Six Characteristics of the Protestant Anti-Gospel
- Progressive Justification. The Protestant Reformation turned every aspect of the true gospel completely upside down. “Justification by faith” is really justification by faith alone in sanctification (the Christian life). What they call “sanctification” is the progression of justification to a final justification.
- Dualism. It deems the flesh (body/members) as inherently evil and something that cannot be indwelled by holiness. The contemporary expression of that is the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. This is based on Martin Luther’s alien righteousness. Therefore, the new birth must be denied along with any personal holiness associated with it. All righteousness must remain completely outside of the believer.
- Law as Justification’s Standard. The Reformers made law the standard for justification (see the Calvin Institutes 3.14.9-11). Therefore, the law has a single dimension and can only judge/condemn. This keeps “Christians” under law (instead of under grace) which is the very definition of a lost person. In contrast, law and justification are mutually exclusive.
- Redefinition of the New Birth. The Reformers made the new birth a change of realm rather than a literal transformation of the person. The “believer” is given the ability to “see” the kingdom, but not participate in its good works.
- Lovelessness. The ability of the Christian to love is circumvented because the law is only a standard for justification and must be kept perfectly to obtain any merit. The Christian is not free to use the law to love without fear of condemnation because the law can’t be kept perfectly by mortals. Hence, any loving act by a Christian cannot have merit.
- Two Seeds Instead of One. Since law is the standard for justification according to the Reformers, if fulfilled, it is a second seed that can give life (Gal 3:16). So, the promise was not only to Abraham and his offspring, but also to the law.
PPT Called Out By Pastor Matt Higgins, and I Totally Accept the Challenge
I have been called out by the pastor of Calvary Heights Baptist Church in Martinsville, IN, and I intend to answer his challenge fully, personally, and expeditiously. In a recent post written by him, two of my articles were cited as examples of “discernment” blogging. For the other bloggers cited, see the endnotes.
Said pastor, Matt Higgins, defines “discernment bloggers” in this way: stalkers (trolls) who partake in witch hunts, and spend all of their time searching the internet for pastorate error to write about. The catchall nomenclature used by these bloggers is “heretic” which is a word Higgins claims they don’t properly understand, yet his corrective definition of “heresy” is something that I will address in this post. Also, according to Higgins, they seek to destroy ministries and force pastors to resign. Furthermore, according to Higgins, discernment bloggers are busybodies who have no right to address heresies taught in local churches they are not members of; they are sticking their noses in other people’s family matters. Moreover, according to Higgins, they are cowards who aren’t accountable to anyone and don’t have to face the pastors they criticize. They “hide behind” their PC monitors. Lastly, Higgins is calling on me to repent along with all other discernment bloggers. All in all, the crux of this probably boils down to his view of elder authority.
Since I do not desire to be a coward, perhaps Higgins and I can meet together along with the elders or deacons at Calvary Heights Baptist Church. Since they pay his salary and have enabled him to falsely accuse me publically on the World Wide Web, maybe I will make the three hour drive out on a sunny Sunday afternoon and confront the whole lot of them. While we are at it, I could make sure the leadership of the church understands what this YRR type really believes. For certain, I am going to make sure the congregants thoroughly understand his soteriology. Trust me, especially in Southern Baptist circles, on average, 90% of a given SBC congregation has no real idea what these guys coming out of Southern or SW really believe.
First of all, let me define for Pastor Higgins what a discernment blogger is and why PPT is not discernment blogging. If he is going to bash discernment bloggers, he should know what one is. A discernment blogger seeks to save the Protestant institutional church from harm and error. I do not believe the Protestant church is worth saving, and I can prove it was founded on the false gospel of progressive justification. I write about pastors to make that point, and could care less how many people follow them and whether or not they remain employed. However, I do believe people should have truthfully informed choices. For example, let’s make sure Higgins’ congregation really knows what he means when he speaks of the new birth just in case there may be a misunderstanding.
Secondly, if Higgins wants to bash discernment bloggers for using the word “heretic” while not knowing what it really means, he should also know what it really means before he criticizes others. The biblical definition of “heretic” follows: it is a person who belongs to a sect that divides with errant doctrine, or “sectarianism,” not the definition Higgins offered in his lame effort to correct others.
This brings to mind some things that his congregation may be interested in. I suppose it’s possible that Higgins may not qualify as a New Calvinist, but from what I gather so far, I seriously doubt it. New Calvinism is a super-sectarian movement that has split innumerable churches and families since 1970 and slowly integrates dictatorship-like leadership into local churches. The present emphasis on church membership and small groups at Calvary Heights Baptist is an all too familiar step to the iron fist control eventually demanded by New Calvinist pastors. Here is a schematic of how it works. Perhaps this is looking familiar to some at Calvary. Ironically, the discernment blog culture that Higgins decries skyrocketed in 2009 as a direct result of the New Calvinist movement which is based on gospel contemplationism and Calvin’s Sabbath Rest salvation whether the New Calvinist label is rejected or not.
Thirdly, notice how criticism of pastors and possible harm to the local church is the bottom line with Higgins and not the substance of the complaints. Why is that? Probably because like most YRR types that come out of Southern or SW, he believes the local church and the body of Christ are synonymous; ie., you’re saved by church membership and submission to “men of God.” Depending on what octane of YRR he is, he may also believe in elder absolution in the form of Calvin’s “power of the keys.” Basically, church discipline, not confined to public sins of the baser sort but rather anything that the elders deem sin, is a process that actually blots you out of the Book of Life upon elder authority.
People being excommunicated for merely asking too many questions is now an epidemic in SBC churches accordingly. If you are at Calvary and feeling pressure to become a formal member, and have not yet signed on the dotted line, you better pause and get educated as to what is going on in the SBC right now.
Note the double standard: Higgins, in the post being addressed here, bemoans discernment bloggers sticking their noses into the business of local churches, but yet, what happens if someone is excommunicated from a local SBC church in a given association? Right, they notify the other churches that the person is under discipline. See the double standard? Heresy charges against teachers who teach publically is a local issue, but grievances against parishioners who commit local sin is public? Really?
Another assertion by Higgins that didn’t make my introductory list is the idea that discernment bloggers claim infallibility. This is just more irony as Higgins argues from the standpoint of the Nicene Creed and Reformed orthodoxy in general. I doubt discernment bloggers claim infallibility, but I know they do reject Al Mohler’s assertion that Reformed elders are preordained of God to save God’s people from ignorance. If someone at Calvary can do it without being brought up on church discipline, they may simply ask Pastor Higgins, “Are you preordained by God to save me from ignorance?” If Higgins denies it, a good follow-up question would be, “So, you completely disagree with Al Mohler on that, right?”
A book could be written here if I addressed every creepy red flag raised by Higgins in his single post, but one may simply take note of his idea that pastors are ONLY accountable to “Christ and Scripture.” Calvary would do well to think about that statement and what it reveals about his mindset.
But my dog in the fight is not my disdain for the run-of-the-mill New Calvinist tyranny running amuck in the SBC (I am perfectly content to let the dead bury their own dead), but that he came into my locale looking for a fight. His parishioners may excuse his bullying and cower under it, but I will not. He has zero authority.
So, is this what Calvary pays him for? To police discernment bloggers?
Dear friends, if he has a problem with discernment bloggers that he doesn’t even know, who apparently have not even talked about him until now, what will become of those at Calvary who dare to express an opinion?
paul
Endnotes:
https://1peter315.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/three-reasons-why-rick-warren-is-a-heretic/
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/is-n-t-wright-wrong-on-jesus/
http://surphside.blogspot.com/2012/01/matt-chandler-is-no-different-than-john.html
http://www.firstplumbline.net/html/francischan.html
https://biblicalconnection.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/quoting-heretics-tim-keller-and-others/
http://www.atruechurch.info/macarthur.html
http://truthwithsnares.org/2012/07/02/ed-stetzer-defends-mystic-francis-of-assisi/
http://www.jesusisprecious.org/wolves/billy_graham.htm
http://defendingcontending.com/2009/11/05/piper-the-slope-to-heresy/
http://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2013/01/wayne-grudems-pneumatology-identifies.html
http://www.onlinebaptist.com/home/topic/18042-reformed-pastors-and-the-kjv/
Calvin’s Double Imputation Voids the Gospel of Promise and the Spirit’s Two-Fold Use of the Law
“Again, we find another major role of the Holy Spirit in regard to the promise: His two-fold use of the law; to condemn, and to sanctify. Calvinism only recognizes ONE use of the law: condemnation which Christians are still under. That’s why Christ needed to be a perfect law-keeper in their minds. But as a result, the Holy Spirit’s ministry is falsely reduced to a single dimension.”
Longtime Protestants would probably agree that among the mass of pithy orthodox truisms they live by, one is conspicuously missing. Even though orthodox truisms often use non-biblical words, this missing truism is actually Bible-specific: “the promise.”
The promise is central to the gospel, but where has it been? So, what is the promise? Let’s find out, and then show why it is antithetical to the Protestant gospel.
Understanding the promise begins with understanding the seed, or offspring of Abraham. The seed is mentioned in Genesis as first coming from Eve, although that could also refer to Mary the mother of Jesus, but the seed is not associated with any salvific covenant until Abraham.
The seed (offspring) then becomes part of the Covenant of Promise, also known as the Abrahamic covenant, but more biblically correct as “the Covenant of Promise.” I am going to pull the whole rabbit out of the hat here as a way to establish the thesis for this post:
God makes a promise to Abraham and the seed. The promise is the coming of the Spirit. The “seed,” singular, is Christ. So, the basics of the Covenant of Promise follow: God reconciled Himself to man by promising Abraham and Christ…the coming of the Spirit. This makes all three members of the Trinity major players in salvation. To emphasize one particular member of the Trinity over another in regard to salvation is heresy; the Father makes the Promise to Christ and Abraham, Christ is the seed, and the Spirit is the fulfillment of the promise. God also elects Christ, angels, and Israel as a means of bringing about the fulfillment of the promise.
The promise is to all men who believe, and saving faith is defined by believing the promise. That’s it; the ONLY thing man can do to be saved is believe the promise. Abraham is the father of our faith because he believed the promise God made to him.
Genesis 15:1 – After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” 2 But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” 4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
Saving faith believes the promise. It is the promise of Christ and the gift of the Spirit. As part of it, God promised Christ that he would be resurrected by the Spirit after bearing the sin of the world. Christ is efficacious to the promise, but is also a recipient of the promise. Let’s look at some Scripture:
Acts 1:4 – And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
“The promise of the Father” is a major step in the unfolding of the Covenant of Promise. Part of it is the baptism of the Spirit. Peter elaborates on this further in his sermon during Pentecost:
Acts 2:22 – Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;
23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:
24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25 For David saith concerning him, I beheld the Lord always before my face; For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; Moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades, Neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou madest known unto me the ways of life; Thou shalt make me full of gladness with thy countenance.
29 Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.
30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne;
31 he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
32 This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.
34 For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?
38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him. (ASV).
First, note that Christ was approved by God, and this approval by God was shown forth to men by “mighty works and wonders and signs” and NOT perfect law-keeping. This should be noted for future reference in regard to Protestant double imputation. Also,
Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.
This promise was to…
Galatians 3:16 – Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
The “promises” in the plural refer to the other covenants that build on the Covenant of Promise to Abraham. The Davidic covenant is hinted at in the afore quoted sermon by Peter. The promises were to Abraham and Christ, and the coming of the Spirit in power is the specific promise. Part of the promise is that Christ would not be left in the grave, but rather:
Romans 8:11 – If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Believing the promise necessarily involves believing what the promise is; it is the promise of eternal life through the means God elected. God promised Abraham that he and Sarah would give birth to an heir even though both were old and Sarah was barren. Abraham would then be the father of a great nation from which all of the other nations on earth would be blessed. In his lineage would be the seed (offspring) that would take away the sins of the world. Christ would die for the sins of the world, and would be raised by the promise of the Spirit. For Abraham’s offspring, viz, his children of faith, that means receiving the promise of the Spirit, or the baptism of the Spirit. This is the new birth—it means you literally die with Christ according to the old you, and are literally resurrected with Christ as a new creature, “you must be born again.”
This is where the Bible takes great pains to emphasize that the law has no part in this whatsoever. The Covenant of Promise is by promise only. Abraham stumbled and attempted to help God out with the planned promise by bearing a son with one of his concubines. God then took opportunity to make the fiasco representative of the law.
Galatians 4:21 – Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
The lineage of Christ would always be according to promise apart from man’s works or efforts. When Rebecca had twins,
Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Normally, the eldest son would be heir.
The right of possession into which the eldest son is born. The first son born to the father occupied a prominent place in the Hebrew family (Gen. xxvii. 19, xxxv. 23, xli. 51, xlix. 3; II Sam. iii. 2). Such a one is the “first-born” in the proper sense, and is to be distinguished from sons who are “first-born” merely in the sense of being the first child born to one of the several wives that men might have (Ex. xiii. 2, 12, xxii. 28; xxxiv. 19; Num. xviii. 15).
The first-born son took rank before his brothers and sisters (Gen. xxvi. 31, 32; xliii. 33). Usually the father bequeathed to him the greater part of the inheritance, except when a favored wife succeeded in obtaining it for one of her sons (Gen. xxvii.; I Kings xi. 11-13).
~ Jewish Encyclopedia
God trumped tradition and decided that the “older would serve the younger” before either had done anything good or bad. Granted, this could have been determined by God because He foreknew the character of the two sons. God did not hate Esau before he or his descendants did anything good or evil, His hatred towards Esau was based on things that he did (Mal 1:1-5, Heb 12:16). Who would serve whom and who would be the heir was predetermined, not a hatred for Esau before he was born. The point of Romans 9 follows: any Jew claiming that the law is part of the promise may be a fleshly offspring of Abraham, but not according to promise. Also, the Jews are still God’s chosen people even though some rebelled; regardless, a remnant of the promise remain.
The apostle Paul makes the point in his letter to the Galatians that if law has anything to do with our inheritance, it is not by promise. The law or any work of man is not even in the ballpark. Salvation comes by believing the promise.
Galatians 3:1 – O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Again, Paul makes the point that Christ was shown to be approved by God through the miracles he performed, not law-keeping. And,
the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
And…
Galatians 3:15 – To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
This is what makes the Reformed view of double imputation a huge problem. It is the idea that God’s law is the standard for righteousness. Supposedly, Christ came to die for our sins (passive obedience), and lived a perfect life to fulfil the law for us. As we have seen, the standard for becoming righteous is believing the promise only. If the law had anything to do at all with the baptism of the Spirit according the promise, the law would be an additional offspring with Christ:
16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
The law is not an additional offspring that can give life—that’s Paul’s point. And it doesn’t matter who keeps the law; i.e. Christ, the issue is law period.
Hence, Calvinists insert law where it doesn’t belong, and then they take it away where it does belong.
Galatians 3:21 – Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
In regard to salvation, there is no law, but all sin is against the law (1Jn 3:4). In this way, every sin committed by man is imputed to the law. Christ then died on the cross to end the law and all of the sin imputed to it (Rom 10:4).
Again, we find another major role of the Holy Spirit in regard to the promise: His two-fold use of the law; to condemn, and to sanctify. Calvinism only recognizes ONE use of the law: condemnation which Christians are still under. That’s why Christ needed to be a perfect law-keeper in their minds (Christ was a perfect keeper of the spirit of the law by virtue of who He was). But as a result, the Holy Spirit’s ministry is falsely reduced to a single dimension. Christians must park at the foot of the cross in order to keep their sins COVERED by the perfect obedience of Christ. They are not free to serve in the new way of the Spirit:
Romans 7:4 – Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
All of the unsaved are still under law, and the Holy Spirit uses that law to warn them of sin and the judgment to come, thereby pointing them to Christ who ended the law for them (Jn 16:8). When they believe, the Spirit baptizes them and uses the law (Scripture, Holy Writ, etc) to sanctify them (Jn 17:17).
Be sure of this: Reformed double imputation rejects the new birth.
All and all, I would say the major emphasis of this post points to the deliberate diminishing of the Holy Spirit’s role in salvation and sanctification. Calvinism is the Galatian problem all over again. It inserts law where it doesn’t belong, viz, as part of the promise (and makes it the gospel’s standard for justification), and takes it away from the new way of the Spirit. There is no law in sanctification because Calvinism keeps “Christians” under the law’s condemnation. Therefore, supposedly, Jesus must keep it for us.
This circumvents the Christian’s ability to fulfill the spirit of the law through loving acts prescribed by the Bible. Those must also be substituted by Christ lest salvation be completed by works because according to the doctrine of double imputation, the standard for justification is perfect law-keeping and not new birth resulting from believing the promise.
The new birth therefore makes us holy priests who use our temple and its members to give living sacrifices to God according to biblical instruction (sanctification). The law is for sanctification, not justification.
paul
Calvinists: Going to Hell and Proud of It
I hear it often, but I think this is the first time I have really parked on it and pondered; this whole thing with Calvinists being proud of the fact that they will “stand in the final judgment with no righteousness of their own.”
PPT logged a comment yesterday from “Frank” that once again proffers this idea with all of the delight of a newborn’s arrival into the world. This is why we should in no wise be surprised that an Adventist theologian rediscovered the real Protestant gospel in 1970 which is predicated on this idea.
The SDA gospel focuses on being able to “stand in the final judgment.” So, the “Christian” life focuses on that; the endeavor of sanctification is to prepare for this one final judgment. For years, the mainline SDA take followed: beginning salvation takes care of past sin, and then the new “believer” labors with the Holy Spirit to become good enough to stand in the final judgment. Some substitution by Christ to achieve perfectionism was involved, but it required the best efforts possible by “believers” in order to warrant Christ topping off the difference with His own righteousness. The doctrine, known as the “investigative judgment” is extremely complex and downright confusing, but what I have stated here is the gist:
While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth.
Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil.
Ellen White ~ The Great Controversy, chapter 24.
The understandable angst among the SDA faithful peaked in the 1950’s which spawned the Progressive Adventist movement. One of the major players in that movement was an Adventist theologian named Robert Brinsmead. Due to his intellectual prowess, he was able to plow through the writings of the Reformers and understand what their take was on the final judgment. Not only that, Brinsmead was, and I assume still is, a master communicator of ideas.
The message he brought to the SDA faithful follows: one is able to stand in the final judgment if they live their Christian life by the same gospel that saved them; i.e., by faith alone. If you do that, Christ will continue to cover you with His righteousness. If you disavow any righteousness of your own, and believe in being covered by the alien righteousness of Christ as depicted in the wearing of a white robe, you will be able to stand in the judgment.
So, let’s be clear: formally, the SDA as a whole advocated a do your best to keep the law and if you do that well enough Christ will completely cleanse you and declare you righteous. Then you will be able to stand in the judgment. What is the problem with that other than its fundamental falsehood? The SDA faithful had no way of knowing until the final judgment whether or not they did that well enough to warrant Christ’s complete cleansing.
Brinsmead traded that for what the Reformers advocated: rather than partaking in the heavy burden of law keeping, if one only lives by faith alone apart from the law, Christ will stand in the judgment for us. The one who lives their Christian life by faith alone will stand in the judgment covered by the righteousness of Christ apart from any righteousness of their own.
This spawned the Awakening movement which turned the SDA completely on its head. But not only that, it also spawned a return to the authentic Reformation gospel by evangelicals worldwide who had drifted away from it through a more literal interpretation of the Bible because literal interpretation is intuitive. In other words, that’s our natural bent.
The Reformers saw the Bible as a tool for continually returning to the same gospel that saved us by faith alone in order to keep oneself covered by the righteousness of Christ, and therefore making one able to stand in the final judgment.
A literal interpretation of the Bible suggests that God’s people are to work in sanctification, or the Christian life. That’s a problem because the Reformers saw the Christian life as the progression of salvation to a final salvation determined at a one, final judgment. Therefore, biblical imperatives must be interpreted in their “gospel context,” viz, God commands us to do things in order to show us we are not able to obey perfectly. Hence, many of the Reformed in our day suggest that a literal interpretation of the Bible is tantamount to works righteousness.
Again, let’s pause for some clarification: The SDA and the Reformers BOTH saw the Christian life as part of salvation culminating in a final determinative judgment. Both define justification, the state required to be saved, as an ability to keep the law perfectly. Both believe that a means of obtaining a perfect law-keeping as something accredited to our account for standing in the final judgment is paramount. The SDA believed that best effort law-keeping resulted in Christ topping off our account at the judgment. The Reformers believed that effortless living by faith alone resulted in being covered by the righteousness of Christ alone at the judgment. For example, John Calvin believed that the Christian life is the Old Testament Sabbath rest.
Luther described the believer’s “triumphant” declaration to God at the final judgment as, we have NO righteousness but Christ’s. This motif was once again echoed by Frank on PPT.
But there is only one problem; the Bible is absolutely clear that ALL of those who will supposedly bark triumphantly at that judgment are already damned by virtue of the fact that they are standing at that judgment. That judgment is called the “second death” in Scripture; all who stand there are already damned. Yet, Calvinists constantly boast that they will stand in that judgment.
Revelation 20:4 – Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
In the Bible, there are multiple resurrections and judgments. Believers, who are already deemed righteous because they are in fact righteous, will be judged for rewards, not righteousness, because they are already righteous. They are resurrected to determine rewards, not righteousness. In the passage cited here, it is obvious that these are two different resurrections and two different judgments. One judgment has multiple thrones, while the other only has one throne and one judge. The latter judgment is the second death, and those who partake in the first resurrection are blessed. And, the latter judgment is identified as the one Calvinists say they will attend because it judges righteousness, and Calvinists, generally speaking, advocate a one judgment only position. Said another way, this is the only judgment they could possibly be talking about because there is only one according to them.
Why do they advocate a one judgment only when there is obviously more than one? Well, because that matches their gospel of beginning salvation, progressive salvation, and final salvation. It also matches the idea that perfect law-keeping is the required standard for being saved. If salvation is a settled issue that takes place for each individual in a moment of time, why would there be a need to finalize salvation at any other time? Also, there is only a future need to judge righteousness if perfect law-keeping remains the standard for Christians. If perfect law-keeping is not a determinative standard for Christians, the judge at the final judgment is without a law in which to judge righteousness. The judgment is without any law to judge.
In contrast, this is the case with the true gospel: the believer is made righteous through the new birth, and the law is ended for righteousness. The new birth is a gift, but like any gift, once you receive it, it belongs to you. This whole “righteousness of our own” business is a red herring. It’s like looking at someone living and besmirching them for believing they have a life of their own because they were born. We are righteous because we have the seed of God within our very being because of the new birth (1Jn 3:9). We still sin because the flesh is weak while our righteous soul is willing. It is sin against our Father, not our righteousness because Christ ended the law for that purpose.
This happened through the new birth. We were once under the law and its power to condemn us. Because we were unregenerate, sin within us used the law to provoke us to sin. When we died with Christ, it was like the death of a spouse—we are no longer obligated to that marriage covenant (law).
Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (Romans 7).
So, we now “serve” in the “new way of the Spirit.” What’s that? That’s sanctification which is the use of Scripture to love God and others (Jn 17:17, Rom 8:4, Rom 8:7, Matt 4:4, Ps 1:1-6, Ps 119). Perfect law-keeping is not the standard for being justified—there is no law in justification, we are justified apart from the law (Rom 3:21). It would be futile for real Christians to stand in a judgment where Calvinists are present, the law they will be judged by doesn’t pertain to us:
Romans 3:19 – Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 4:15 – For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Calvinists say it’s alright to still be under the law because Jesus keeps the law for us if we live by faith alone, and that is the definition of being under grace: we are under grace if we live by faith alone and the perfect obedience of Christ is imputed to our account. But that’s being under law and under grace at the same time; the Bible is clear that we are either under one or the other (Rom 6:14). Calvinism advocates the idea that the unregenerate are only under law, but are under both law and grace if they are saved. Hence, this is why they cannot advocate separate judgments, but only one. If under law and under grace are separate, any judgment regarding law for the believer is an anomaly regardless of who keeps it—the question of perfect law-keeping is the reason for the judgment in the first place.
This is why in fact there is a separate resurrection for the saved: because their judgment concerns rewards, not a just standing that has already been determined. This is why Jesus called it the “resurrection of the just” because they are already just, only their rewards need to be determined:
Luke 14:12 – He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers[b] or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”
Salvation is earned by no one—it is a gift, but rewards are earned by those who are born again. In fact, God would be unjust not to reward them for what they have earned:
Hebrews 6:10 – For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do.
If Calvinists are under grace and not under law, why do they need Jesus to keep the law for them? The only possible reason that they could need Jesus to keep the law for them is if they are still under law. This is why they find themselves at a one final judgment that is the “second death.” That is where they will be judged by a law that has “nothing to say” to the born again.
One can only surmise that when they triumphantly claim that they have no righteousness of their own, God will respond with something like…
“You were never born of me, and those born of me are righteous even as I am righteous. My Son died to end the law for condemnation so that you could obey the law in order to love me and your neighbors. You see me as a hard god that reaps where I have not sown, and now present to me the same gospel that I originally gave. You are a lazy wicked servant and confess that you have no love towards me or others. Now your fear of being righteous is your condemnation.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment