Bad Theology Will Neutralize Turning Point USA Starting with Carte Blanche Forgiveness
Turning Point USA was well on its way to transforming American politics. Fact is, Donald Trump probably won the 2024 election because of Charlie Kirk—Charlie Kirk was a contemporary phenomenon. Continuing the success and impact of TPUSA was going to be a tall order without Charlie Kirk because the core of its success was his open dialogue on college campuses. He was an ardent persuader, and believed the key to all of the world’s problems is dialogue, and he is probably right. And he was good at it.
Much thought was required to answer the following question: without Kirk, how could the continuing success of TPUSA be maximized? Apparently, the answer follows: make TPUSA into a church. That’s a really bad idea for many reasons.
First, since when is church the sultan of open dialogue? At least 50% of the leaders involved with TPUSA, including Kirk’s wife, are Catholic. Does anyone know the history of the Catholic Church? Persuasion through dialogue is hardly its strongest characteristic.
Secondly, if you want to make TPUSA a religious movement, with continued success, that will necessarily include Protestants, who are not Catholics. Already, notable Protestant leaders like Ken Ham are barking about the false religion and non-religion present at Kirk’s memorial. So, here we go…already.
Yes, no doubt, Kirk was a good Christian guy who depended heavily on God, but TPUSA was an organization focused on persuading political opponents in the arena of ideas. Apparently, he was still working through the functional aspect of his faith and was not officially a member of any particular religious group, but it is rumored that he was leaning towards Catholicism (It is reported by some that his wife is Catholic).
Please think about this: what is the standard M.O. of church according to all orthodoxies regarding disagreement? Right; shunning, excommunication, treating some like a “tax collector.” Do research on how tax collectors were treated in the 1st century, and you will understand what Jesus was talking about.
Venue is reality. I am a nurse who happens to be a Christian. Newsflash: non-Christian nurses can be good nurses, and many are, and I work with them. How dumb would it be for me to imply that they really can’t be good nurses if they aren’t Christian? They only appear to be good nurses, but really aren’t. That would create drama, which distracts from quality care. But that’s Martin Luther ideology in a nutshell. Everything is either evil or good with no in-between. Hence, the Christian Blue Book where Christian companies advertise because unless your auto mechanic is a Christian, he or she can’t be trusted to fix your car right. That’s stupid, but that’s church.
In contrast, TPUSA, echoed the challenge to “prove me wrong,” rather than implying that an opponent’s ideas were already stupid by default. Take note about theology debates: no one can be persuaded because even if you lose the debate, your evil opponent only appeared to have the better argument, which is impossible, because of your authoritative orthodoxy. And that’s the rub: church is authority based; it’s true because the church says it’s true regardless of validity-based logic. Do you see how any intermingling with church is completely contraindicated for TPUSA?
And, so, it begins at Kirk’s memorial service. Kirk’s wife announced that she has forgiven Charlie’s assassin. UGH. I have written 16 articles on blank check forgiveness, which can be read here. https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2022/01/27/the-blank-check-forgiveness-archives-3/#comments. Look, undoubtably, Kirk’s wife is a phenomenal woman who is echoing church orthodoxy during an emotional time in her life when we are susceptible to bad ideas, particularly when they are of the religious sort, but her statement makes my point.
Essentially, what is being said by that statement?
First, she is obeying God by forgiving her husband’s killer. So, what is she saying to every victim who hasn’t forgiven the perpetrator?
Secondly, how do we know God has forgiven the assassin? And if he hasn’t, what does that say about her forgiveness?
Thirdly, if she has forgiven the assassin, how does that change her relationship to the assassin? Can you forgive someone without fundamental changes to the relationship?
Fourthly, this church ideology is based on the biblical verse, “Forgive others the same way God has forgiven you,” so, how does God forgive us? Answer: when we repent. Has the assassin repented? In fact, Jesus said to confront those who have offended us, and IF they repent, forgive them.
So, fifthly, blank check forgiveness is blatantly unbiblical.
Sixthly, biblically, forgiveness is always on the other side of the coin regarding justice. In other words, grace circumvents deserved and just punishment. Hence, Jesus stated that if a perpetrator doesn’t repent after multiple chances, there are just consequences (treat them like an unbeliever and a tax collector). Take note that these biblical principles are in context of relationships with believers, much less unbelievers. So, in cases of unbelievers, how much more should they be unforgiven?
Seventh, notice how, per the usual, church puts the burden on the victim instead of the perpetrator. Charlie Kirk’s wife stands before millions confessing with tears that she has forgiven her husband’s murderer? Am I here right now? God help us.
“But Paul, look at the thousands that were at the memorial, and the thousands of requests for new TPUSA chapters!” Yes, a religious revival, and that’s the problem. Historically, religious revivals peak and fizzle out. This needed to be an American Revolution revival, which has lasted 250 years, and by the way, God is all for it. That’s why it has lasted 250 years. And it’s why Isreal is still on the map. By the way, longevity is indicative of life.
I hope my prediction is wrong, but after all, church is a failing business model that hangs on through tyranny, propaganda, and fear. Statistics concerning church trends are abysmal. TPUSA was predicated on finding truth through the best logical arguments, and the freedom to do so, not truth based on hundreds of different versions of church authority. Chaos does not ensue through individual ideas, because what is “self-evident” is also common to man and the law of God written on the heart and mitigated by conscience. Open debate leads people to that commonality.
And if your practical wisdom makes life better, that will make people curious about your thoughts on God. That’s how it works.
paul
The Hijacking of Charlie Kirk
The church is a hijacker. It began by hijacking the ekklesia, which was never an institution and never functioned as one, and it was never called, “church.” In fact, “church” is not even a biblical word. People will protest this assertion by citing many versus from English translations where “church” appears. I kid you not.
Then, during the American Revolution, the church hijacked the Enlightenment movement, which was the driving force behind the American Revolution, and renamed it “The Great Awakening.” Today, we hear incessantly that America was “founded on Christian principles.” Hold on to that thought for a moment because I want to revisit it later; the idea that principles are either good or evil, and not common.
How did it happen? The hijacking of Charlie Kirk is almost a perfect prototype. Kirk’s movement, Turning Point USA, was primarily a commonsense conservatism movement, while Kirk was also a professing Christian. Actually, Kirk, an independent thinker, was more of a seeker who hadn’t landed totally on any particular orthodoxy, though his wife is Catholic.
However, the bulk of the movement was spawned by conservatism, not religion. In light of Kirk’s assassination, religion has seized the opportunity to hijack the movement. The full court press hijacking officially took place during the memorial service on Sunday complete with contemporary “praise and worship” music and several atonement-based gospels by pastors and political figures.
Church is by definition an institution, and is driven by an atonement gospel rather than a new birth gospel. EVERY sermon during the memorial was an atonement gospel. In other words, sins are only “covered,” and not ended. Churches need reoccurring monthly revenue, and obviously, an ending of sin doesn’t fit an RMR business model. Since Kirk’s death, thousands have been encouraged to “join a church.” I haven’t checked, but I am fairly confident that church attendance has skyrocketed in recent days.
So, be sure of this: instead of Turning Point USA being a conservative movement that includes Churchians, it is now a church movement that includes conservatives. And more and more, the Trump administration is appearing the same way. The danger here is this: people who have no need for church or religion, share common principles according to God-given conscience, and their exclusion is at least inferred if not clearly stated by in-your-face religion. If you offend them enough by constantly calling them sinners, they invariably end up on the other side to make a statement, or just disengage from the arena of ideas all together since they are neither “good” or “evil.” Is the left totally whacko because you have to be one or the other?
By the way, Trump’s huge popularity is due to his focus on common, practical ideas. He is a man of the forgotten and left behind people, but now we have his cabinet members preaching the church gospel at Kirk’s memorial. Trust me on this: if church can also hijack the Trump administration, they will.
Let me be clear: Senator Tim Kaine is an insufferable dumbass, but yet, we should note something that he stated recently; “The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Sharia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians and other religious minorities, and they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling. I think the motto over the Supreme Court is ‘equal justice under law,’ — the oath that you and I take pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not arbitrarily defined natural rights.”
If you want to know what Kaine is talking about, you need to look no further than America’s history when the Puritans ruled over the colonies. That would be the same Puritans lauded by the American church. In no church anywhere are they not lifted up as heroes of the faith. Yet, historically, they were superstitious tyrants that Britian wouldn’t even suffer.
Then, we have Ted Cruze’s response to Kaine: “I just walked into the hearing as he was saying that, and I almost fell out of my chair, because that ‘radical and dangerous notion’ — in his words — is literally the founding principle upon which the United States of America was created,” He then went on to quote the Declaration of Independence, citing, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator’ — not by government, not by the Democratic National Committee, but by God-‘with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”
Do you see the twist? Do you see the slight of hand? The source is not anyone’s interpretation of what God intended, which is inevitable whether a Puritan or an Ayatollah, the source, according to the Declaration of Independence, is what is “SELF-EVIDENT.” Get it? Common sense. What evidently works in real life, according to God-given conscience, and common knowledge hammered out in the arena of ideas. These are Enlightenment ideas, not religious ideas. And frankly, this was the hallmark of Kirk’s organization. Was.
With all this being said, what is going on is interesting. What is going is massive functional ecumenicalism. Oh yes, it will be denied intellectually, but functionally, it’s massive ecumenicalism. Was not the Arizona memorial an unprecedented massive lovefest? Yes it was, and everything but the kitchen sink was in there hugging and kissing. Do I think those of the New Calvinist movement will have to fall in line or lose cultural relevance? Yes, absolutely.
The church is a hijacker, and perhaps the result, particularly their latest conquest, is a segue to the latter-day ecumenical movement we have been watching for.
paul
John MacArthur: A Squandered Legacy
I woke up this morning to the news that John MacArthur has passed. Here are my thoughts. First, what made him the premier preacher in evangelical circles? Because he went beyond the gospel and preached practical application of the Bible…period. Church, in the tradition of the Reformation, made everything about the gospel. Conflating justification and sanctification was the primary thrust of the Reformation gospel. Clearly, the Reformation redefined the new birth, and made sanctification the progression of justification through the practice of church ritual.
Most born again Christians in the 80s were like me, they had a zeal for living a life that promoted God, his Son, and the Christian life. But, what did we find in church? The gospel, the gospel, the gospel, the gospel, the gospel, and compromise with sin. The 70s and 80s were an evangelical wave produced by the failed spiritual movement of the 60s, otherwise known as the hippie movement or the so-called Age of Aquarius. When that movement failed, churches in the 70s were flooded with new converts, particularly in California where MacArthur’s church was located.
However, understand, that during the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s, churches functioned according to the tradition of the Reformation, particularly the order of service, which reflected progressive justification, but denied its soteriology with a new birth concept that was relatively close to the Bible. Of course, being recreated, and secured forever as a literal child of God would have been appealing to those who experienced the spirituality of the 60s. Consequently, sanctification was seen as being chosen out of the free will of a changed heart, and church was a primary help for doing that; it was a place where zealous believers went to encourage each other unto good works. But, this was definitely NOT the ecclesiology or soteriology of the Reformation. More than likely, the confusion occurred during a time of independent/individual interpretation after the Revolutionary war. Fact is, Reformation theology as expressed by the Puritans in the colonies, and the tyranny thereof, was a major factor in igniting the Revolutionary war.
That was the landscape. Churches functioned according to Reformation theology, but intellectually, believed more like the Quakers, whom the Puritans hated, and routinley hanged, burned, and drowned whether men, women, or children. The mix resulted in an overemphasis on the gospel and the Bible being taught according to generalities and cliches. Furthermore, anemic sanctification led to the church looking like the world. MacArthur’s leadership was different. During the 80s, it was common for people to pick up roots and move to LA in order to be a member of MacArthur’s church. I almost did it myself. Single people, and even some families, just packed up their stuff and drove to LA without a place to live or a job, and just showed up at MacArthur’s church. Why? Hunger for practical application of the Bible.
In the 90s, the New Calvinism movement came calling. Why MacArthur capitulated to spiritual misfits like John Piper is yet a mystery to me. However, before then, MacArthur did show signs of being confused like the time he put a disciple of Larry Crabb in charge of biblical counseling at his church. That was a big head-scratcher for me.
Here, apparently, is what MacArthur didn’t understand: his congregation would have followed him regardless of anything; that’s how it works. In fact, if he hadn’t jumped on the New Calvinist bandwagon, I think the 80s would have repeated itself and his ministry would have been a refuge for escape from the spiritual herd mentality that church is famous for. Plenty of churchians wanted to flee the New Calvinism movement, but truly had no place to run. This is no surprise because the evangelical church was already primed for takeover because of its order of service that had never changed. And, even though he only had the gospel half right, I think he would have entered heaven as the most relavant church teacher since the apostle Paul.
But he capitulated. He let New Calvinism, which is a return to the original Reformation gospel of progressive justification, steal his full reward. In other words, they talked him into adapting the same everything-gospel preaching that people fled during the 80s to find refuge at his church. With that said, I don’t think God sends people to an eternal hell for being confused. Yes, I do believe that motives matter, and there is no doubt his motives were honorable. I believe he truly loved God with all of his heart, mind, and soul, and we will meet with him in heaven.
But like the Bible states, bad company corrupts good manners, and obviously, right thinking.
paul
Why the Whole Predestination Debate is Stupid and Shameful
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
Come Out From Among Them and Be Separate
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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment