Controversy Among the Dead; What the Resignation of Jean F. Larroux, III Tells Us About the Institutional Church
It has been brought to my attention that Jean F. Larroux, III has resigned as “pastor” from Southwood Presbyterian Church. Back when I thought the institutional church, that is, Protestantism and all of its various stripes was a victim of New Calvinism, I wrote something like thirty articles about the hostile takeover of Southwood by the New Calvinist machine.
Yes, if only those good Presbyterians understood what Larroux really believed, the Session would run him out of there and save God’s people from a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Well, I have done a lot of growing up since then.
I invested in the fight at the behest of Southwood members and other Presbyterian pastors because I was in the process of publishing The Truth About New Calvinism. I was sort of the go-to guy at that time for the “Old Calvinists.” I don’t know why Larroux is resigning, but a perusal of Southwood’s website clearly indicates that everything is business as usual. The church is presently “led” by fifteen, count them, fifteen “ruling elders.” It is unclear as to whether or not they are paid staff.
I have paid my dues in documenting Larroux’s outrageous doctrine and behavior, so no more time will be invested here. Suffice to say that Larroux was the topic of a whole chapter in the book “Sin Boldly” (a Luther truism) written by Cathleen Falsani. When Larroux was the overseer of a ministry in Bay St. Louis, Miss., he was known as “The Screaming Frenchman” and such is the title of chapter 8. I received an interesting email from someone who did ministry with him there in a leadership capacity, but refused to divulge the information. Why? Because by that time I realized it was not going to accomplish anything—it simply didn’t matter.
Furthermore, Larroux was recently invited by friend Tullian Tchividjian to speak at a Coral Ridge Presbyterian men’s conference where he furthered Calvin’s dark roast version of justification by faith which is really sanctification by justification through faith alone and faithfulness to the institutional church.
Listen, the institutional magic salvation bus supposedly going to heaven will continue to roll with the Jean Larrouxs’ onboard because…despite all of the fuss, what Larroux believes is at the heart of the Reformation gospel. It’s just that simple. There will always be quarreling and confusion on the way because many do not understand that reasoning from a grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures was contrary to Luther and Calvin’s interpretive approach.
We find a hint of that from this exchange:
Tullian Tchividjian was preaching on Friday night of the conference and his message centered around the need of grace and the preaching of the Gospel as vital in the lives of Christians. The message was moving, helpful and delivered with great passion. When he was done we sat in the pew following worship soaking in the reality of the Gospel. Brock turned to me and said, “We’re not crazy are we?” I said, “Well, we might be crazy, but we are not wrong…”
I had two emotions when Brock said that to me. The first was offense. I was offended. What did he mean, ‘we’re not wrong, are we?’ How dare he insinuate that what I had been preaching was wrong. “WHAT A JERK!” said my heart. But then I thought about his statement, our history at Southwood, the incessant chatter that said over and over again that we had taken grace ‘too far.’ Brock wasn’t making a statement of criticism. He was making a sigh of relief. It was easy to begin to believe the blogs and sidebar comments, but hearing the same exact message from a different voice in a different venue was not only affirming, but very reassuring.
And there you have it my friends; the institutional church, regardless of the stripe, is made up of Progressive Justification Light and Progressive Justification Dark, and sometimes there is disagreement in regard to the essence. If you are old enough like me, you remember the old Miller Light commercials, “Less filling! ‘No, great taste!’” And so it goes, “Not enough justification! ‘No, too much justification!”
This false gospel has circumvented a vast doctrinal body under the auspices of Christian living in sanctification. We must take back that doctrine, but it will only be accomplished by the laity fellowshipping in home fellowships apart from the institutional church.
Let the dead bury their own dead.
paul
Evangelical Intellectual Dishonesty and the Mystery of the Gospel
“Hence, the Reformation was a blatant pushback against the mystery of the gospel revealed in the New Testament.”
As Western Protestants, we despise other cultures that blindly follow, en masse, “ridiculous” myths and superstitions such as emperor worship. However, Protestantism is little different and may be the most intellectually dishonest religion of all time. Never before in human history has a culture invested more time and money, especially money, in pure myth.
In March of 2015, renowned Protestant John MacArthur Jr. will host a shepherd’s summit with the following theme: “we” stand in a long line of faithful men, particularly John Calvin and Martin Luther, who stayed true to the inerrancy and supremacy of the Bible, and now “it is our turn.”
Yearly, young evangelicals spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to receive a diploma in Protestant orthodoxy from MacArthur’s Master’s Seminary, but the foundations of what MacArthur et al believe is a cesspool of contradiction and blatantly anti-gospel orthodoxy. We could discuss their real approach to Bible interpretation which is ancient mythology dressed up in Western intellectualism, but this post will focus on their praise heaped upon those who drove a spear through the very heart of the mystery of the gospel.
What is the mystery of the gospel? We are informed in Ephesians chapter 3:
For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
After EVERYTHING the Jews did, didn’t do, thought about doing, didn’t think about doing, etc., the mystery of the good news revealed in the New Testament by Paul’s letters is the Gentiles are “partakers” of the promise (the Abrahamic covenant) and “fellow heirs.” The mystery is that Jew and Gentile would be baptized into one body (1 Corinthians 12:13). This is probably why the Holy Spirit was with Old Testament believers and indwelt them from time to time for specials tasks, but now permanently indwells believers until redemption. But admittedly, I lack sufficient study on that particular subject (indwelling in OT versus NT) so that’s not a dogmatic statement. Note “probably.”
We could also discuss, in addition to the Reformed tradition of Bible as narrative (the orthodoxy of mythology; reality as narrative), the progressive justification gospel that the Reformation was founded on, but again, this post only addresses the Reformation’s anti-gospel mystery approach. One of the Holy Spirit’s primary New Covenant objectives was to unite Jew and Gentile into one body. In contrast, the Reformers sought to SEPERATE Jew and Gentile and replace Israel’s place in God’s redemptive plan with the Gentiles. This is known as Replacement Theology and Supersessionism. The fact that this theology is a Reformed tradition is indisputable, and the anti-Semitism of the Reformers is well documented.
Hence, the Reformation was a blatant pushback against the mystery of the gospel revealed in the New Testament. While the Holy Spirit seeks to unit Jew and Gentile into one body with the Gentiles being the “partakers”, clearly, Martin Luther called for a separation between the two and the demarcation of Jews as second class kingdom citizens. To spend thousands of dollars produced on the backs of the laity to uphold Luther as a spiritual hero is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty at best, and a plenary rejection of the gospel at worst.
Intellectual honesty can only call for a complete rejection of Protestantism and everything that came out of it. It is all fruit from the poisonous Reformation tree. The baby needs to be thrown out with the bathwater because the baby is uncleanable. It will only grow up to be the same monster that gave it birth. Protestantism must be repented of, and replaced with a return to the priesthood of believers manifested in home fellowships apart from institutional salvation.
paul
Free-Writing Notes: “The Church’s War Against the Holy Spirit”
“Church” is a word that should be associated with institution and NOT body. Much will be said in this book about the need for a body to be organized, but much will also be said about authority and attempts to invoke life from a so-called body via a spiritual caste system. Though many will find the title of this chapter shocking and absurd, the institutional church’s war against the Holy Spirit is well-defined. If Christ’s called out assembly is a body of Spirit indwelled members, and it is, that could pose significant problems for a top-down institutional authority, and it does.
We will begin where chapter three ended with the rise of the Catholic institutional church that waged all-out war on home fellowships through academic intimidation. Finally, after a nearly 300 year effort, the church at Rome married with the state in order to enforce its orthodoxy upon the masses. Constantine The Great (AD 272-AD 337), the first Roman emperor converted to “Christianity,” consummated the marriage and his rule began the epoch of force and faith in Western culture.
Constantine was the consummate double-minded man, and like the bishops of Rome, integrated paganism with Christianity. What Victor could only verbalize at the first church counsel in AD 193, Constantine made law in the first ecumenical church council (First Council of Nicaea AD 325); that is, the recognition of Passover versus Easter. The reason this is key follows:
“This marked a definite break of Christianity from the Judaic tradition. From then on the Roman Julian Calendar, a solar calendar, was given precedence over the lunar Hebrew Calendar among the Christian churches of the Roman Empire” (Wikipedia: Constantine The Great…citing, Life of Constantine Vol. III Ch. XVIII by Eusebius).
The adoption of “church” nomenclature, as we shall see, was also very deliberate in marking that departure, but for purposes of this book, we would be errant to focus primarily on anti-Semitism; a major problem was the Jewish focus on body versus institution. Like all nations – and of course the Jews were and are a nation – institutions are relevant and needed, but religiously, the Jews always functioned as a body with heavy focus on the individual. A person is normally concerned with their own body parts in equal measure. If Christians are members (as in body parts) of one body, and they are, there should be equal concern and care for each member. This is much different than institutional membership. What the world needs are more functioning body members versus church member-ship. The teachings of Jesus, as well as Jewish traditions, are saturated with a focus on the individual life. When we think of Jewish worship, our minds, unfortunately, gravitate towards the formality of temple worship, but the temple was only a focal point of a broader interpersonal sharing of the faith.
The best example of this is the tabernacle during the exodus. Obviously, the small dwelling was not a central meeting place for millions of Jews who were part of the exodus. Even then, there were elders who led small groups among the people in the learning of the word, prayer, and fellowship. Seventy of these elders were summoned to meet with God on Mt. Sinai with Moses (Exodus 24:1,9). As we know, the temple was not always available for the Jews, and was never the central place of fellowship around the learning of the word, or discipleship, but rather a place of ritual sacrifice. Historically, that was always the norm. Even when the temple existed, the Passover meal was experienced in private homes (Matthew 26:14,15). This is also indicative of the 1st century home fellowships that met together for discipleship and mutual edification. There was fellowship around a meal, a teaching and sharing from the word of God, and singing of hymns.
There are many reasons for anti-Semitism, but one of Judaism’s foremost threats is against spiritual caste systems that have always dominated world history. Judaism emphasizes the authority of God’s word, and the ability of the individual to understand it:
Deuteronomy 29:29 – “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Deuteronomy 30:11 – “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
Herein is a major distinction between individualism and collectivism.[9] In collectivism, there is in fact an hierarchy that must “ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it… go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it.” The word, or truth, is not near to the individual, it must be brought to bear by others who are “specially gifted” to understand. Historians believe there were about 400 synagogues in Jerusalem alone during the ministry of Christ.[10] These were mostly small groups meeting in private homes. These groups were focused primarily on the reading and study of God’s word.
This is where we begin to examine four ways in which the institutional church of Rome began to wage war on the Holy Spirit. Primarily, the newly appointed religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine sought to remove the private interpretation of the Bible from the common people. Let us remember, the word is the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph 6:17) and what the Spirit uses to sanctify (John 17:17).
At that time, New Testament Scriptures were a far less problem than Old Testament Scriptures which were painstakingly preserved and canonized by the Jews. The Old Testament Hebrew had also been translated into Greek (the Septuagint) circa 250 BC. Greek and Latin were the most common languages during the Roman era, but Latin was the language of bureaucracy, law, and the military.
This is when two primary theologians of the Roman church emerge and seek to demonize the people of God making a strong distinction between the Jews and Christianity. Remember, one of the primary objectives of the Holy Spirit was to make Jew and Gentile ONE body in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:11-22). This is/was one of the primary objectives of the Holy Spirt. The church’s two foundational theologians in its 4th century infancy were St. Augustine of Hippo, and St. Jerome. Both were Saints and Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church. And…
“Church Fathers like St John Chrysostom, St Ambrose, St Jerome and St Augustine (second only to St Paul as a Christian authority for the Western world) had by the end of the fourth century AD crysallised a demonic image of the Jew who combined superhuman malevolence with total spiritual blindness…The monkish, ascetic St Jerome, embittered by the spectacle of successful missionizing in Antioch by the large Jewish population, denounced the synagogue in theses terms: ‘If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul…you are still saying less than it deserves’” (Robert S. Wistrich: Anti-Semitism|The Longest Hatred; Pantheon Books 1992, p. 17 ).
“This theology is for the first time institutionalized in the fourth century AD, when Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire” (Ibid p. 19).
To divide Jews from the body is an audacious throwing down of the gauntlet against the Holy Spirit. But Jerome and company were far from going to war with the Holy Spirit on that front alone. Jerome set out to translate the Bible in the bureaucratic language of the empire and make it inaccessible to the laity and common people via the Latin Vulgate. Eventually, Rome made it against the law to translate the Bible or even teach from it unless accredited by the Church upon pain of death. This was Rome’s mandate for about 1000 years:
Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned…”
Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “…helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”
Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.
~ Source: Huffington Post .com: Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years; Bernard Starr, Ph.D. 5/20/2013.
The Church also took it upon themselves to establish the formal canon of the New Testament which was only in the form of letters written by the apostles and others. There were many copies of these letters circulated among the laity and commonly accepted as Scripture:
2 Peter 3:15 – And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Colossians 4:15 – Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. 16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. 17 And say to Archippus, “See that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord.”
1Corinthians 14:37 – If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
Therefore, the idea that there was no agreed upon collective Scripture for New Testament era believers is unfounded, and the body of Christ hardly needed Gnostic academics to tell them what was inspired and not inspired. Nevertheless…
The Council of Nicaea called by the Emperor Constantine met in 325 C.E. to establish a unified Catholic Church. At that point no universally sanctioned Scriptures or Christian Bible existed. Various churches and officials adopted different texts and gospels. That’s why the Council of Hippo sanctioned 27 books for the New Testament in 393 C.E. Four years later the Council of Cartage confirmed the same 27 books as the authoritative Scriptures of the Church.
~ Source: Huffington Post .com: Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years; Bernard Starr, Ph.D. 5/20/2013.
And…
In 382, Pope Damascus therefore commissioned Jerome (c. 347-420) to translate the Bible into Latin, a task which took him twenty years to complete. This Bible came to be known as the versio vulgata (common translation) and became standard for the Western Church.
~ Source: gbgm-umc.org: Three Early Biblical Translations.
Attempting to obstruct the Spirit’s work in baptizing the Jews and Gentiles into one body, and confiscating the sword of the Spirit from the laity was manifested in a third way. In translating the Bible into English from the Septuagint (LXX), and for the most part not the original Hebrew, the English translators substituted the word “assembly” for “church.” The Greek word for assembly is “ekklesia” as translated from the Hebrew word for assembly, kahal, or edah.
This is a very significant fact in the transition period that produced another version of the institutional Catholic Church, Protestantism. These are merely two sides of the same institutional church that waged the exact same war against the Holy Spirit and continues to do so in our day. As aforementioned, it was against the law to translate the Scriptures without the permission of the Catholic Church, but this happened anyway because of the “Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church” (closed quotation from Wikipedia).
In the early Middle Ages, most Western Christian people encountered the Bible only in the form of oral versions of scriptures, verses and homilies in Latin (other sources were mystery plays, usually conducted in the vernacular, and popular iconography). Though relatively few people could read at this time, Wycliffe’s idea was to translate the Bible into the vernacular, saying “it helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence”.
~ Source: En Wikipedia .org: Wycliffe’s Bible.
Although unauthorized, the work was popular. Wycliffite Bible texts are the most common manuscript literature in Middle English. More than 250 manuscripts of the Wycliffite Bible survive.
The association between Wycliffe’s Bible and Lollardy caused the kingdom of England and the established Catholic Church in England to undertake a drastic campaign to suppress it.
~ Source: Ibid.
However, by no means did the Protestant Reformation abandon the core fundamentals of the institutional Church’s war against the Holy Spirit which was a devotion to the separation of Judaism from the body of Christ, and academic authority in regard to private interpretation of the Scriptures. Though the Protestants presented themselves as commendable for the distribution of Bible translations to the common people, they never believed the laity could interpret it for themselves, nor did they ever state such. To the contrary,
“The Protestant Reformers in leaving Rome did not leave all Romanism behind them. In particular, they brought with them the prosecuting principles of Rome, and worked them freely and vigorously in support of the Reformed faith. They changed the Pope but not the popedom… Persecution is the deadly sin of the Reformed churches, that which cools every honest man’s zeal for their cause, in proportion as his reading becomes more extensive—Hallam… Rightfully and nobly did the Protestant Reformers claim religious liberty for themselves; but they resolutely refused to concede it to others” (William Marshall’s The Principles of the Westminster Standards Persecuting (William Marshall, D.D., Coupar – Angus. Edinburgh: William Oliphant & Co. 1873).
The English translators did something in the English translation of the Bible that Rome did not even do in the Latin Vulgate. They translated “assembly” as “church” which had no validity whatsoever. The Greek word for assembly and the Greek word for church are two entirely different Greek words with completely different meanings. The Hebrew words for assembly and the Greek word for assembly allowed for a connection between the Judaism of the Old Testament and the Christianity of the New. The word “church” puts forth the idea of a completely different program and plan of some sort. In the like institutional core fundamentals, the Catholics kept the Bible from the laity, while the Protestants skinned the cat a different way by taking liberty with translation. Tyndale was much more virtuous on this wise, translating assembly as “congregation,” but unfortunately was executed by the Catholics for the effort.
We will make this point here, but will revisit this issue in a later chapter because the rendering of “assembly,” “synagogue,” and “church” in Protestant translations of the Bible present an egregious distorted dichotomy in regard to the Jewishness of God’s overall plan for the ages. It is best to delve into this while discussing the fact that the 1st century home fellowships were merely a continuation of the Jewish synagogue, and that word seems to suggest some sort of institution, or temple-like mini-institution.
To the contrary, some sort of substructure or mini temple version would have been a blasphemous notion to the Jews. Furthermore, for the most part historically, the Jews have had little choice to do anything other than worship in the privacy of their own homes. Moreover, synagogues were of the laity and far removed from any priestly authority whatsoever. The intended model for Christian fellowship and assembly has never changed since the exodus and before. It is a body and ground-level family unhindered by the musings of bureaucratic control. It is not a machine controlled by men, it is a body that lives and grows.
The Protestants never sought to separate from the Catholic Church and indeed they did not. It was a protest, not a revolution by any stretch of the imagination. Institutional accreditation was vital to the Protestants, and critical to their credibility. This means they NEVER left the Catholic Church. Protestants retained solidarity with the Doctors of the Catholic Church for this reason, particularly St. Augustine. The most prominent fathers of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin, were avowed Augustinians till the day they died. No citations will be noted here due to the immense common knowledge of it. Contemporary Reformers constantly strive to outdo each other in quoting Augustine at every opportunity, but God’s people are completely unmiffed by the exaltation of this serial anti-Semite Platonist. Why? Because what happens under the roof of an institutional church is mostly inconsequential; it is the depot that punches your ticket to heaven.
There are four primary ways that the institutional church wages war against the Holy Spirit, and this is a joint effort that includes Catholic and Protestant alike. We have examined three of them, but the fourth is what separates the Catholic from the Protestant. This war is not as absurd as it sounds, for the permanent indwelling of the Spirit suggests ability on the part of the individual. Both sides endorse the incompetence of the individual and need for enlightened mediators between the great unwashed masses and God; in other words, an efficacious caste system.
This fourth war strategy involves the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the new birth. The Catholic Church acknowledges the indwelling of the Spirit and the new birth, but insists that this only enables the salvation candidate to cooperate in the finishing of the salvation process; primarily by faithfulness to the Mother Church. As we discussed in the first two chapters, Rome is not shy or ambiguous about this idea. Yes, Catholicism and Protestantism alike hold to an unfinished progressive justification. Again, this was addressed in some detail in chapters one and two.
Protestants deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the new birth all together. Let’s think about this: if the Holy Spirit permanently indwells the believer, salvation MUST be FINISHED, there is simply no way around that. A permanent indwelling of the Spirit makes a progressive salvation dependent on the church completely unnecessary.
So, what are the specific differences in this fourth aberration of the Spirit’s work, and what are the specific differences in their progressive justification constructs? In addition, how does authentic Protestantism explain away the new birth, and how is the new birth redefined by them?
In the next chapter, these questions are answered in detail.
Endnotes:
9. Collectivism defines the worth of an individual by their ability to contribute to the common good. That adds up to the “collective good” which determines the overall wellbeing of a society.
10. Talmud: Bavli Ketubot 100a; there were 394 synagogues in Jerusalem. Yerushalmi (Ketubot 8:1); there were 460 synagogues in Jerusalem. Yerushalmi (Megillah 3:1); in Jerusalem, there were 480 synagogues.
Freewriting Notes for “Against Church”: The Problem with Church; Salvation Does NOT Sanctify
What’s wrong with church? Every honest longtime confessing evangelical will testify to the same experience; we have all been longing and searching for that elusive “revival.” Where is the power of Christ’s resurrection that the apostle Paul wrote of? Evangelicals spend their whole lives looking for the newest program that will usher in revival after the last one failed. Some programs offer a hope of revival, but soon burn out like a comet.
“Revivals” come and go. Church history is full of them. Christian scholars study them in order to “rediscover” the secret to escaping this mundane repetition we call church. We show up at a certain time, we are told when to stand, when to sing, when to sit down, when to raise our hand, what to think, when to put our money in the plate, when to leave, and when to come back. Our children cynically refer to the mandatory routine as “doing church.” Every now and then we recognize that we bring our Bibles with us to church, but really don’t need them, and wonder why; an unasked question that our children stopped asking themselves long ago. In most cases, Bibles are unopened during the week and church lost and found boxes are full of unclaimed Bibles. Precious few are excited about witnessing, and the vast majority of evangelicals have never led another person to the Lord.
Let’s be honest: church is boring except when it is controversial. We are so desperate for some spiritual excitement that we have our own Christian versions of Entertainment Tonight and The National Enquirer, and frankly, the church excels at supplying fodder for such. Sadly, the unchurched that have not yet been duped by the pitch, “We are different at Community Different Church, come visit and see for yourself” are now few and far between. The so-called New Calvinist revival of our day is really just a redistribution of sheep from smaller institutions to bigger institutions that offer more bells and whistles.
In all of this, no one asks if church might be the problem with church. While confessing, “The church is not a building; it’s the people,” emphasis on the institutional aspects of church dwarf any consideration of individuals. Committees abound for the sake of the institution while individuals are “left in the hands of God and His unfailing mercies.” If the church needs a coat of paint, you can bet a work day will be scheduled to get it done. But when a life needs renovation, Christians are utterly powerless to do anything about it. Pastors routinely farm-out serious life problems to the “experts.” The Bible is adequate for run of the mill problems, but the experts are needed for the “deeper” problems of life; besides, “at least they are saved.” Because He lives, you can face tomorrow because you are going to heaven anyway. Little of Christianity is about offering present hope and is mere fire insurance. When our children see this, they assume at least two things: God doesn’t have answers, and if He really created us, why not?
Could it be that the whole problem is profoundly simple? Could it be that the church is trying to live out the power of Christ’s resurrection through His death? And if so, why is that the problem?
It is the problem because Christ’s death is a onetime past event that is finished while the power of His resurrection is present continuance by virtue of the fact that it is power. Christ never needed a death or resurrection; He did that for us because we needed it, and many still do. Christ’s death and resurrection is a gift to us—the “good news.” One is a finished work, but the other is alive, and where there is life, growth is assumed. Life is not powered from death, life is powered from life.
The purpose of Christ’s death was to get rid of the old us, and for the new us to experience the power of His resurrection. Do we accomplish that through His death, or His resurrection? Did the old us really die, and is the new us really a completely new person endowed with the life and power of Christ’s resurrection? If that’s the case, why is the experience of Christ’s resurrection so elusive?
The problem follows: a literal resurrection of the individual empowers the individual and not the institution. The American church is comprised of splendid buildings full of broken people. In fact, at a conference in Columbus, Ohio Calvinist DA Carson stated that Christians are “broken people.” Well, look around, the mega-church buildings are not broken—far from it as they invoke awe in those who look upon them. More and more evangelical pastors are proudly coming out of the ecclesiastical closet and “resigning from the job of trying to fix people” because they can’t be fixed. Recently, Calvinist James MacDonald triumphantly proclaimed such while overseeing a multimillion dollar institutional church campus network. However, far be it from the church to resign from fixing the church building or in any way hinder the operation of the institution.
There is only one reason why the visible facilities of the church deserve so much honor, and by no means excluding things like four million dollar aquariums in the foyers: salvation by institution. However, the biblical emphasis is on the individual as a vital part of the body of Christ, and the temples being the very bodies of the believers:
1 Corinthians 3:6 – I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
1Corinthians 12:12 – For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
This is why it is critical that God’s people disciple each other in private homes and not institutions; invariably the focus becomes the institution and not the individual member. The institution becomes the temple to the exclusion of the temples. Not only is it not God’s intention that His people meet corporately in a large central location, but it never was the model until it was introduced in the 4th century. Synagogues operated in private homes and were separate from temple worship and priests. Synagogues, which later became the home fellowships of the 1st century Christian assemblies, were operated by the laity. Though priests were treated with honor when they visited, they had no authority in the local synagogues. The only exception was Philo’s Hellenistic influence on Jewish culture which led to institutionalized synagogues. Even the priesthood of the temple was redefined as a holy nation of royal priests, originally in reference to individual believers (1Peter 2:9).
Adding to the misplaced emphasis on church as institution is the idea that God’s kingdom is presently on earth. The good news of the kingdom means that God’s kingdom is presently on earth and seeking to eventually take dominion over all things. Of course, this fuels the concept of institution dramatically. In contrast, believers are “aliens,” “sojourners,” and “ambassadors” here on earth.
1Peter 2:11 – Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
2Corinthians 5:20 – Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Symptoms of salvation by institution can be seen everywhere in contemporary evangelicalism. A minority of truth-loving Christians are often dumbfounded by the mysterious behavior of Christianity at large in the institutional church. Nevertheless, most of this behavior can be explained via salvation by institution. If God appointed a glorious institution to usher people into heaven, we can expect the buildings to reflect God’s glory while the inner rooms are full of wickedness, and if not wickedness, compromise.
How this concept crept into the church historically encompasses the subject of ancient philosophy that will be addressed later; this chapter focuses on the necessary gospel that flowed from the philosophical concept of salvation by institution. Salvation by institution is church, and church therefore needed its own gospel that functions in an institutional construct. This is a gospel that necessarily focuses on the wellbeing of the institution and not the individual. If individuals have all they need to be a temple in and of themselves—they don’t need an institution. That’s a problem for institutions. Therefore, the individual must be stripped of all ability, and must be completely dependent on the institution for…spiritual growth? Hardly. Those stakes are not high enough to sufficiently support the institution; the individual must trust the institution for their very salvation.
Therefore, salvation cannot be a finished work. Salvation must be progressive. If the individual is saved and secure, they have need of little including some sort of institution. If NOTHING can separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:31-39), what do we need an institution for?
Consequently, the institution must be the temple and not the believers, and when believers assemble together, it is in a temple and not the gathering together of a body. The biblical distinctions between body and temple are very deliberate. Christians are to view saved individuals as functioning body parts. The apostle Paul stated clearly that there is no spiritual caste system in a body. Body parts are categorized as visible/nonvisible, but obviously, the nonvisible parts are just as important as the visible parts. In a home fellowship construct, the focus is body parts, in the institutional church the focus is the temple. The New Testament invests in this distinction considerably. Christ doesn’t want centralized worship—He wants a fluid mass of body parts worshiping in spirit and truth. Christianity doesn’t need temples; the individual Christians are temples that are home to the Holy Spirit, and the focus is that the Holy Spirit is at peace in His dwelling.
Why then do many pastors farm-out Christians who have no peace in their temples to “experts”? Because they are seen as a drag on the institutional machine. They are not seen as part of the body, they are seen as a mere recipient of institutional salvation. Likewise, sin is swept under the rug to preserve the institution because it is a conduit from beginning salvation to final salvation, and the gospel of church will serve that purpose and that purpose alone. Threats of any sort to the institution must be neutralized.
The institutional gospel must endorse the institutional church as a conduit to heaven. That necessarily requires that salvation is not finished. If salvation is finished, the institutional church is not needed; therefore, the church must have its own gospel. The institutional church cannot be supported by the low stakes of quality Christian living—the stakes must be higher to support what some call a “vast evangelical industrial complex.” That would be salvation itself—the consequences must be eternal.
The simplest way to differentiate the home fellowship gospel from the church gospel is “law.” In the Bible, “law” is a word that refers to the full counsel of God. It is also referred to as “Scripture,” “holy writ,” “the law and the prophets,” “the gospel,” “the word,” “the law of liberty,” or simply, “the law.” The Bible explains how people are saved, and guides believers according to the issues of life and life more abundantly. Unbelievers will be judged by the Bible if they refuse to be reconciled to God; in that sense the Bible condemns. But believers learn and apply the wisdom of the Bible to their lives leading to a life “built on a rock.”
Matthew 7:24 – “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
Wise obedience to God’s law also leads to a blessed life:
James 1:25 – But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
Likewise, doing the word leads to peace:
Philippians 4: 8 – Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
To the unbeliever, the law is death, but to the believer the law is life. This has never changed from the time Moses exhorted the Israelites to choose between life and death until now. In regard to salvation, the unbeliever must have the law’s ability to condemn cancelled which leads to a new life in the Spirit guided by God’s law. When someone is saved, they pass from death to life; that is, from the law’s condemnation to life in the law. The law’s ability to condemn is cancelled. Now, the same law gives life—it’s the full counsel of God for life and godliness (2Peter 1:3).
This takes place when a candidate for salvation realizes that salvation is not a mere mental ascent to the facts of the gospel, it is a decision to follow Christ in death and resurrection. The person desires to die with Christ for the purpose of eradicating the old self that was under the condemnation of the law, and wishes to be resurrected with Christ as a new creature who loves His law. The new creature should not see obedience as a requirement for anything, but rather a privilege to love God and others. He/she has chosen life over death. Obedience is not a requirement of any sort, it is the way of wisdom and life.
If the Christian is permanently sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption, is able to understand the full counsel of God independently (and that counsel is the final word on truth), cannot be condemned by the law, and cannot be separated from the love of God by anyone or anything, then the institutional church is not efficacious for eternal life. Nothing is needed to finalize salvation; and in regard to living a life that glorifies God, an organization is not needed, only the body of Christ is needed. The key is mutual edification—not institutional authority.
As God’s supposed overseer of salvation, the church proffers a gospel that restricts the law to a single dimension of condemnation. In other words, the law can only condemn, and cannot liberate, bless, or sanctify. “Sanctification” is the setting apart of one’s life for holy purposes. “Justification” is the impartation of God’s righteousness to the believer through the quickening of the Holy Spirit. This is the new birth in which a person is born anew by the seed of God (1John 3:8-10). The new birth makes the believer righteous. This is because they are born of God, and their desires are turned towards fulfilling the law which once condemned them. Prior to salvation there is no love for God’s law, but now…
Psalm 119:97 – Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day. 98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the aged, for I keep your precepts. 101 I hold back my feet from every evil way, in order to keep your word. 102 I do not turn aside from your rules, for you have taught me. 103 How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way. Nun 105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. 106 I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules.
Also prior to salvation, all the law could do was condemn—this is the apostle Paul’s “under law” versus “under grace” distinction between the saved and the unsaved.
In regard to the institutional church in our Western culture, this book primarily addresses the Reformation which was founded as an institutional model from its conception, and needed a gospel suited for such.
The Reformation gospel makes no distinction between the law’s role for the unsaved and saved; in both cases, the law can only condemn. The most basic problem arising out of this is the law becomes the standard for justification when in fact God makes believers righteous “apart from the law” (Romans 3:21). There is NO law in justification. Christ went to the cross to end the law for justification (Romans 10:4). Those under grace nevertheless now love God’s law. What the Reformers did in essence said…
“You love the law, fine and dandy, but a perfect keeping of the law must be maintained in order for you to be justified and remain justified, so any attempt to keep the law as a Christian is the same as trying to keep the law in order to justify yourself.”
This premise of the Reformation gospel, the crux of it, is well articulated by the late Reformed think tank, the Australian Forum:
After a man hears the conditions of acceptance with God and eternal life, and is made sensible of his inability to meet those conditions, the Word of God comes to him in the gospel. He hears that Christ stood in his place and kept the law of God for him. By dying on the cross, Christ satisfied all the law’s demands. 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.
On the other hand, the law is dishonored by the man who presumes to bring to it his own life of obedience. The fact that he thinks the law will be satisfied with his “rotten stubble and straw” (Luther) shows what a low estimate he has of the holiness of God and what a high estimate he has of his own righteousness. Only in Jesus Christ is there an obedience with which the law is well pleased. Because faith brings only what Jesus has done, it is the highest honor that can be paid to the law (Rom. 3:31). [The Forum’s theological journal, Present Truth: “Law and Gospel,” Volume 7, Article 2, Part 2; also see the Calvin Institutes 3.14.9-11].
This is what makes the Reformation gospel patently false. The law is not Justification’s standard. If there is any standard at all, it is a love for the law, not a perfect keeping of it. Christ ended the law for justification, and the law is now the standard of love for sanctification. The Christian’s motives for obedience are pure because he/she knows the law has NO bearing on their justified state. The only motive for obedience is love, but the law is now the standard for what love is in sanctification.
The crux for the Reformed gospel now becomes how one obtains a perfect keeping of the law apart from any obedience of the “believer.” This is a system where perfect obedience must be continually imputed to the believer in order to satisfy the law. It boils down to a system where perfect obedience satisfies the law through faith alone in whatever that system is. In the Reformed construct, that necessarily requires that Jesus not only died for our sins, but also lived a life of perfect obedience to the law while He was ministering on earth. This is called “double imputation.” Our sins were imputed to Christ, and then He died to pay the penalty thereof, and His perfect obedience to the law is also imputed to us so that the law, being the standard of justification, is satisfied.
This is not a new approach; this whole idea of justification’s standard being a perfect keeping of the law. The apostle Paul argued against this universal anti-gospel in his letter to the Galatians in the following way:
Galatians 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
What is Paul saying? He is speaking from the perspective of offspring and the offspring that gives eternal life according to “the promise.” Salvation is based on the covenant God made with Abraham based on promise alone. The promise involved ONE offspring, NOT more than one. If law is a standard for justification, it is in fact an additional offspring—that’s Paul’s point exactly.
This is where the concept of covenant comes in. To say that all sin was imputed to Christ is not exactly right. Actually, all sin is imputed to the Old Covenant law, and then Christ came to end the law and all of the sin imputed to it. Sin is defined by breaking the law (1John 3:4). All sin is imputed to the Old Covenant law until faith comes. That’s why Christ came to end the law for righteousness. In regard to justification, the law and all of our sins imputed to it are cast away as far as the east is from the west. That’s the function of the New Covenant in this age: it ends sin while the Old Covenant only covered sin. That’s why the New Covenant is a “better” covenant; it doesn’t just cover sin, it ends sin. The coming of the Old Covenant did not replace the Abrahamic covenant because it was ratified according to the promise of the one seed 430 years prior. The Old Covenant was a “guardian” or protector until Christ came to end the law.
Hence, to say that the law is the standard for righteousness is to also say that it was part of the promise and is an additional seed that can give life—no, only Christ can give life. Who keeps the law is irrelevant, it cannot give life in regard to justification—there is only ONE SEED. Christ didn’t come to keep the Old Testament law for us—He came to end the law for us. The New Covenant is not a covering of sin—it is an ending of sin.
On this wise, the Old Covenant still has a function presently; unbelievers are still under it. Every sin they commit is against that law and imputed to it. When they believe on Christ, that law, the “law of sin and death” is ended along with all sins they ever committed. One reason for this ending is because they die with Christ, and are no longer under that covenant:
Romans 7:1 – Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Indeed, the Old Covenant law was “served,” but now the law that kept our sins “captive” is ended by Christ, and we “serve” in the new way of the Spirit, BUT that does not mean that there is not a written law that we “UPHOLD” (Romans 3:31). This same law which includes both covenants is now the sword of the Spirit and our guide for loving God and others. We not only died with Christ to end our sins, but we were resurrected with Him in order to uphold the law for the sake of love. Our NEW desire is to love God and others through obedience to the law. It was the same, as we have seen in Psalms 119 for those under the Old covenant, but at that time their sins were only covered by the law and not ended. This makes the New covenant “better.”
We are saved (justified) by faith alone, but in sanctification, our faith WORKS through love:
Galatians 5:2 – Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love [“If you love me, keep my commandments”].
And what about future sin after salvation?
Romans 4:15 – For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 7:8…Apart from the law, sin lies dead.
However, the universal anti-gospel of the ages retains the law as a covering and the very standard of justification. It makes the law a co-heir with Christ. This necessary separation of law from the believer because he/she cannot keep it perfectly circumvents any ability to love God and others (“If you love me, keep my commandments”), separates law from sanctification, and is the very definition of antinomianism. In the Bible, antinomianism is stated as the antithesis of love (Psalm 119:70, Matthew 24:11, John 14:15).
Consequently, the vast majority of denominations that came out of the Protestant Reformation came up with their own systems that impute a satisfaction of the law to the “believer” who must appropriate this satisfaction by faith alone in whatever that system may be. However, most systems followed the basic principles of the most notable Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Also, it stands to reason that these systems are encompassed within the authority of an institution because of the complexity of such systems, but also the simplicity as well. Because a perfect keeping of the law must be satisfied in order to justify, and no one can keep the law perfectly, there must be a way for the “believer” to have a perfect keeping of the law credited to their account. When figuring that out from Scripture, it seems complex, but institutions endowed with God’s authority are supposedly vested with the responsibility to make the application simple for the great unwashed masses via orthodoxy. Said another way; ritual, or the “traditions of men.” Note once again Galatians 5:2ff., the Judaizes proffered the ritual of circumcision as a fulfillment of the law for justification. Paul said no; ritual cannot replace a fulfillment of the law for justification unless you keep the whole law perfectly. The law must be ended.
In the final analysis, most religions and denominations that comprise them, bridge a particular standard of righteousness with a ritual system based on a mediation authority between the common people and God. This is always a temple focused institution. God’s system has no standard for righteousness, but only a standard that defines love. When it gets right down to it, what standard could ever adequately define God’s righteousness? The apostle John stated that the world was not big enough to hold a book that would record the good works Christ did while He ministered on earth; so, we are to believe that Christ fulfilled all righteousness in our stead by obeying the Old Testament perfectly? In addition to this problematic question, the New Testament had not yet been written, and many prophecies in both the Old and New testaments are not yet fulfilled.
These substitute systems that errantly seek to satisfy a law by proxy offer the masses a simplistic ritual or tradition that shows their faith in whatever system that credits perfection to their account. This is always done via an institution. The institution is supposedly the God-ordained authority to usher the masses into an eternal utopia of some sort. People then pick the institution of their choice generally assuming that their good intentions and willingness to humbly submit to an authority will get them into heaven.
In the Protestant construct, that is defined as present and future sins removing us from grace which requires perpetual atonement. This is achieved by continually returning to the same gospel that saved us. “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day” is even a well-traveled mantra among the Neo-Calvinists of our day. This perpetual return to the same gospel that saved us is only sanctioned in the institutional church overseen by Reformed elders:
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death—viz. ablution, satisfaction, expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered (The Calvin Institutes: 3.14.11).
Nor by remission of sins does the Lord only once for all elect and admit us into the Church, but by the same means he preserves and defends us in it. For what would it avail us to receive a pardon of which we were afterwards to have no use? That the mercy of the Lord would be vain and delusive if only granted once, all the godly can bear witness; for there is none who is not conscious, during his whole life, of many infirmities which stand in need of divine mercy. And truly it is not without cause that the Lord promises this gift specially to his own household, nor in vain that he orders the same message of reconciliation to be daily delivered to them (The Calvin Institutes: 4.1.21).
To impart this blessing to us, the keys have been given to the Church (Mt. 16:19; 18:18). For when Christ gave the command to the apostles, and conferred the power of forgiving sins, he not merely intended that they should loose the sins of those who should be converted from impiety to the faith of Christ; but, moreover, that they should perpetually perform this office among believers (The Calvin Institutes: 4.1.22).
Secondly, This benefit is so peculiar to the Church, that we cannot enjoy it unless we continue in the communion of the Church. Thirdly, It is dispensed to us by the ministers and pastors of the Church, either in the preaching of the Gospel or the administration of the Sacraments, and herein is especially manifested the power of the keys, which the Lord has bestowed on the company of the faithful. Accordingly, let each of us consider it to be his duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it. Of the public reconciliation which relates to discipline, we shall speak at the proper place (Ibid).
…by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God… Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God” (John Calvin: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles; The Calvin Translation Society 1855. Editor: John Owen, p. 165 ¶4).
This is why Christ primarily limited His apologetic concerns to the traditions of men and antinomianism. Almost without exception, the traditions of men, bolstered by intimidating authoritative institutions, make the lives of “Christians” a segue from beginning salvation to final salvation. The institution is trusted to manage the Christian’s life in a way that they will be able to “stand in the final judgment.” Invariably, almost all religious institutions focus on preparing people for some kind of final judgment.
But Christ came to set people free from judgment, and into freedom to love. The Bible was written to individuals. The Bible always addresses particular individuals or an assembly/group. The Bible never addresses an hierarchy; NEVER. The Bible is written to Spirit-filled individuals called to fulfill their individual and unique callings. The emphasis is not making sure you get to heaven via a preordained institution. That concept circumvents love because the focus is making sure you can “stand in judgment” according to what the institution says will accomplish that.
Salvation doesn’t grow. Sanctification is not the “growing part” of salvation. Salvation is a conception of life that is a onetime event that creates a new creature. The creature grows, but not the conception. The conception is completed. The baby has been born. A baby cannot bring themselves into the world, but in due time they can take the gift of life and participate in it. Their birth is a finished work that makes growing in life possible, but in no way perpetually contributes to it. Likewise, salvation does not sanctify.
Keeping people under the law keeps them saved by keeping them from any attempt to love because that would be works salvation. Christians need to grow in an environment where the individual calling to love and good works is the emphasis, not salvation by faith in an institution. Even in cases where the latter is professed, the fruit of tradition that came from the roots of the Protestant tree is the actual function. Therefore, function mimics slavery to the law while proclaiming freedom. No, true freedom from the law is the only salvation that will yield abundant love in sanctification.
Salvation Does NOT Sanctify.
paul
The Desire for and Qualifications of an Overseer – Part 2
In part one of this study we set out to explore the relationship between an elder and what Paul referred to as an “overseer” in 1 Timothy 3. What we learned is that an “overseer” is the same as a “supervisor”, and that it is really a secular term and not necessarily a religious one. In fact, as we studied the text in verse 1, we saw that not all of the assemblies there in Ephesus had overseers. The implication was that they might desire oversight (which Paul called a “good thing”) but it appears as if it was optional. That is something that flies in the face of traditional Protestant orthodoxy and would be worthy of further study.
So having then examined the relationship of elders and overseers, in part two we will study in detail each of the qualifications of an overseer. You can think of this as a job description. If you were seeking a candidate to fill a role, think about what kind of attributes you would want. What are the attributes that make for a good overseer for a home fellowship? Paul lists them in 1 Timothy 3:2-7, and they are as follows:
Blameless
This quality is pretty straightforward, but we will look at it a little closer. The word in the Greek is ανεπιληπτος (an-ep-ee-layp-tos). It is made up of three parts – “a”, a negative particle meaning no, not, or without; “epi”, meaning over or fully; and “lambano”, meaning to take or to hold securely. Taking all three parts together we have a word the literally means, “not over-taken”. It is actually a judicial term that has to do with being arrested for suspicion of a crime. So an overseer must be one who is without suspect. He must be above reproach.
The husband of one wife
Of all the qualities listed, this one alone has to be historically the most controversial. But what does the text say? The words in the Greek literally read, “to be one woman’s man”. Notice the “possessive” nature of the text, that the man belongs to one woman. Taken in its most literal context, notice two things about that expression:
- It does NOT automatically disqualify a divorced man
- It does NOT automatically disqualify a single man
I want to stress the word “automatically” here. Because what this expression speaks to is attitude and character. It is the idea of faithfulness to God’s order of one man cleaving with one woman. The emphasis here has to do with adultery and fornication, because especially in that culture, it was common for men to have mistresses or to engage in relationships with temple prostitutes as part of the pagan religions. A big part of sanctification for the believer has to do with sexual purity (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). The focus here is not on marital status but rather on the man’s sexual morality as it pertains to his sanctification.
Vigilant
I believe this word as translated in the King James is one that had a different meaning in 1611 than what we understand it to mean now in our modern English language. In the Greek, it is the word ναφαλεος (nay-fel-eh-os). Literally it means, sober or free from wine. Taken in a figurative sense, it means circumspect or discrete. Certainly one needing to use proper discernment would not want to have his faculties impaired.
Sober
Using another word that also suffers from an archaic definition, perhaps Paul was simply amplifying his meaning on the previous word “vigilant” – saying the same thing with a little more nuance. This word in the Greek is σωφρον (soh-fron). It is a compound word- “so-dzoh”, meaning to save or heal, to make safe, to make well; and “phren”, the midriff, which refers to the center part of the being, the center of emotions. This is the quality of being emotionally stable.
Of good behaviour
The King James rendering of this word does not do it justice. This quality of an overseer is much more than just behaving well. The Greek word is κοσμιος (kos-mee-os) – from the word “kosmos” meaning an orderly arrangement or system. To describe one who is systematic or orderly means he is well disciplined. He exercises self-discipline. His life is not characterized by chaos.
Given to hospitality
There is a saying that I have heard in the retail industry that goes something like this: “All customers are appreciated- some when they come; some when they leave.” The point is that there are some people you just can’t stand, but you tolerate them for the sake of making a sale. However that is not showing genuine hospitality. It is the wrong attitude.
In the Greek, the word is φιλοξενος (fee-lox-en-os) , a compound word from the word “philo”, meaning to be fond of, or friendly; and “xenos”, which is a foreigner; literally an alien; a guest, stranger, or visitor.
Friendly to guests. This suggests a genuine love towards everyone, even the ones who are not that loveable. It is not merely tolerating them simply because you are the host and you want to be polite.
Apt to teach
This one is pretty self-explanatory. Having an aptitude for teaching. Skillful in teaching. This Greek word is διδακτικος (dee-dak-ti-kos) . It comes from the word “didaktos” meaning that which is communicated by teaching. So we are talking about one who has the ability to communicate by teaching.
Now I want to point out the phrase “communicate by teaching”, because this is important. There are many ways to communicate information. There is rhetoric, debate, lecturing, coercion, preaching, and heralding just to name a few. But there is something unique about teaching. Teaching is methodical instruction that produces learning. It is not so much about persuasion. It is not so much about the “how” and the “what.” A skilled teacher enables his students to understand the “why.”
The next 6 qualities in the list are all related. Paul presents three together in a series and then contrasts them with the next three. Collectively, each group of three words describes an overall character.
Not given to wine
The word here is παροινος (par-oy-nos). It comes from the words “para”, meaning near or beside and “oynos”, which means wine. Literally, the word means “staying near wine”. This is most likely an idiom for a drunkard or an alcoholic.
No striker
This is the word πληκτης (plake-tace), from the word “plaso” meaning to pound or flatten out. This is one who does not resort to physical violence.
Not greedy of filthy lucre
Here, the word is αισχροκερδης (ah-ee-schro-ker-dace), made up of the words “aischros”, meaning shameful or disgraceful, and “kerdos”, meaning gain, more specifically, personal gain, monetary or otherwise. So this word is referring to personal gain that is obtained in a shameful, disgraceful, or unscrupulous manner.
Notice how the three words together paint a picture of character. One who is a drunkard, who resorts to physical violence, and who seeks personal gain in an unscrupulous manner. Then, following the transitional word “but”, Paul compares this picture with the picture described by three contrasting traits.
Patient
The modern use of the English word here does not convey an accurate meaning in the Greek. The word is επιεικης (ep-ee-eye-kace), which means to be yielded over, gentle, and moderate. Temperance might be a better way of describing it.
Not a brawler
This is the word αμαχος (a-mach-oss). We get the word “macho” from this word, and it refers to making war. This trait describes someone who does not make war but is peaceable.
Not covetous
This word in the Greek is αφιλαργυρος (a-fee-lar-goo-ros), taken from the word “philo”, to be fond of; and “arguros”, which means silver, either the metal itself or silver coins. Literally, this is one who is not fond of money. This speaks of a relative indifference towards the seeking of riches.
Notice the contrasting parallel relationship between the two sets of words:
(not) a drunkard “but” à yielded, gentle, moderate (temperate)
(not) physically violent “but” à peaceable
(not) seeking unscrupulous gain “but” à indifferent towards money
The last three qualities differ in two respects. First, they are more than just one word qualities, rather, each quality is a detailed expression. Second, all three of them come with a specific admonition or warning attached. Let’s examine each closely:
Ruleth well his own house
The idea of “ruling well” is made up of two Greek words. The first word is προιστημι (pro-is-tay-mee), a compound word which means to stand in front of, not in terms of physical position but rather in terms of higher rank or seniority. This gives the implication of leadership. The second word in the Greek is καλως (kal-oce), and it means literally or morally good, as something that is an ideal quality. This speaks to character and quality of leadership.
Paul expands on his definition of good leadership by adding the subordinating clause, “having his children in subjection with all gravity.” To be in subjection is the Greek word υποταγη (hoo-po-tag-ay), which means to be under an orderly, systematic arrangement, or to be assigned or disposed to a specific lot.
A man who has the qualities of leadership that are morally ideal is characterized by having children who understand who’s in charge. They understand where they rank. In other words, the man has done a good job of training his children (Proverbs 22:6). They are not rebellious, and they recognize their father’s place as the head of the home.
It is important to note here, that this does not speak to the father’s place as an authority, but rather to his ability to lead by teaching and persuasion. Children who are well taught are more inclined to follow their father’s leadership and mimic his example (Proverbs 22:6, Ephesians 6:4).
Ideal leadership in the home translates to ideal leadership as an overseer in the assembly. Paul makes this admonition with his rhetorical question, “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the assembly of God?”
Not a novice
The word translated as “novice” in the King James is the Greek word νεοφυτος (nee-oh-foo-tos). It contains the prefix “neo” meaning new, and the root word “foo-oh”, meaning to puff or swell up, like a germinating seed; sprouting. The idea here is of something that is newly sprouted. We sometimes use the word “neophyte” to describe someone who is unskilled and just learning how to grow in a particular discipline; someone who is not mature. This is a perfect description of the newly converted believer. They have not grown and matured enough in their spiritual life to be able to use the kind of discernment that is necessary to lead others. A baby Christian would find himself at great risk if put into a position of supervision.
It is no coincidence that the same root word “foo-oh” shares a similar root with another word, φυσιοω (foo-see-o-oh) that means to become inflated or puffed up with pride (see 1 Corinthians 5:2, 8:1, 13:4, Colossians 2:18). This is exactly Paul’s point to Timothy regarding a new believer. They run the risk of becoming proud and conceited and experiencing judgment, just as Satan’s pride brought judgment upon himself. Of course, this is not to say that the believer will receive the actual judgment as Satan received. But he will receive judgment, perhaps in some form of Fatherly chastening.
A good report of them which are without
This is a rather lengthy phrase, so let’s dissect it. The expression “good report” is made up of two Greek words. The first is μαρτυρια (mar-too-ree-ah) which refers to evidence or testimony such as might be given in a trial. The second word in the Greek is again the word καλως (kal-oce), literally or morally good, as something that is an ideal quality. So this expression “good report” has to do with having a testimony that is morally ideal.
The second part of the phrase, “of them which are without” is actually only one Greek word, εξοθεν (ex-o-then), meaning the outside; externally. In the context here with respect to the assembly, this can be referring to those outside of the assembly- for example, those from other assemblies, and by implication, unbelievers.
What that gives us is a quality of having a testimony that is morally ideal externally. You could think of it as having good references. Please notice how this closely relates to the very first quality at the beginning of the list, being above reproach. One whose external testimony is suspect runs the risk of falling into reproach. The word translated “reproach” is the Greek word ονειδισμος (on-eye-dis-mos). It comes from the word “oneididzo” meaning “to defame”. So falling into reproach means to have a defamed reputation, a testimony that is the exact opposite of being morally ideal.
Paul tells us how this happens. It is a snare, a trap that the devil specifically sets in place. If a careless, undiscerning believer is not careful, he will fall into this trap and thus sully his morally ideal reputation. How many Christians have let themselves fall into traps laid by the devil and have thus disqualified themselves from service?
As I mentioned in part one, what Paul is doing here is very similar to what happened in Acts 6. The apostles did not use their authority to declare who would be deacons. They trusted in the ability of the assemblies to select their own based on certain qualifications. They allowed the assemblies to manage themselves. Likewise, Paul trusts that those assemblies in Ephesus that are desiring oversight have the ability within themselves to select the right person based on this list of qualifications. He did not use apostolic authority to appoint elders to a place of authority over the assemblies. As we seek to return to a New Testament model of home fellowships, we can never underestimate the ability of the laity and the emphasis of fellowship over authority.
Andy
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment