Paul's Passing Thoughts

This is a reposting of this morning’s post under a different title to make another point. At this point, whether predestination regarding salvation is true or false is not the point; predestination is argued from a Protestant point of view and Protestantism is a false gospel to begin with. In other words, salvific predestination is fruits from the poisonous tree. Yet, there are Protestant ministries that I assume are financially viable predicated on the whole election issue, which is shameful. It also highlights a primary characteristic of Protestantism: they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Protestants love to debate theology and are addicted to controversies.

When you consider the overt elementary errors of Protestant soteriology, one wonders how there are churches every mile apart on the highways that have $500,000-plus annual budgets. The answer is fairly simple: churches are selling salvation, and what will a person do to save their soul? Answer: anything and everything, including believing whatever is necessary. Once they believe they are part of an institution that will get them into heaven, critical thinking is turned off. And, authority is deemed as a higher power that can be claimed as a free ticket into heaven.

Consider the absurdity. Christ did not appear at any church council to coronate any church as an authority. And, you can buy said authority by obtaining a seminary degree and toeing the institutional line. The Bereans even held Paul to account according to their own personal interpretation of the scriptures. People believe certain men have authority because they say they have authority. What’s up with that?

I would be inclined to judge against salvific predestination because of the source: if Protestantism doesn’t have the gospel right, why would they be right about predestination? It stands to reason that predestination is needed to help make the pieces of their false gospel fit together logically. Protestantism holds to the idea that a person is unable to do any good work. Believing in Christ would be a good work, and therefore, works salvation according to Protestantism. Predestination sort of solves that problem.

Furthermore, if you are born into the family of God and a forever child of God, and nothing can separate you from his love, and have the indwelling Spirit, which teaches you, what do you need church for other than fellowship and encouragement unto good works? This is why Protestantism redefines the new birth: it takes away church authority…plain and simple. Fellowship alone doesn’t pay the bills; it takes raw authority. In addition, one and done salvation (once saved always saved) is bad for reoccurring monthly revenue.

paul

This morning’s post:

Mr. Dohse,

For your consideration:

Romans 6:7 says, were it translated consistently from the Greek, “For he that is dead is JUSTIFIED from sin.” The ASV is one of the few translations that renders the Greek word there the same way–“justified”–as it is rendered everywhere else (about 39 times) in the New Testament. The KJV went off script here, and many others followed its lead.

In the argument of Romans 6, the one who has died with Christ, who has died as the old self he was, is justified from sin according to Romans 6:7.

If one has died with Christ, one is justified from sin.

Galatians 3:21 says that no law was given that could impart life, and that is why righteousness could not come through the law. Put aside for the moment any arguments concerning why the law could not give life–focus on the implication that if there is no new life, there is no righteousness or justification. Because the law had no capacity for imparting new life, the law could not justify or cause a man to be righteous.

If there is no new life, there is no justification.

Putting those verses together, the moment of justification is when God regenerates and transforms a man from being an old self into a new self, at the moment the old self dies and is transformed into or raised again as a new creation, a new spiritual man, this transformation being a gift from God and accomplished by His creative power.

A man is justified in the moment he is born again.

This regeneration is promised to everyone who turns away from any contrary belief to believe instead the Gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

Does that sound about right?

Exactly right. This is what makes justification by faith wrong x 14. First, the born again believer is justified because he/she is righteous as a state of being because of the new birth recreation. We are not merely “declared” righteous, we are righteous. When God looks at us, he sees us, his children. There is no need to see Jesus instead of us, we are his literal children.

Hence, the second point: salvation is NOT a covering of sin, which is atonement, but it is an ending of sin. Shockingly, MacArthur et al routinely call salvation “atonement.” According to JBF, grace is a covering for remaining under law.

Which brings us to the third point. You can’t be both, you are either under law or under grace. CLEARLY, JBF teaches that the believer remains under the condemnation of the law. Phil Johnson is fond of saying that “Christians remain under the righteous demands of the law.”

Fourthly regarding one of your points: there is no law that can give life. If the law can give life, it is a fourth member of the Trinity. The law has no role in the new birth recreation. Paul flogs the proverbial dead horse on this in Galatians. Why then the law? Well, according to Galatians, all sin is imputed to the law. Then, when a person is born again, the law is vanquished along with all sin under the old covenant. The believer was protected from condemnation by way of imputation to the law…”until faith came.” Viz, Christ, who did NOT come to fulfill the law through the perfect keeping of it, but rather came to fulfill “The Promise,” which is a primary name for the gospel that is ignored in most church circles and replaced with JBF.

Which brings us to a 5th point: Christ was righteous by virtue of who he is, NOT through perfect law-keeping. Shockingly, JBF teaches that Christ earned his righteousness through perfect law-keeping so he could then impute that earned righteousness to us. This is the Protestant doctrine of double imputation, which is overt blasphemy. Why would Christ fulfill a law that cannot give life? No, the new birth gives life, not the law.

Which leads us to point six: JBF has a single perspective on the law denying the Spirit’s two uses of the law (to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come; and sanctification) per Romans 8:2. Protestantism, therefore, teaches that Romans 8:2 refers to two realms, not law. By redefining nomos as a realm, they make a case for the law of the Spirit being a covering for the law of condemnation.

Which brings us to point seven: JBF conflates Fatherly chastisement with condemnation/wrath, and conflates the definition of sin in sanctification (better stated as a failure to love) with sin under the law. This makes a ritualistic perpetual atonement necessary.

Which brings us to point eight: we contend that salvation cannot be a process in which the believer is still living. This demands a role for the believer in a salvation process. Protestant scholars state this openly making a distinction between salvation and justification. Supposedly, salvation is a process while justification is the onetime act. This is a deliberate word shell game meant to confuse the issue. Supposedly, God only declares us righteous as a mere “legal declaration” (how can a legal declaration be righteousness apart from the law, being a legal declaration?) one time. But hark, then we must “participate in Christ” by perpetually returning to the same gospel that saved us for re-justification, which is supposedly the onetime act. Clearly, regarding this, Protestantism teaches that our original Spirit baptism is reapplied to the salvation process, keeping us justified, when we partake in a “lifestyle of repentance” (participation in Christ). Actually, Calvin and Luther taught that the power of baptism was in the water baptism. This is the Protestant doctrine of mortification and vivification and closely related to the doctrine of the vital union as well. This blog has posted hundreds of citations on this point from Calvin, Luther, and Michael Horton and will not belabor the point here. Protestantism teaches a beginning justification, what they call progressive sanctification, but is really progressive justification, and then a final justification. Calling the progression of justification “progressive sanctification” is deliberate deception. Calvin referred to justification and sanctification as a “twofold grace.” What does that mean? Well, both have to do with salvation. But, “Wait a minute!” you say, “I thought justification was the onetime act!” Right…you get it. Protestantism is a morass of confusion. Furthermore, to make progressive justification feasible, JBF splits works into two categories: faith alone works (the “ordinary means of grace” done at church), and works that are works. I kid you not. People listen to this stuff and don’t even blink.

This brings us to point nine: though Protestants claim a doctrine of assurance, obviously, they are lying. According to original Protestant soteriology, perseverance is a gift of God that is not given to all those who are “illumined” (Calvin). Hence, no one who is a professing Protestant can know whether or not they are predetermined to have the gift of perseverance until “final justification.” But, absurdly, there is also the doctrine of the “power of the keys,” which teaches that whatever the church elders bind on earth will be bound in heaven. In other words, if the church elders like you, you’re in. We have citations from the likes of Kevin Deyoung saying this in no uncertain terms, and of course Calvin states it in many of his writings. In contrast, assurance is grounded in the fact that there is no law to judge us. A dead man cannot be indicted. Even if the court dug up our dead body and presented it to the judge, the judge has no law to condemn us with. We contend that someone who is born again cannot be unborn, which leads us to the next point.

Point 10: We deny with prejudice that “believers” remain unregenerate and still need to be saved by revisiting the same gospel that originally “saved” us, as stated by many Protestant theologians including Calvin, Luther, and John Piper et al. This coincides systemically with points 1-9.

Point 11: We deny the idea that a “believer” is sanctified through a greater and greater appreciation for our salvation as amplified by realizing more and more how far we are from our Father, rather than the true goal of sanctification to be more and more like our Father. Hence, we deny that salvation is strictly “confessional” and wholly agree with the truism, “Preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words.” Indeed, we believe that a “tree is known by its fruit.” We are to let our light shine through deeds, not words only.

Point 12: We affirm salvation through justification by new birth per 1John 3, and not through perfect law-keeping by anyone, including Christ.

Point 13: We reject “semper reformanda” or “always reforming.” This is a blank check for making up soteriology as you go. You don’t have to be right about anything. This is identical to the JW doctrine of “increasing light.”

Point 14: We deny that the family of God is an authoritative institution, or a living body with more than one head. We deny additional mediators other than Christ, and affirm the priesthood of believers.

In view of all of this, what should we do? We should wholly reject Protestantism and its JBF soteriology and come out from among them. All the drama regarding church is attributed to one thing: a false gospel. When I was a young aspiring pastor going to seminary, the vision was to “return to the power of the first century church.” Well, first of all, it wasn’t church. Church as we know it today doesn’t come along until the 4th century, with its infant beginnings in the 3rd century. And by the way, “church” is NOT a biblical word. Walk away, and begin informal weekly fellowships with those who are like-minded. A model for such fellowships could be the last supper in John and other related passages. Between Acts and other NT passages, there is a clear model for such gatherings. Like in the NT, these are informal gatherings. What determines a fellowship? Well, fellowship. People who show up are fellowshipping with the body. The gathering should function as a cooperative body with each organ practicing gifts, no authority needed.

I hear a lot about the home fellowship movement being sparsely scattered all over the U.S. I think we are seeing the beginning of change regarding that. Little by little, people are starting to get it. It’s wrong to merely leave church, you must replace it with the real item. Merely meet informally as many times a week as you want to. Share a meal, and the word of God in some type of format. Give time for gifts to be manifested as time goes on. As you grow, split into additional fellowships. Its not complicated.

Church is a lie: come out from among them and be separate.

paul

Mr. Dohse,

For your consideration:

Romans 6:7 says, were it translated consistently from the Greek, “For he that is dead is JUSTIFIED from sin.” The ASV is one of the few translations that renders the Greek word there the same way–“justified”–as it is rendered everywhere else (about 39 times) in the New Testament. The KJV went off script here, and many others followed its lead.

In the argument of Romans 6, the one who has died with Christ, who has died as the old self he was, is justified from sin according to Romans 6:7.

If one has died with Christ, one is justified from sin.

Galatians 3:21 says that no law was given that could impart life, and that is why righteousness could not come through the law. Put aside for the moment any arguments concerning why the law could not give life–focus on the implication that if there is no new life, there is no righteousness or justification. Because the law had no capacity for imparting new life, the law could not justify or cause a man to be righteous.

If there is no new life, there is no justification.

Putting those verses together, the moment of justification is when God regenerates and transforms a man from being an old self into a new self, at the moment the old self dies and is transformed into or raised again as a new creation, a new spiritual man, this transformation being a gift from God and accomplished by His creative power.

A man is justified in the moment he is born again.

This regeneration is promised to everyone who turns away from any contrary belief to believe instead the Gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

Does that sound about right?

Exactly right. This is what makes justification by faith wrong x 14. First, the born again believer is justified because he/she is righteous as a state of being because of the new birth recreation. We are not merely “declared” righteous, we are righteous. When God looks at us, he sees us, his children. There is no need to see Jesus instead of us, we are his literal children.

Hence, the second point: salvation is NOT a covering of sin, which is atonement, but it is an ending of sin. Shockingly, MacArthur et al routinely call salvation “atonement.” According to JBF, grace is a covering for remaining under law.

Which brings us to the third point. You can’t be both, you are either under law or under grace. CLEARLY, JBF teaches that the believer remains under the condemnation of the law. Phil Johnson is fond of saying that “Christians remain under the righteous demands of the law.”

Fourthly regarding one of your points: there is no law that can give life. If the law can give life, it is a fourth member of the Trinity. The law has no role in the new birth recreation. Paul flogs the proverbial dead horse on this in Galatians. Why then the law? Well, according to Galatians, all sin is imputed to the law. Then, when a person is born again, the law is vanquished along with all sin under the old covenant. The believer was protected from condemnation by way of imputation to the law…”until faith came.” Viz, Christ, who did NOT come to fulfill the law through the perfect keeping of it, but rather came to fulfill “The Promise,” which is a primary name for the gospel that is ignored in most church circles and replaced with JBF.

Which brings us to a 5th point: Christ was righteous by virtue of who he is, NOT through perfect law-keeping. Shockingly, JBF teaches that Christ earned his righteousness through perfect law-keeping so he could then impute that earned righteousness to us. This is the Protestant doctrine of double imputation, which is overt blasphemy. Why would Christ fulfill a law that cannot give life? No, the new birth gives life, not the law.

Which leads us to point six: JBF has a single perspective on the law denying the Spirit’s two uses of the law (to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come; and sanctification) per Romans 8:2. Protestantism, therefore, teaches that Romans 8:2 refers to two realms, not law. By redefining nomos as a realm, they make a case for the law of the Spirit being a covering for the law of condemnation.

Which brings us to point seven: JBF conflates Fatherly chastisement with condemnation/wrath, and conflates the definition of sin in sanctification (better stated as a failure to love) with sin under the law. This makes a ritualistic perpetual atonement necessary.

Which brings us to point eight: we contend that salvation cannot be a process in which the believer is still living. This demands a role for the believer in a salvation process. Protestant scholars state this openly making a distinction between salvation and justification. Supposedly, salvation is a process while justification is the onetime act. This is a deliberate word shell game meant to confuse the issue. Supposedly, God only declares us righteous as a mere “legal declaration” (how can a legal declaration be righteousness apart from the law, being a legal declaration?) one time. But hark, then we must “participate in Christ” by perpetually returning to the same gospel that saved us for re-justification, which is supposedly the onetime act. Clearly, regarding this, Protestantism teaches that our original Spirit baptism is reapplied to the salvation process, keeping us justified, when we partake in a “lifestyle of repentance” (participation in Christ). Actually, Calvin and Luther taught that the power of baptism was in the water baptism. This is the Protestant doctrine of mortification and vivification and closely related to the doctrine of the vital union as well. This blog has posted hundreds of citations on this point from Calvin, Luther, and Michael Horton and will not belabor the point here. Protestantism teaches a beginning justification, what they call progressive sanctification, but is really progressive justification, and then a final justification. Calling the progression of justification “progressive sanctification” is deliberate deception. Calvin referred to justification and sanctification as a “twofold grace.” What does that mean? Well, both have to do with salvation. But, “Wait a minute!” you say, “I thought justification was the onetime act!” Right…you get it. Protestantism is a morass of confusion. Furthermore, to make progressive justification feasible, JBF splits works into two categories: faith alone works (the “ordinary means of grace” done at church), and works that are works. I kid you not. People listen to this stuff and don’t even blink.

This brings us to point nine: though Protestants claim a doctrine of assurance, obviously, they are lying. According to original Protestant soteriology, perseverance is a gift of God that is not given to all those who are “illumined” (Calvin). Hence, no one who is a professing Protestant can know whether or not they are predetermined to have the gift of perseverance until “final justification.” But, absurdly, there is also the doctrine of the “power of the keys,” which teaches that whatever the church elders bind on earth will be bound in heaven. In other words, if the church elders like you, you’re in. We have citations from the likes of Kevin Deyoung saying this in no uncertain terms, and of course Calvin states it in many of his writings. In contrast, assurance is grounded in the fact that there is no law to judge us. A dead man cannot be indicted. Even if the court dug up our dead body and presented it to the judge, the judge has no law to condemn us with. We contend that someone who is born again cannot be unborn, which leads us to the next point.

Point 10: We deny with prejudice that “believers” remain unregenerate and still need to be saved by revisiting the same gospel that originally “saved” us, as stated by many Protestant theologians including Calvin, Luther, and John Piper et al. This coincides systemically with points 1-9.

Point 11: We deny the idea that a “believer” is sanctified through a greater and greater appreciation for our salvation as amplified by realizing more and more how far we are from our Father, rather than the true goal of sanctification to be more and more like our Father. Hence, we deny that salvation is strictly “confessional” and wholly agree with the truism, “Preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words.” Indeed, we believe that a “tree is known by its fruit.” We are to let our light shine through deeds, not words only.

Point 12: We affirm salvation through justification by new birth per 1John 3, and not through perfect law-keeping by anyone, including Christ.

Point 13: We reject “semper reformanda” or “always reforming.” This is a blank check for making up soteriology as you go. You don’t have to be right about anything. This is identical to the JW doctrine of “increasing light.”

Point 14: We deny that the family of God is an authoritative institution, or a living body with more than one head. We deny additional mediators other than Christ, and affirm the priesthood of believers.

In view of all of this, what should we do? We should wholly reject Protestantism and its JBF soteriology and come out from among them. All the drama regarding church is attributed to one thing: a false gospel. When I was a young aspiring pastor going to seminary, the vision was to “return to the power of the first century church.” Well, first of all, it wasn’t church. Church as we know it today doesn’t come along until the 4th century, with its infant beginnings in the 3rd century. And by the way, “church” is NOT a biblical word. Walk away, and begin informal weekly fellowships with those who are like-minded. A model for such fellowships could be the last supper in John and other related passages. Between Acts and other NT passages, there is a clear model for such gatherings. Like in the NT, these are informal gatherings. What determines a fellowship? Well, fellowship. People who show up are fellowshipping with the body. The gathering should function as a cooperative body with each organ practicing gifts, no authority needed.

I hear a lot about the home fellowship movement being sparsely scattered all over the U.S. I think we are seeing the beginning of change regarding that. Little by little, people are starting to get it. It’s wrong to merely leave church, you must replace it with the real item. Merely meet informally as many times a week as you want to. Share a meal, and the word of God in some type of format. Give time for gifts to be manifested as time goes on. As you grow, split into additional fellowships. Its not complicated.

Church is a lie: come out from among them and be separate.

paul