TANC 2015, Andy Young – Session 3: The Believer’s Identity
This is session 3. We’ve been challenging presuppositions regarding a believer’s identity, especially this notion that believers are sinners. That’s what we hear most often in just about every Christian circle, in just about every church you go to around the world. The emphasis that we are sinners. That because we are sinners we still need a savior. And of course this particular emphasis flows right out of the reformation. This was taught by Calvin and Luther, this idea that believers don’t change, that they are still under law, that they are still in need of daily salvation. We have a term for that, it’s called progressive justification. And whether people want to admit it or not, anyone who echoes these kinds of sentiments – and this is just one indication of the kind of theological ignorance that exists among believers, they are actually espousing a progressive justification viewpoint with these kinds of statements.
So we’re trying to reverse the damage that has been done to the spiritual psyche of the believer as a result of years and years of having this mantra constantly pounded into our heads. You are a sinner, you are a sinner, you are not perfect, you are totally depraved, your righteousness is filthy rags. We need to stop telling ourselves these things, and we need to change the narrative and look at what the Bible actually has to say in this regard.
Session 1 was devoted to our identity with respect to the new birth. What that actually means to be born again, and why that is important. And then in session 2 we explored the contrast between the old and the new, and we saw how that the “New Man” is actually a reference to the one spiritual body that was made up of people from every nation and status in the world. How we are no longer identified as either Jew or Greek, etc…and we become part of this New Man, the Body of Christ.
So now in this last session on the believer’s identity, I want to take a look at a few more ways that the scriptures refer to believers. And these won’t spend as long as we did on the first two, so we should be able to run through these rather quickly, but that doesn’t make them any less important. Each one of these is a critical part of our identity as believers.
So the Bible says the believer is born again, he is a new creature, he is part of the New Man, the Body of Christ. What else is he?
A saint
How is that for a title? Did you know you’re a saint? Now here is a word that couldn’t be any farther opposite from sinner! Do you know how many times believers are referred to as sinners? I could probably point to no more than maybe 5 at most. And even in those instances it is always in the past tense. Do you realize the frequency that believers are referred to as saints? 62 times in the NT, believers are referred to as saints. 62 times! I’m not going to show you all of them, but here are a few select. You’ll see that in just about every epistle the believers are addressed as saints in the salutation.
Romans 1:7 “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
1Corinthians 1:2 “Unto the assembly of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:”
Ephesians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:”
Romans 15:25-26 “But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. 26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.”
Ephesians 4:12 “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:”
And we could go on and on and on. Believers are saints. Now, as if that wasn’t exciting enough, take a look at this word in the Greek. Do you know what the word saint is in the Greek?
αγιος (hag-ee-oss) – “Holy”
Look at that. Holy. In each of the 62 instances it is this word for holy. That means you could go through each instance, 62 times in the NT, and replace the word saint with holy, or holy ones. The Bible calls believers “holy ones”. You are holy. Did you know that? You are not a sinner, you are holy! You are a holy one.
Now if any of you watching online now or maybe later on when this is archived, if you tuned in last year for the conference you will remember I talked about Sanctification. And in my first session last year I walked us through scripture and we were able to derive a truly biblical, meaningful definition of this word holy? Does anyone remember what we came up with? If you don’t remember or if you didn’t tune in for that session, here is the definition we came up with for holy.
Holy – a place or thing which is distinct from that which is common, ordinary, or just like everything else. (profane)
And as we worked through our understanding of this word we discovered that the opposite of holiness was not sinfulness, but profane. And profane in the Biblical sense has to do with this idea of being common, or ordinary, or just like everything else. So, while it is true that believers are not sinners – we’ve already established that through the new birth – we have a special status. We are holy. We are distinct from that which is profane. We are not common, we are not just like everybody else. Some people like to use the term “set apart” as a means of understanding our sanctification, and that’s a good way to look at it because it encompasses this notion of being distinct. Setting something apart makes it distinct.
So this takes us back to the sanctification issue that I talked about last year. And I think it begs the question, if we are saints, if we are holy, if we are distinct, ought we to not act like it? And I don’t mean we go around casting judgment on others and act like we are better than everyone else. But if we are in fact holy, don’t you think our behavior should reflect that holiness? See, we don’t let our behavior define who we are, but rather I think it’s the other way around, who we are should manifest itself in our behavior. And you can think back to our last session on the New Man, were we had this contrast between behaviors that characterized the old man, like lying and arguing and licentiousness, and behaviors that characterize the New Man, loving each other, caring for each other, and so on. And you see the motivation for this is love. This has to do with love for the law and keeping the law. Not for justification, but because we love our Father and we love others, so we use the law in this way, we keep the law out of a motivation of love. And this is the reality of what it means to be a saint; to be a holy one.
So believer’s are saints. What else are we? How does the Bible refer to believers?
Oh I love this one.
A child of God
I know I have a lot of references here, but can we just take the time to read through these. It’s such a good reminder, and it’s such a blessing!
Romans 8:14 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
Romans 8:16-17 “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”
Romans 9:26 “And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”
2 Corinthians 6:18 “And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
Galatians 3:26 “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 4:6 “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” (daddy reference)
Ephesians 1:5 “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will”
Ephesians 5:1 “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;”
1 Thessalonians 5:5 “Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.”
1 John 3:1-2 “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God… 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God…”
And of course this goes right back to all the things we talked about in session 1. How is it that we are children of God? We are children by virtue of the new birth. Do you see how significant the new birth is?
Being born again, being born of the spirit is being born of God. Where God is your Father, and you are His child. If you deny the new birth, you deny your identity as a child of God and you forfeit all the rights that go with that as being sons.
Now there’s a lot more that can be said about the significance of being a child of God. You saw the reference about being an adopted child. Now an adopted child is what, one who was not born to the parents who have legal custody of him, right? So I don’t want us to misunderstand when Paul uses this terms referring to adopted children. The new birth is a reality. We are born of God in every sense of that word. The new birth is an actual birth. It is not something that we have already that God then accepts as His own and reforms it.
What Paul is referring to here to the Ephesians has to do with the relationship to Israel. There was always this distinction between promises made to Israel that will be fulfilled with Israel, and how Israel would always have a claim to the promises and covenants that God made to her children. And since the Gentiles were not part of Israel, what happens when a Gentile believes is that he is then made part of Israel, adopted in that sense, and so he then has access to those same promises by rights as an adopted child. He said this also in Galatians that those who come to faith in Christ are considered the children of Abraham, adopted into the promises made to Israel. And he elaborates on this even further in Romans. So I want you to understand that this notion of adoption is a reference to being included with Israel in the promises and does not contradict the reality of the new birth.
There is another significance to being a child of God. Let me ask you something. Those of you who have children, when your children disobey you, do they stop being your children? When your child fails somehow, does he stop being your child? Or when your child grows up and starts his own family, even though he is no longer under your roof, does he stop being your child? Does your child ever stop being your child? No, and so from this we begin to understand this doctrine of eternal security. You want to know why you can never lose your salvation? Because you are a child of God. God never disowns you. You can’t be unborn into His family.
Now of course we know of instances where our children may not want to be a part of our family. They may run off and not act like our child. But they are still our child. There is some aspect of this to be found in the parable of the prodigal son. Now I understand that the main purpose of that parable was to draw a contrast between the Pharisees and the other religious leaders and the remainder of Israel, and that Israel was like a lost son who had run away from his Father. Jesus said he came to save the lost children of Israel. And so there is this picture of God calling out to his lost children to come home to him. But if you notice something else in that story, the prodigal son never stopped being a son. The Father looked for him every day to come home. He was ready to bestow upon him the riches that were there for him. And so in that sense there are sometimes believers who wander away and don’t act like sons, but they never stop being sons.
And I kind of touched on another point there; this thing about being a child has other significance too that I will get to in a moment. But before we get to that, along with being a child of God is this next point.
A brother of Christ
This one might be a little controversial because it’s not something that you here brought up much if at all. But I think it is a reality that is taught in scripture. Scripture doesn’t say much about Christ being our brother, but there are a few passages that reference it. Let’s start with this.
Matthew 12:46-50
“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
Alright, so what exactly is Jesus saying here? Let’s first understand that when we read the word “disciples” in any of the synoptic gospels that it’s not just a reference to the 12 disciples. It is clear if you read the gospels that Jesus had a lot more disciples or learners that just Peter, Andrew, James, John, and the rest. Whenever the writer wants to make this distinction he usually refers to them as “the twelve”. But whenever we see the generic reference “disciples” that’s a reference to all of them. And this was a number that reached into the hundreds at times.
So among these disciples following Jesus, are any of them his mother? No. So it’s easy to assume that when Jesus makes this statement in verse 49 that it is not a literal reference to his physical earthly family. Not only that, but Jesus Himself states very plainly what he means by his statement. He explains it. Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. We all have people in our lives that we regard as family who are not literally a part of our family. I have a very good relationship with my wife’s parents, and I regard them as my mother and father ever though they did not give birth to me. I even call them Mom and Dad. That’s the kind of relationship we have. That is how close we are. You may have a best friend who you think of more as a brother or sister than simply a friend. And of course this has to do with the nature of your relationship with them.
So the point Jesus is making in this statement has to do with how He views His relationship with those who do the will of the Father. He views them as family. Now by extension, we can take this one step further. When we consider the reality of the new birth, that those who do the will of the Father are those who are born again, then in reality, we are then literally part of God’s family, including the Son, Jesus. So as far as God’s family is concerned, we are all brothers and sisters, and that would include Jesus. We can be considered as brothers and sisters of Christ. And I believe in this passage here in Matthew, that is exactly what Jesus is talking about. But what else does scripture have to say about this family relationship we have with Jesus?
Romans 8:29
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
I’ve underlined the key phrase in that verse. If you study the grammatical structure of that verse, “firstborn among many brethren” is speaking of the Son. And the preposition “among” is inclusive. It indicates inclusiveness. If you are among something you are part of it. If you are among the crowd you are included in the crowd. What Paul says here is that there are many brethren, and Jesus is one of them, more than that, he’s the oldest. He is the firstborn. And if we think back to our study of the Body of Christ, the New Man, His right as firstborn makes Him the Head. How is it that Jesus is firstborn? He was the first resurrected following the ending of the law. And as such, each believer, by virtue of the new birth is resurrected just like Christ, we are born anew, as new creature that is not under law. A new creature that is also a child of God. And if we are a child of God, and Jesus is the Son of God, that makes Jesus our brother. Our oldest brother, our firstborn brother. We see this same idea expressed here as well.
Colossians 1:18
“And he is the head of the body, the assembly: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence”
Here again is that reference to Jesus being the firstborn, and His right as firstborn to be the Head of the Body. If any of you out there are an only child and have always wanted a brother or a sister, think about what a wonderful reality it is to know that you are now part of a family full of brothers and sisters, and the God of Heaven is your Father. And because of that, Jesus, the King of Kings, is your brother!
Now we’re talking about brothers and sisters and families, and I want to jump back to another point I alluded to earlier when we were talking about being a child of God. I mentioned how that being a child of God has another significance to it. As the Son of God, Jesus was entitled to certain privileges. As the firstborn, He is made Head of the Body. We have certain privileges as well, since we are also children of God because of the new birth.
Because of the new birth, the believer is an heir to the Kingdom of God.
An heir to the Kingdom
And this is the last point I have about a believer’s identity. An heir to the Kingdom! Take a look at some of these passages
Romans 8:17
“And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” Here’s another reference that alludes to Jesus being our brother. We are joint heirs with Christ.
Galatians 3:29
“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Being born again makes us part of Abraham’s children and eligible to participate in the promises and covenants made to Israel.
Titus 3:7
“That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
James 2:5
“Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?”
Of course when you talk about being an heir to something that means that there is an inheritance waiting for you.
Inheritance
Ephesians 1:14
“Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.”
This is talking about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is an earnest payment. Like a down payment. A good faith payment that there will be a full payment coming at a later time. The Holy Spirit is a part of our inheritance given to us now as an indication of a promise of more that is to come later.
Ephesians 1:18
“The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,”
Colossians 1:12
“Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:”
Colossians 3:24
“Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.”
1 Peter 1:3-4
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,”
And there are several things that are in view here with regard to inheritance, eternal life not the least of them. An incorruptible body, eternal fellowship with the Father. We don’t really know what we will be doing for eternity, but we know for certain that there is a Kingdom that awaits us. This is what Jesus came to earth to offer. You may have heard pastors say, what did Jesus preach? What was His message? And they’ll say He preached the gospel. We need to preach the gospel. Well what gospel? The word for gospel simply means a good message. Any good message is the gospel. The word for evangelist is literally “good messager” To evangelize means to “good message” someone. To deliver a good message. To deliver the gospel. But what gospel?
When you go back and read through the NT, if you study carefully, what you will notice consistently is that when a reference is made to the gospel, it is consistently referred to as the gospel of the Kingdom. When Jesus is introduced in the gospels, when His ministry first starts, it says he was preaching the gospel of the Kingdom. The apostles preached the gospel of the Kingdom. This is what we have to offer people when we tell them about Christ. He came to offer a Kingdom. And your ticket into the Kingdom is the new birth through faith in Christ. The new birth makes you a child of God. As His child you have an inheritance waiting for you. You have the right to everything that the Father owns. He bestows it upon you.
One day, this old heaven and earth are going to melt away with a fervent heat. And in their place will be a new heaven and a new earth. And the City of God, the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven and come down upon this new earth. And God will make His tabernacle with man. God will dwell with man forever and ever. This is the city that Abraham looked for. A city not made with hands, whose builder and maker is God. And we will dwell there with the Father. This is what we have to look forward to! This is our inheritance as believers.
I hope that at the end of this study you have a better understanding of just who we are. We are not sinners. We are not totally depraved, unrighteous, wretched people. We are new creatures. We are born again. We are part of the New Man with Christ as the Head. We are God’s children. Son’s and Daughters of the heavenly Father. We a part of God’s family with Jesus as our brother, joint heirs with Him in a heavenly inheritance that awaits us. This is the blessed hope that Paul spoke of. Not hope as in a wishful thinking. This is a hope that is a joyful anticipation of something that is assured. As believers, this is the way we need to be thinking. We need to be aware of just who we are. This is knowledge that empowers us and affects everything we do in life. We go into the world armed with this knowledge, think of how much more effective our witness and our testimony is to those we’re trying to reach with the gospel. Think of how much better our own lives will be. We focus on the good instead of evil. We don’t rejoice in iniquity.
And I could go on and on here, but I hope you get the point. And I think that might be a good way to wrap up this session, by opening things up to you out there, and let me ask you, how do you apply this to your life? What does this mean for you personally? How does this affect you? What ways does this make you think differently? I leave you with these questions, so please feel free to answer and share with us any thoughts you might have.
Podcast link: listen or download audio file.
TANC 2015: Paul Dohse Session 1 – Introduction to Biblicism
Session 1: Introduction to Biblicism
Who do we think we are? Why would Western culture be immune from populous deception? In fact, history, even recent history reveals the dangers of collective logic whether by tradition or some sort of neo-movement. Moreover, examples of bad fruit coming from collective logic can be taken from the best of what Western culture has to offer.
There is one constant that shapes culture; change occurs as a result of bad fruit. The collective pain threshold begins to surpass the threshold of life value. Society then becomes split into two types of people: those with new ideas and those willing to listen.
Tyranny has always been a foolish endeavor by virtue of God’s design of things. The reason is simple: the people always outnumber the rulers, and the rulers need people to have a government, and you can only kill so many people. This is why controlling the way people think is so important; this taps into the human resource without killing the donor.
From the cradle of society, caste was the norm. Unfortunately, the consensus had always been that bad fruit had nothing to do with the system, but only those running it. The American experiment was the first successful challenge to collectivism. The definition of the words and the understanding of them are a matter of life and death on a massive scale. For example, “individualism” does not exclude cooperation and organization for the common good, but rather, asks who will determine what the common good is and how one reaches that conclusion. The assumption that individualism leads to societal chaos has in fact produced chaos in incomprehensible proportions.
Once again, history is repeating itself in many ways, but the particular aspect that TANC focuses on is Protestantism. Once again, fruit demands reevaluation because of the threshold of pain. But this time of historical reevaluation is utterly unique because it is post American Revolution. For the first time in over 500 years, Protestantism faces a reevaluation without the force of state at its disposal.
Nevertheless, Protestantism has done its job well. It yet has no fear of replacement because those who have given up on it believe there is no alternative. Hence, its utter failure has produced no competitors. The Nones and the Dones are just that, none and done. Yet, lest Protestantism would break from protocol and show mercy to its detractors, the Nones and the Dones are declared damned to hell on their way out to the wilderness of hopelessness because being a member in good standing in the institutional church is synonymous with loving Christ and being a legitimate part of His body.
We at TANC reject such an arrogant notion with extreme prejudice, and believe we understand a legitimate alternative—a return to the assembly of Christ and its priesthood of believers. A return to individual gifts, not spiritual collectivism; fellowship, not membership; leadership, not dictatorship; organization, not institutionalization; not many masters, but only one; a body, not a corporation, and finally, freedom of conscience. Individual saints with one word, one Lord, and one body. It’s a body, not a spiritual caste system, and we have but one mediator—the Lord Jesus Christ.
Biblicism
The alternative to Protestant orthodoxy is Biblicism. What is it? Let’s begin with a definition from Wikipedia. This is by far the best definition of Biblicism that I have ever found, and unfortunately listed under an alternative name for Biblicism, “Biblical Literalism.” And, as rightfully noted by Wikipedia, often used as a pejorative. Don’t you know, any Biblicist that has read Matthew 5:30 has cut off his right hand or feels guilty that he hasn’t. Let’s examine the definition:
Alternatively, the term can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).
Let me add that Biblicism starts with literalism and the plain sense of the text first, and then utilizes the elements of the historical-grammatical methods as needed to make the rendering consistent with the rest of Scripture. As one person has said, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Let me also add that Biblicists would normally be impressed with a method of interpretation known as Occam’s razor. Again, we are indebted to Wiki for a definition:
…a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
In context of the lay person, learning is a jigsaw puzzle. I want to use this example of a jigsaw puzzle that is a map of Xenia, Ohio. Let’s say the map, to the degree that it is fitted together, represents knowledge of Xenia. Until the puzzle is completely fitted together with all of the pieces, what do we do with the pieces that we can’t get to fit into the map presently? Answer: we lay those pieces aside for the time being. Dear layman, you don’t need the scholars. In fact, please remember that we live in the Information Age. Study to show yourself approved as a “workman.”
As a parenthesis regarding interpretation, let me offer all the proof you need to know that every verse of Scripture must be interpreted in context of justification or sanctification; Christians, throughout the New Testament, are referred to as “workman.” If justification is not a finished work, the fact that we are participants in it is unavoidable, either by direct participation or intentional non-participation. Intentional non-participation is doing something. If justification is not a finished work, invariably, religious formulas for work works and faith alone works emerge. The problem here is evident: if you can lose your salvation, what do you have to do, or not do, in order to keep it?
The Dirty Little Secret
What we are talking about here is deductive/inductive study of the Bible that begins with the presupposition that man is able to reason. Here is where we must stop and state a huge historical fact in this matter that is irrefutable. Historically, there have only been two schools of thought on Bible interpretation: the historical-grammatical method, and the historical-redemptive method.
But please, if you don’t take anything else away from this first session, please know the dirty little secret in all of this: these are ALSO two different ways of interpreting reality itself. Listen: the Protestant Reformers started first with their interpretation of reality, and then extrapolated that method onto the Bible as well.
If you have been following our TANC series on the first and foundational doctrinal statement of the Reformation, the Heidelberg Disputation, you know that Martin Luther laid the foundations in that document for the historical-redemptive method of interpreting reality and consequently the Bible as well. Luther believed that all of reality is a redemptive metaphysical narrative written by God. Look out the window right now. See that car driving down the street? The only reason that just happened is because God wrote it into the script of the metaphysical narrative, what many of the Reformed call the “divine drama.” Reality is nothing but a story written by God.
Hence, salvation is only an ability to perceive or “see” the story. The unregenerate are defined by those who think they have ANY measure of freewill. To have freewill is the ability to write your own reality. Luther’s assessment of freewill is therefore called “the glory story of man.” Either one confesses that God wrote the story of history and reality, or man is foolishly trying to write his own reality.
Luther received this idea primarily from Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory, established the Protestant Reformation with its premise, and John Calvin later articulated its supposed life application in the Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion. It called for a repeat of our spiritual baptism throughout the Christian life by progressively seeing/perceiving two things: the depravity of man and the holiness of God. Plunging the depths of our sinfulness supposedly brings about humbleness and self-death resulting in a resurrection of joy regarding our original salvation. Therefore, the joy of our salvation is progressively increased throughout our Christian lives regardless of circumstance. In fact, tragedy only facilitates our ability to see our depravity and the judgement that we deserve. Tragedy is merely a part of God’s prewritten gospel narrative.
Consequently, Spirit baptism is not a onetime event, but is repeated throughout our Christian life. The Bible has one purpose and one purpose only: to aid the “believer” in continually revisiting salvation and the perpetual revisiting of Spirit baptism. This is an official Protestant doctrine called mortification and vivification. Several Protestant organizations use the chart below to illustrate this doctrine and the historical-redemptive use of the Bible:
Therefore, God uses circumstances and the Bible to help us in the downward trajectory illustrated by this chart. A contrary perspective on reality is illustrated by another chart widely published by Protestant organizations:
What is behind the popularity of this worldview? Simply, an ability to live a carefree life without fear of unknown circumstances (with the only exception being your eternal destiny). We all know that investing in life can set us up for enhanced disappointments and suffering. This is a worldview that completely separates us from the responsibilities of life and its suffering. Don’t worry, be happy, it’s a just a divine video tape anyway, and what will be, will be. If one of your loved ones dies tragically, don’t sweat it, it’s just part of God’s divine drama prewritten before the foundation of the earth. Besides, God is using this to make the gospel bigger and you smaller. Listen, even Protestants who don’t get this function according to the same worldview: “It’s God’s will.” “I didn’t do it! God did it!” “We are all just sinners saved by grace.” All of these Protestant truisms fit the downward trajectory of the above cross chart.
As far as Biblicism, there is a huge pushback against it. A focal point of the pushback is a book written by Protestant turned Catholic Prof. Christian Smith titled, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. I must credit the Christian Research Institute with the following review of the book which is endorsed by many evangelical heavyweights such as Rachel Held Evans, and will help us further define Biblicism:
Smith asserts that biblicism is the constellation of ten different assumptions or beliefs: (1) The words of the Bible are identical with God’s words written inerrantly in human language. (2) The Bible represents the totality of God’s will for humanity. (3) The divine will for all issues relevant to Christian life is contained in the Bible. (4) Any reasonable person can correctly understand the plain meaning of the text. (5) The way to understand the Bible is to look at the obvious, literal sense. (6) The Bible can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, or historic church traditions. (7) The Bible possesses internal harmony and consistency. (8) The Bible is universally applicable for all Christians. (9) All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned through inductive Bible study. (10) The Bible is a kind of handbook or textbook for Christian faith and practice.
While some evangelicals may downplay or deny some of these points, Smith suggests as long as you hold to some of these points, you are still a biblicist (pp. 4–5).
Before we address these points for a clearer understanding of what Biblicism is, it shouldn’t surprise us that the only alternative in the book is the Christocentric hermeneutic which is the same thing as the historical-redemptive hermeneutic. It sees the gospel or Jesus in every verse of the Bible as a result of interpreting reality itself through the suffering of the cross. It should be noted that this hermeneutic is crossing over into Catholicism as well.
(1) The words of the Bible are identical with God’s words written inerrantly in human language.
A Biblicist believes no such thing. God used fallible humans to write the Bible over 1600 years in many different languages. Because Christ warned that there would be serious consequences for tampering with God’s word, we can assume many have in fact tampered with it.
The key follows: the Bible is God’s statement on being including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. The Bible is not without error in the transmission of these truths, but none of the truths are lost due to God’s oversight and assistance. Included is the way that the Bible was written, or its overall structure of checks and balances. As the “workman” studies to show himself approved, God’s principles become more and more apparent.
(2) The Bible represents the totality of God’s will for humanity.
This point is vague, but one assumes it speaks to the accusation that Biblicists believe the Bible speaks to every detail of life like how to fix our cars etc. While the notion is absurd, the Bible does tell us what kind of car-fixer we should be—not the details of a how-to-manual. The Bible is a manual for how we should love God and others, so while it does not give specific instructions on how to fix our wife’s Toyota, it does convey a principle of love that would prevent us from taking shortcuts on safety issues in order to save money. If it’s our wife’s car, we don’t repair the brake lines with duct tape, etc.
(3) The divine will for all issues relevant to Christian life is contained in the Bible.
This is true, and the reason for the contention is evident: the sole purpose of the Bible should be to show us how wicked we are, not instruction on loving God and others.
(4) Any reasonable person can correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.
True, with the exclusion of the straw man argument that the meaning in every text is always “plain.” The Bible states that individual study is required, and acknowledges that obtaining understanding can be difficult work.
(5) The way to understand the Bible is to look at the obvious, literal sense.
This is true as the primary organizing principle, but gain, the straw man is the assertion that Biblicists believe this is true of every verse.
(6) The Bible can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, or historic church traditions.
This is absolutely true because Biblicism rejects spiritual caste systems of all kinds. Teachers are a help, they are a gift to the church for purposes of equipping, NOT an office. But when it gets right down to it, in context of the apostle John addressing the Gnosticism that was wreaking havoc on the 1st century church, he stated, “You have no need for anyone to teach you.” Biblicism is predicated on collective individualism, not group-think overseen by an elite class of those who supposedly possess the “gnosis.”
(7) The Bible possesses internal harmony and consistency.
Absolutely. Again, the complexities of the Bible are used to argue against human reason as a valid epistemology for reasons of selling a redemptive interpretation of all reality.
(8) The Bible is universally applicable for all Christians.
Sure it is. Loving God and others pertains to principles that are universal.
(9) All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned through inductive Bible study.
In regard to loving God and others, absolutely.
Note the continual distinction being made between love and law. There is a specific reason for that which we will see more of later.
(10) The Bible is a kind of handbook or textbook for Christian faith and practice.
The word “practice” factors in huge here. As previously noted, Protestantism defines salvation as an ability to see/perceive/experience APART from practice. Therefore, the Christocentric approach to interpretation of reality, and consequently the Bible as well, will reject any practice by man to be of any value to God. Therefore, the sole purpose of the Bible is to aid mankind is seeing that all righteousness is an alien righteousness completely outside of man.
So, this is an introduction to Biblicism. In the next session, we will look at the Biblicist gospel, its evaluation of law/gospel, the nature of God, the nature of man, evangelism, and the nature of sin. In the fourth session, we will examine Protestantism and the extreme contrast that it presents. I will conclude this first session with a few more principles of interpretation:
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.
Two basic interpretative principles can be drawn from these verses. First, some things we cannot know, but what we can know we are responsible for. Second, we have no need for interpretive mediators between us and God. There is only ONE mediator between God and man—Christ.
Is America a Christian Nation? Dissecting the Worldview
Originally aired January 31, 2015
Tonight we are discussing the question, “Is America a Christian nation?” Is America a Christian nation? The fact that the question is trending really should alarm us. The fact that the very question is trending is an open display of the average Christian’s errant view of history and really reality itself. Because of Protestant tradition, most Christians have a completely bogus worldview. Nevertheless, we will answer the question biblically tonight. We will present a truly biblical worldview. We’re not going to spend a lot of time on that. I’m going to present what I think is the biblical worldview at the end of the presentation reading from Romans Chapter [UNINTELLIGIBLE 0:03:35]. Really another way you could ask it is, “How should true Christians process reality itself?”
Well, where to start? First, let’s start with defining what a Christian is. Christian is one of those generic words that we kind of throw around, right? We are going to stop here and ask why that is. Why do we just kind of – are able to throw around these words like Christian, Gospel and so on and so forth? And we need to look at that because it speaks hugely to the point at hand here. How can we have this conversation without a definitive understanding of what the word Christian means? This question is discussed on radio and other venues, that is, the question of “Are we a Christian nation?” America, that is. The question is discussed on radio and other venues comfortably while crossing every line between everything and the kitchen sink that calls itself Christian, and nobody blinks. How can this happen? Well, here’s how. Because all stripes under the nomenclature of Christian define the word this way. You ready? Not secular. That’s the definition of Christianity, not secular.
So during the day when Christian soccer moms are running the home base and listening to this discussion on the radio via the Janet Mefferd Show or whatever, it can be Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Unitarian or whatever. To all of them, the word Christian in this context means the same thing: not secular. Yes. While this subject is being discussed, all theological differences can be put away because all of these parties have one thing in common. They believe in God in one way or the other. For the time being, they are united against the greater evil, the secular, the big S, those who don’t believe in God. And as we know, the godless have been out to destroy the godly since the beginning of time, us against them. Yes, as we think, the primary nemesis of the Church has been all of those secular people who don’t believe in God. And on the other hand, you could also say their definition of secular are those who don’t believe in God. Usually, more times than not, it’s just equated with atheism. Secular equals atheism.
This so not human history. Do this. Find one account in human history where a secular government persecuted religion. Well, your answer is probably going to be, “Well, Marxism.” But even if that’s true, even if you could use Marxism as an example, Marxism is a parenthetical historical anomaly really. But let’s look at the notion. Marxism was/is an equal opportunity persecutor when it gets right down to it, that is merely intolerant of different views on how to achieve its utopia. I think it’s fair to say for the most part Marxism doesn’t care what you believe. It primarily believes whether or not you give them any trouble or stand in their way. Those who die under its tyranny usually do so as a result of its policies, not a targeted persecution. Its targeted persecution is usually against dissenters. Even if you find fault with my assessment, remember Marxism is primarily a 19th and 20th century phenomenon. And, by the way, secular governments in general are really a post-American Revolution phenomenon. Before that, church states were the norm, and by church, which is a very handy word with a 5th-century etymology, we mean organized religion. Organized church states were always the norm by and large before the American Revolution, and again, really, the whole secular government thing is kind of a post American Revolution phenomenon.
Okay. So here at TANC, which sponsors this radio show, we are big on defining words because words mean things. “Church” is defined as a religious institution with an authority structure. By and large, all international violence in human history is predicated by religious intolerance. This is a violence that will not even tolerate those who keep their mouths shut and look the other way. This is a violence that goes door to door demanding that you agree with them. This is an intolerance that one day announces that your race has been proclaimed anathema. Have a nice day. Please note the first step kind of sounds like this: Don’t you want a government ruled by godly principles? Of course, you do. Christian good, secular bad. Those who believe in God, good. Those who don’t believe in God, bad. Second step, once they get into power using that ploy, hark! Not all who claim God really believe in God. Then the secular boogeyman that never existed in the first place is now the pseudo-Christian. Let the slaughter begin. That’s history, period. This is the way it always happens.
So this is what we really are asking when we ask if America was founded on Christian principles. Was America founded on belief in God? Was belief in God principal in which the nation was supposed to function? After all, don’t we have money with “In God we trust” printed on it? We have defined what is really behind the trending conversation. I’m going to pause and give a short answer to the question, really longer than I thought it would be, and then develop the first notion. Really, I’m going to first develop more the second notion, that is, what’s behind the trend? I’m going to address the second notion first, actually. What is the true historic answer to the question? Then I’m going to conclude with what a true biblical worldview should be. (more…)
Calvinism and the Problem with Perfection
Originally published November 7, 2013
Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were first and foremost Platonists. They integrated the Bible with Platonism. Plato’s theory of forms posits the idea of two worlds; the mutable material world of illusion where reality can only be partially known, and another world where the immutable objective true forms exist. This material world is a shadow world; everything is shadows of the true forms. Therefore, man can only interpret and experience this world subjectively. The tendency is to interpret reality by observing the shadows. To the degree that mankind thinks the material world is reality according to the five senses, subjectivity and chaos will abound.
Therefore, Plato’s ethic was to improve the subjective experience of this life by accessing the true forms through ideas and mathematics—things that transcend the five senses (he believed math was an unchangeable rule and therefore not part of the shadow world). He believed that those who have the capability and willingness to bring more understanding of the objective into the subjective to be an elite minority. These were Plato’s philosopher kings whom he thought should rule society in order to decrease chaos as much as possible. Without philosopher kings, the world would be awash in a sea of subjectivity, everyone living by their own subjective presuppositions based on the shadows of this world. Hence, the arch enemy of the Platonic ideal is individualism.
Plato’s world of true objective forms was his trinity of the true, good, and beautiful. Experiencing the pure form of goodness in this world is impossible—only a shadow of good can be experienced subjectively. Plato’s social engineering has a doctrine, and to the degree that doctrine is applied, a higher quality of subjective existence occurs.
The Reformers put a slightly different twist on this construct. There is no doctrine to apply, only an orthodoxy that focuses on seeing and experiencing. Their version of Plato’s philosopher kings are pastors who possess the power of the keys. Orthodoxy is mediated truth determined by “Divines,” and passed down to the masses for the purpose of experiencing the objective power of the gospel subjectively. The Reformers made the true forms “the gospel,” and reality itself the gospel, ie., the work and personhood of Jesus Christ in particular.
Therefore, in the same way Plato envisioned a society that experiences the power of the true forms subjectively through ideas and immutable disciplines like mathematics, the Reformers sought a heightened subjective experience through a deeper and deeper knowledge of their own true, good, and beautiful—the gospel. And more specifically, instead of the gateway of understanding being reason, ideas, and immutable disciplines, they made the gospel itself the interpretive prism. So: life, history, the Bible, ie., everything, is a tool for experiencing true reality (the gospel) in a higher quality subjectivity. The Bible and all life events are a gospel hermeneutic. Salvation itself is the interpretive prism. All of reality is about redemption. Salvation itself is the universal hermeneutic.
But both constructs have this in common: Pure goodness and perfection cannot exist objectively in the material world. This is where Calvinism and Platonism kiss. The Bible only agrees with this if it is a “gospel narrative.” But if it is God’s full orbed philosophical statement to all men to be interpreted grammatically and exegetically, contradictions abound. To wit, if man possesses goodness and the ability to interpret reality objectively, Platonism and its Reformed children are found wanting. If Reformation orthodoxy is not evaluated biblically with the very theses of its own orthodoxy as a hermeneutic, even more wantonness is found.
The Apostles rejected Platonism because they believed goodness and perfection could indeed be found in this material world. There is no question of the quality of goodness inside of man that enables mankind to interpret reality objectively, the quantity of goodness notwithstanding. In contrast, a dominate theme in the Calvin Institutes is the idea that no person lost or saved can perform a good work. Like Plato’s geometric hermeneutics, the Reformers believed the Law lends understanding to man’s inability to do good because eternal perfection is the standard. The best of man’s works are tainted with sin to some degree, and therefore imperfect. Even if man could perform one perfect work, one sin makes mankind a violator of the whole law. The Reformers were adamant that no person could do any good work whether saved or lost.
Why all the fuss over this point? Why was Calvin dogmatic about this idea to the point of annoyance? Because he was first and foremost a Platonist. The idea that a pure form of good could be found within mankind was metaphysical heresy. Because such contradicts every page of the Bible, the Reformers’ Platonist theology was made the hermeneutic as well. Instead of the interpretation method producing the theology, they made the theology the method of interpretation. If all of reality is redemptive, it must be interpreted the same way.
For the Platonist, the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh poses a huge problem. He is the truth. He came to the material world in a material body. Platonism became Gnosticism and wreaked havoc on the 1st century church. Notice how the first sentences of 1John are a direct pushback against the Gnosticism of that day:
1John 1:1 – That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
Christ is the true, good, and beautiful, and He was touched, felt, seen, heard, and understood. Game over. This is the paramount melding of Plato’s two worlds resulting in a plenary decimation of his philosophy. Nevertheless, Calvin et al got around that by keeping mankind in a subjective realm while making the material world a gospel hermeneutic. Reality still cannot be understood unless it is interpreted by the gospel—everything else is shadows.
Martin Luther took Plato’s two worlds and made them two stories: our own subjective story, a self “glory story” that leads to a labyrinth of subjectivism, or the “cross story” which is the objective gospel. Luther made Plato’s two worlds two stories, but still, they are two realms: one objective and one subjective. In the final analysis mankind is still incompetent, and void of any good whether saved or lost.
Whether the Reformed gospel or Platonism, the infusion of objective goodness is the heresy. Man cannot have any righteousness in and of himself, whether lost or saved. The pushback against this idea can be seen throughout the New Testament. A few examples follow:
1John 2:4 – Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.
1John 2:20 – But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
1John 2:26 – I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
1John 2:29 – If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.
1John 3:2 – Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears[a] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. 4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
Romans 15:14 – I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another.
Christians can know goodness, and perform righteousness objectively. This speaks to the quality of the righteousness when it is performed—it is perfect and acceptable to God. We are not limited to a mere subjective experience in regard to righteousness. When we are resurrected, the quantity thereafter will be 100%, but our present righteousness is acceptable to God when it is performed by us. If it is accepted by God, it is perfect.
Even the unregenerate know good, and can perform it. The works of the law are written on their hearts, and their consciences either accuse or excuse them (Romans 2:12-15). Though enslaved to unrighteousness, they are free to perform righteousness (Romans 6:20). The very goodness of God can be understood from observing creation as well (Romans 1:20).
The only way the Reformers can make all goodness outside of man is to make the Bible a salvation hermeneutic. It is the only way they could integrate the Bible with their Platonist philosophy.
paul
Elyse Fitzpatrick: The New Red Herring for John MacArthur
Contemporary evangelicalism is so fraught with heresy and confusion one becomes endeared to those who at least have an accurate understanding of their false gospel. It’s so annoying to me that I am no longer interested in converting people who believe in Luther/Calvin progressive justification, but rather long to see them accurately understand what they profess. I dream of a TANC school of Calvinism where Calvinists are taught what Calvin really believed. For graduation they would receive a T shirt that reads, “Now Jonathan Edwards is really my homeboy.”
That’s why I miss Tullian Tchividjian. That is a man that understands Reformation soteriology. It was too much fun watching him drive John MacArthur et al completely nuts with his un-nuanced articulation of Reformed doctrine. But Tullian screwed up; so disappointing.
So who is the new replacement for proving that MacArthur et al stand for something different? Tullian comrade Elyse Fitzpatrick. The likes of Elyse give fodder for the accusation of antinomianism against the authentic Reformation gospel of progressive justification which is in fact antinomianism. Fitzpatrick, like her bro Tullian, lacks nuance and enables people to connect the dots; that’s why she is a threat and must be neutralized.
So, MacArthur’s camp is blogging about Elyse and her involvement in the “Hypergrace movement.” The series is titled “Abusing Grace.” Look, the fact is: they do not believe anything one whit different than Elyse Fitzpatrick. This is all a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Who wants specific citations from the mouth of Mac propagating the exact same gospel contemplationism of progressive justification? His best bro is John Piper who states in no uncertain terms that Christians continue to be saved by returning to the same gospel that saved them. Mac minion Phil Johnson defines saving faith as returning to the cross for a fresh set of downs on the way to the goal posts of final justification. They all believe the same thing.
So, in throwing people off track with their new red herring, they of course falsely accuse Fitzpatrick which gives her opportunity to defend herself without getting to the crux of the issue: she teaches an unfettered Reformed gospel and they don’t. Her defense on Facebook follows:
Well, okay, I’m going to say it again:
Do I care about holiness? Yes.
Do I care about our children being holy? Yes. (Ask ’em.)
It is simply my belief that true holiness grows only in the context of love for God and love for God only grows in the context of being reminded of God’s prior love for us in Christ.
Yes, I talk about grace and the gospel a lot. But it’s because I care about holiness, not because I think sin should abound.
Of course, abounding sin is not the issue; the issue is that Luther, in his foundational doctrinal statement of the Reformation, the Heidelberg Disputation, proffered the following perspective on active sin: it is our only duty to seek more salvation while obedience manifested by God is completely out of our control and really none of our business. MacArthur has said the same thing on several occasions in this way: it is his job to teach Scripture, but it is up to the Holy Spirit to apply it. He has even suggested that Christians sometimes realize they obeyed after the fact because it was the Holy Spirit who applied the truth and not them. The general idea can be understood via this quote from Reformed guru and Christian counselor Bill Baldwin:
Give me a man who preaches the law with its terror and Christ with his sweetness and forgets to preach the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and what will result? In two months his parishioners will be breaking down his door begging to be told what behavior their renewed, bursting with joy, hearts may best produce. And when he tells them, they will be surprised (and he will not) to discover that by and large they have produced exactly that. And where they haven’t, take them back to Christ again that they may contemplate him in all his glorious perfection so that they may better understand what sort of God and man he was and is.
Likewise, MacArthur often propagates the transformation of believers by gazing at the glory of God in the face of Christ which is also John Piper’s “beholding as a way of becoming.”
Be not deceived; it’s all the same stuff. It’s all progressive justification by returning to the same gospel that saved us for more salvation because Christians supposedly need ongoing salvation.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment