres-Manteufel or her motives, but her lawsuit is important. It is important because it demonstrates that the only recourse Christians have against Calvinists practicing the divine right of kings is the secular courts. Obviously, Protestant kings stick together. When it is all said and done, John MacArthur allowed himself to sit in the front row of the 2014 T4G conference with CJ Mahaney. Just how clueless are we? When is the lightbulb going to come on? Was MacArthur’s acceptance back into the T4G circuit contingent on him accepting Mahaney? Not only that, Mahaney was supposed to separate the controversy surrounding himsef from T4G by not showing up or speaking. This is probably an indication that criminal charges will not be forthcoming and the recoronation process of Mahaney has begun.

Photo Promotion of C.J. at T4G

Unless you understand true world philosophy, it is impossible to make heads or tails of this madness. Logic drives history—people just don’t do things for no reason. The divine right of kings is an ancient concept and lustfully embraced by the Catholic/Protestant tradition. But what is it?

It all starts with predestination. Now look, I don’t know exactly where I stand on election as yet, but I do know this: predestination is the foundational doctrine of every tyrant whether secular, mystic, or religious. That should incite some pondering. Think Islam as one example. Next, enter in the idea that only the invisible is good. Matter is evil, and material man is evil, and gee, that’s why he likes material things. So, we are all in this evil boat together; anything that can be perceived with the five senses is evil. Now back to predestination. Whether by a personal God, or the universe, or the force, or some other kind of higher power, a select few able to transcend the five senses and obtain wisdom for social justice (=s unity) are predestined/chosen to lead the masses. In some cases, law is a concept that is perceived by the five senses, so you do the math. In other cases: “Hey, we are all just sinners saved by grace.” “Hey, forgive the way you were forgiven.” “Hey, God gave us the law to show that we can’t keep it, so what’s your point?”

Now, since some are predestined to lead the masses in social justice (defined by unity at all cost), of course, God has given them the right to rule. And of course, they are subject to sin in this totally fallen world inhabited by the material totally depraved and all of their material girls like Madonna. But to throw them to the dogs because they sinned would be a huge mistake because they are the gifted ones. Yes, as a whole, we are much worse off without their leadership. “Condemning” them because of their sin is “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” And remember, their “right” to rule is from God. Who are you to judge God’s anointed? Sound familiar?

Ok, so what’s the point? Why does everyone get up in the morning and do life? This is ALSO part and parcel with EVERY doctrine held by the tyrants of the world: Dominionism. If the enlightened few can indoctrinate everyone with the right ideas, and eliminate those with contrary beliefs, or bad predetermined genes, more and more social justice evolves until utopian social justice is achieved. The goal is the same for all of humanity: utopia; “If you will just obey us, we and our predecessors and successors can lead the world to utopia!” It’s a marriage made in heaven; without a leader to lead us, chaos will ensue. Ever been in a Protestant church that lost its pastor? Then you know what I am talking about. Job-one is keeping everything together until the coronation of the new philosopher king.

Redemptive History

It is love understood in any language, or belief system. Hence, the doctrine is not the issue; A doctrine of unity is the issue. Unity =s utopia. Does it seem at times that unity is more important to the church than justice, or truth? Well my friend—go figure.

Aside: quiver full =s more numbers =s more of the same ideas =s more collectivism =s closer to utopia.

And in the final analysis, fighting for justice as a Protestant is an oxymoron. Even the discernment bloggers have bought into this collectivist ideology that leads to the very tyranny that they fight. Calvinism represents stability to them—they are trying to salvage Calvinism/Protestantism. The root is good, we just need to get rid of the bad fruit.

No, it is the root that is bad, Christians need to seek another tree altogether.

paul

 

%d bloggers like this: