Why is The Church Addicted to Porn?
Some woman has started another church civil war, which occur weekly. To be clear, by “church,” I primarily mean the Protestant church represented by the so-called “reformed” group led by John Piper et al. What used to be refereed to as the “Evangelical church,” is now completely dominated by what can be referred to as the New Calvinism movement, which technically began in 1970. In addition, though “church” primarily refers to mainline Protestantism, it also includes all other churches in a peripheral sense because they all believe the same core doctrine. The constant drama is quarrelling over how to execute the core doctrine, which is progressive justification.
What is progressive justification? Basically, it’s salvation by church. Faithfulness to some church doctrine moves the “salvation process” forward to a favorable end. While Catholic Church doctrine is an overt progressive salvation, Protestantism is more discreet. Basically, progressive justification endorses the idea that salvation is a “process,” rather than a one-time finished work that “seals us until the day of redemption.” Salvific redemption is not to be confused with the redemption of the body. However, church teachers often refer to verses about bodily redemption to make a case for progressive salvation. They also redefine tenses in some verses that refer to salvation as a past event in our lives.
It is our contention that if salvation is a process, and we are alive in the process, works salvation, or what Paul referred to as “justification by the law,” is unavoidable. This would seem rather obvious.
So, all churches believe the same thing about salvation; viz, it’s a process overseen by some church authority, but quarrel about how the process should be conducted. For example, Protestants don’t believe Mary should be part of the process, etc. Then there are truckloads of “secondary” issues like women teaching men. So, some woman named Allie Beth Stuckey, aka “ABS,” spoke at a recent TPUSA event in Louisianna or Mississippi…not sure which, and the online church world is unhinged over it. Her comments seemed to lecture men about being more involved with porn than being strong leaders. At first, this issue saturating the online world perplexed me, after all, TPUSA isn’t a church, per se. Then, after thinking about it―it makes sense, because she hit a nerve.
But first, let’s be clear about how manly leadership is defined in the church. It is defined by men being obedient to celebrity pastors who are spiritual tyrants. Churchian men do not lead their families; they receive marching orders from “godly men who have authority over you” and obediently apply that to their families. This includes what to believe and what to think. So-called “submissive” wives in the church, are for all practical purposes, really married to the elders of the church. Over and over and over again, when church marriages are in trouble, wives defer to the elders, and if they don’t, they are brought up on church discipline. I don’t care to name all of the cases here, but they are myriad. But I will mention this: the book, Family Shepherds: Calling and Equipping Men to Lead Their Homes, written by Voddie Baucham circa 2012, proffers this idea of men being the “under shepherds” of their home in the same way elders are the under shepherds to Christ.
So, really, all ABS was saying is that men need to stop viewing porn and model obedience to the church. I believe the trigger that has instantly made her uber relevant in the church is the mentioning of the whole porn thing.
So, now, let me explain why church men are enslaved to porn: it’s the Protestant gospel of justification by faith. Look, the Bible is crystal clear on this: being under law empowers sin. Paul stated it this way: “The power of sin is the law.” Biblically, being a sinner (the biblical term for being unregenerate), is also being “under law,” which is also being “under condemnation,” and is also being “enslaved to sin.”
In the Protestant gospel of justification by faith, the parishioners are still under law. The standard for justification in Protestantism is perfect law-keeping. Calvin made this absolutely clear. In the Protestant gospel of justification by faith, the parishioner is hopefully on their way to salvation, but is not finally saved until the final judgment. Luther made that absolutely clear, and John Piper apes that continually. Because the parishioner is still under law and subsequent condemnation, they must continually return to the same gospel that saved them for forgiveness from “present sin.” Paul David Tripp’s favorite mantra promotes a “lifestyle of repentance.” These guys continually refer to “Christians” as unregenerate and even “enemies of God.”
You can’t separate under law from slavery to sin. You just can’t. So, you have people under law coming to hear God’s law at church three times a week; what does that do? If we believe the Bible, it empowers sin; it throws gasoline on the fire.
This is primarily why the church is a hot mess. Of course, there are people in the church that have “addictions” because they are enslaved to sin. Of course there is no unity. Of course there is abuse. Of course there is no justice. Of course there are control freaks. Of course there are cover-ups. Of course it is mired in politics. Of course, the cognitive dissonance is over the top. Of course, statistics on porn and divorce are no different than the secular world. Of course…you fill in the blank.
The Bible is also very clear that under law and under grace are two totally separate state of beings. In Protestantism, under grace is a covering for remaining under law. You can’t be both…you are one or the other.
But under grace doesn’t mean there are no standards. However, it is a lifestyle of love, not a lifestyle of repentance. The focus is aggressively loving God and others without fear of condemnation, not being obsessed with violating the law and sin sniffing, and “finding the sin under the sin.” Paul stated that “where there in no law, there is no sin.” Salvation is the end of sin, not the mere covering of sin. “Sinners” don’t get to go to heaven just because their sin is covered, only the righteous inherit the kingdom. The true gospel is not a coverup. And, consequences for sin (better stated, “failure to love” for Christians) is not condemnation, but Fatherly chastisement that is done in love. The church conflates condemnation and chastisement accordingly, as well as many other things.
So, what’s the difference? Well, again, Paul makes this clear, Christians are able to “say no to sin.” No matter how strong the temptation is, a born-again child of God is able to say, “no” and walk away from the sin, which is not love. Due to this “treasure being in earthen vessels,” and the subsequent weakness, we will not always say no, but we can, along with a desire to love God and others, which is bound to show up in our life testimony. “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” NOT ENSLAVED. Those under law are enslaved to sin, and are unable to turn away from it. Let me give you a recent example, Steve Lawson. Look at what he forfeited. That was insane. He had 5 years to do something about the problem, and couldn’t, against all logic and inevitable severe consequences. That’s enslavement to sin. He was unable to say no…for 5 years. In 2016, Susan and I were listening to John Piper speak at a conference and during the Q and A he stated, “Every morning when I wake up sin is clawing at my mind.” I nudged my wife and whispered in her ear, “That’s a good example of being under law.”
Here it is men. Here is how to be free from porn: Don’t be under law. Justification, which is synonymous with being saved, does not come from someone keeping the law perfectly in our place. Who keeps the law is not the issue, the law is the issue because it cannot produce life. The law is not the fourth member of the Trinity. Christ was the perfect sacrifice by virtue of who he is, NOT because he kept the law perfectly. That’s blasphemy. Christ did not come to empower sin, he came to end it. He is the “end of the law for all those who believe.” He is the manifestation of righteousness, “apart from the law.”
We are justified by new birth, not perfect law-keeping…by anyone.
paul
Why the Whole Predestination Debate is Stupid and Shameful
This is a reposting of this morning’s post under a different title to make another point. At this point, whether predestination regarding salvation is true or false is not the point; predestination is argued from a Protestant point of view and Protestantism is a false gospel to begin with. In other words, salvific predestination is fruits from the poisonous tree. Yet, there are Protestant ministries that I assume are financially viable predicated on the whole election issue, which is shameful. It also highlights a primary characteristic of Protestantism: they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Protestants love to debate theology and are addicted to controversies.
When you consider the overt elementary errors of Protestant soteriology, one wonders how there are churches every mile apart on the highways that have $500,000-plus annual budgets. The answer is fairly simple: churches are selling salvation, and what will a person do to save their soul? Answer: anything and everything, including believing whatever is necessary. Once they believe they are part of an institution that will get them into heaven, critical thinking is turned off. And, authority is deemed as a higher power that can be claimed as a free ticket into heaven.
Consider the absurdity. Christ did not appear at any church council to coronate any church as an authority. And, you can buy said authority by obtaining a seminary degree and toeing the institutional line. The Bereans even held Paul to account according to their own personal interpretation of the scriptures. People believe certain men have authority because they say they have authority. What’s up with that?
I would be inclined to judge against salvific predestination because of the source: if Protestantism doesn’t have the gospel right, why would they be right about predestination? It stands to reason that predestination is needed to help make the pieces of their false gospel fit together logically. Protestantism holds to the idea that a person is unable to do any good work. Believing in Christ would be a good work, and therefore, works salvation according to Protestantism. Predestination sort of solves that problem.
Furthermore, if you are born into the family of God and a forever child of God, and nothing can separate you from his love, and have the indwelling Spirit, which teaches you, what do you need church for other than fellowship and encouragement unto good works? This is why Protestantism redefines the new birth: it takes away church authority…plain and simple. Fellowship alone doesn’t pay the bills; it takes raw authority. In addition, one and done salvation (once saved always saved) is bad for reoccurring monthly revenue.
paul
This morning’s post:
Mr. Dohse,
For your consideration:
Romans 6:7 says, were it translated consistently from the Greek, “For he that is dead is JUSTIFIED from sin.” The ASV is one of the few translations that renders the Greek word there the same way–“justified”–as it is rendered everywhere else (about 39 times) in the New Testament. The KJV went off script here, and many others followed its lead.
In the argument of Romans 6, the one who has died with Christ, who has died as the old self he was, is justified from sin according to Romans 6:7.
If one has died with Christ, one is justified from sin.
Galatians 3:21 says that no law was given that could impart life, and that is why righteousness could not come through the law. Put aside for the moment any arguments concerning why the law could not give life–focus on the implication that if there is no new life, there is no righteousness or justification. Because the law had no capacity for imparting new life, the law could not justify or cause a man to be righteous.
If there is no new life, there is no justification.
Putting those verses together, the moment of justification is when God regenerates and transforms a man from being an old self into a new self, at the moment the old self dies and is transformed into or raised again as a new creation, a new spiritual man, this transformation being a gift from God and accomplished by His creative power.
A man is justified in the moment he is born again.
This regeneration is promised to everyone who turns away from any contrary belief to believe instead the Gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
Does that sound about right?
Exactly right. This is what makes justification by faith wrong x 14. First, the born again believer is justified because he/she is righteous as a state of being because of the new birth recreation. We are not merely “declared” righteous, we are righteous. When God looks at us, he sees us, his children. There is no need to see Jesus instead of us, we are his literal children.
Hence, the second point: salvation is NOT a covering of sin, which is atonement, but it is an ending of sin. Shockingly, MacArthur et al routinely call salvation “atonement.” According to JBF, grace is a covering for remaining under law.
Which brings us to the third point. You can’t be both, you are either under law or under grace. CLEARLY, JBF teaches that the believer remains under the condemnation of the law. Phil Johnson is fond of saying that “Christians remain under the righteous demands of the law.”
Fourthly regarding one of your points: there is no law that can give life. If the law can give life, it is a fourth member of the Trinity. The law has no role in the new birth recreation. Paul flogs the proverbial dead horse on this in Galatians. Why then the law? Well, according to Galatians, all sin is imputed to the law. Then, when a person is born again, the law is vanquished along with all sin under the old covenant. The believer was protected from condemnation by way of imputation to the law…”until faith came.” Viz, Christ, who did NOT come to fulfill the law through the perfect keeping of it, but rather came to fulfill “The Promise,” which is a primary name for the gospel that is ignored in most church circles and replaced with JBF.
Which brings us to a 5th point: Christ was righteous by virtue of who he is, NOT through perfect law-keeping. Shockingly, JBF teaches that Christ earned his righteousness through perfect law-keeping so he could then impute that earned righteousness to us. This is the Protestant doctrine of double imputation, which is overt blasphemy. Why would Christ fulfill a law that cannot give life? No, the new birth gives life, not the law.
Which leads us to point six: JBF has a single perspective on the law denying the Spirit’s two uses of the law (to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come; and sanctification) per Romans 8:2. Protestantism, therefore, teaches that Romans 8:2 refers to two realms, not law. By redefining nomos as a realm, they make a case for the law of the Spirit being a covering for the law of condemnation.
Which brings us to point seven: JBF conflates Fatherly chastisement with condemnation/wrath, and conflates the definition of sin in sanctification (better stated as a failure to love) with sin under the law. This makes a ritualistic perpetual atonement necessary.
Which brings us to point eight: we contend that salvation cannot be a process in which the believer is still living. This demands a role for the believer in a salvation process. Protestant scholars state this openly making a distinction between salvation and justification. Supposedly, salvation is a process while justification is the onetime act. This is a deliberate word shell game meant to confuse the issue. Supposedly, God only declares us righteous as a mere “legal declaration” (how can a legal declaration be righteousness apart from the law, being a legal declaration?) one time. But hark, then we must “participate in Christ” by perpetually returning to the same gospel that saved us for re-justification, which is supposedly the onetime act. Clearly, regarding this, Protestantism teaches that our original Spirit baptism is reapplied to the salvation process, keeping us justified, when we partake in a “lifestyle of repentance” (participation in Christ). Actually, Calvin and Luther taught that the power of baptism was in the water baptism. This is the Protestant doctrine of mortification and vivification and closely related to the doctrine of the vital union as well. This blog has posted hundreds of citations on this point from Calvin, Luther, and Michael Horton and will not belabor the point here. Protestantism teaches a beginning justification, what they call progressive sanctification, but is really progressive justification, and then a final justification. Calling the progression of justification “progressive sanctification” is deliberate deception. Calvin referred to justification and sanctification as a “twofold grace.” What does that mean? Well, both have to do with salvation. But, “Wait a minute!” you say, “I thought justification was the onetime act!” Right…you get it. Protestantism is a morass of confusion. Furthermore, to make progressive justification feasible, JBF splits works into two categories: faith alone works (the “ordinary means of grace” done at church), and works that are works. I kid you not. People listen to this stuff and don’t even blink.
This brings us to point nine: though Protestants claim a doctrine of assurance, obviously, they are lying. According to original Protestant soteriology, perseverance is a gift of God that is not given to all those who are “illumined” (Calvin). Hence, no one who is a professing Protestant can know whether or not they are predetermined to have the gift of perseverance until “final justification.” But, absurdly, there is also the doctrine of the “power of the keys,” which teaches that whatever the church elders bind on earth will be bound in heaven. In other words, if the church elders like you, you’re in. We have citations from the likes of Kevin Deyoung saying this in no uncertain terms, and of course Calvin states it in many of his writings. In contrast, assurance is grounded in the fact that there is no law to judge us. A dead man cannot be indicted. Even if the court dug up our dead body and presented it to the judge, the judge has no law to condemn us with. We contend that someone who is born again cannot be unborn, which leads us to the next point.
Point 10: We deny with prejudice that “believers” remain unregenerate and still need to be saved by revisiting the same gospel that originally “saved” us, as stated by many Protestant theologians including Calvin, Luther, and John Piper et al. This coincides systemically with points 1-9.
Point 11: We deny the idea that a “believer” is sanctified through a greater and greater appreciation for our salvation as amplified by realizing more and more how far we are from our Father, rather than the true goal of sanctification to be more and more like our Father. Hence, we deny that salvation is strictly “confessional” and wholly agree with the truism, “Preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words.” Indeed, we believe that a “tree is known by its fruit.” We are to let our light shine through deeds, not words only.
Point 12: We affirm salvation through justification by new birth per 1John 3, and not through perfect law-keeping by anyone, including Christ.
Point 13: We reject “semper reformanda” or “always reforming.” This is a blank check for making up soteriology as you go. You don’t have to be right about anything. This is identical to the JW doctrine of “increasing light.”
Point 14: We deny that the family of God is an authoritative institution, or a living body with more than one head. We deny additional mediators other than Christ, and affirm the priesthood of believers.
In view of all of this, what should we do? We should wholly reject Protestantism and its JBF soteriology and come out from among them. All the drama regarding church is attributed to one thing: a false gospel. When I was a young aspiring pastor going to seminary, the vision was to “return to the power of the first century church.” Well, first of all, it wasn’t church. Church as we know it today doesn’t come along until the 4th century, with its infant beginnings in the 3rd century. And by the way, “church” is NOT a biblical word. Walk away, and begin informal weekly fellowships with those who are like-minded. A model for such fellowships could be the last supper in John and other related passages. Between Acts and other NT passages, there is a clear model for such gatherings. Like in the NT, these are informal gatherings. What determines a fellowship? Well, fellowship. People who show up are fellowshipping with the body. The gathering should function as a cooperative body with each organ practicing gifts, no authority needed.
I hear a lot about the home fellowship movement being sparsely scattered all over the U.S. I think we are seeing the beginning of change regarding that. Little by little, people are starting to get it. It’s wrong to merely leave church, you must replace it with the real item. Merely meet informally as many times a week as you want to. Share a meal, and the word of God in some type of format. Give time for gifts to be manifested as time goes on. As you grow, split into additional fellowships. Its not complicated.
Church is a lie: come out from among them and be separate.
paul
Come Out From Among Them and Be Separate
Mr. Dohse,
For your consideration:
Romans 6:7 says, were it translated consistently from the Greek, “For he that is dead is JUSTIFIED from sin.” The ASV is one of the few translations that renders the Greek word there the same way–“justified”–as it is rendered everywhere else (about 39 times) in the New Testament. The KJV went off script here, and many others followed its lead.
In the argument of Romans 6, the one who has died with Christ, who has died as the old self he was, is justified from sin according to Romans 6:7.
If one has died with Christ, one is justified from sin.
Galatians 3:21 says that no law was given that could impart life, and that is why righteousness could not come through the law. Put aside for the moment any arguments concerning why the law could not give life–focus on the implication that if there is no new life, there is no righteousness or justification. Because the law had no capacity for imparting new life, the law could not justify or cause a man to be righteous.
If there is no new life, there is no justification.
Putting those verses together, the moment of justification is when God regenerates and transforms a man from being an old self into a new self, at the moment the old self dies and is transformed into or raised again as a new creation, a new spiritual man, this transformation being a gift from God and accomplished by His creative power.
A man is justified in the moment he is born again.
This regeneration is promised to everyone who turns away from any contrary belief to believe instead the Gospel as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
Does that sound about right?
Exactly right. This is what makes justification by faith wrong x 14. First, the born again believer is justified because he/she is righteous as a state of being because of the new birth recreation. We are not merely “declared” righteous, we are righteous. When God looks at us, he sees us, his children. There is no need to see Jesus instead of us, we are his literal children.
Hence, the second point: salvation is NOT a covering of sin, which is atonement, but it is an ending of sin. Shockingly, MacArthur et al routinely call salvation “atonement.” According to JBF, grace is a covering for remaining under law.
Which brings us to the third point. You can’t be both, you are either under law or under grace. CLEARLY, JBF teaches that the believer remains under the condemnation of the law. Phil Johnson is fond of saying that “Christians remain under the righteous demands of the law.”
Fourthly regarding one of your points: there is no law that can give life. If the law can give life, it is a fourth member of the Trinity. The law has no role in the new birth recreation. Paul flogs the proverbial dead horse on this in Galatians. Why then the law? Well, according to Galatians, all sin is imputed to the law. Then, when a person is born again, the law is vanquished along with all sin under the old covenant. The believer was protected from condemnation by way of imputation to the law…”until faith came.” Viz, Christ, who did NOT come to fulfill the law through the perfect keeping of it, but rather came to fulfill “The Promise,” which is a primary name for the gospel that is ignored in most church circles and replaced with JBF.
Which brings us to a 5th point: Christ was righteous by virtue of who he is, NOT through perfect law-keeping. Shockingly, JBF teaches that Christ earned his righteousness through perfect law-keeping so he could then impute that earned righteousness to us. This is the Protestant doctrine of double imputation, which is overt blasphemy. Why would Christ fulfill a law that cannot give life? No, the new birth gives life, not the law.
Which leads us to point six: JBF has a single perspective on the law denying the Spirit’s two uses of the law (to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come; and sanctification) per Romans 8:2. Protestantism, therefore, teaches that Romans 8:2 refers to two realms, not law. By redefining nomos as a realm, they make a case for the law of the Spirit being a covering for the law of condemnation.
Which brings us to point seven: JBF conflates Fatherly chastisement with condemnation/wrath, and conflates the definition of sin in sanctification (better stated as a failure to love) with sin under the law. This makes a ritualistic perpetual atonement necessary.
Which brings us to point eight: we contend that salvation cannot be a process in which the believer is still living. This demands a role for the believer in a salvation process. Protestant scholars state this openly making a distinction between salvation and justification. Supposedly, salvation is a process while justification is the onetime act. This is a deliberate word shell game meant to confuse the issue. Supposedly, God only declares us righteous as a mere “legal declaration” (how can a legal declaration be righteousness apart from the law, being a legal declaration?) one time. But hark, then we must “participate in Christ” by perpetually returning to the same gospel that saved us for re-justification, which is supposedly the onetime act. Clearly, regarding this, Protestantism teaches that our original Spirit baptism is reapplied to the salvation process, keeping us justified, when we partake in a “lifestyle of repentance” (participation in Christ). Actually, Calvin and Luther taught that the power of baptism was in the water baptism. This is the Protestant doctrine of mortification and vivification and closely related to the doctrine of the vital union as well. This blog has posted hundreds of citations on this point from Calvin, Luther, and Michael Horton and will not belabor the point here. Protestantism teaches a beginning justification, what they call progressive sanctification, but is really progressive justification, and then a final justification. Calling the progression of justification “progressive sanctification” is deliberate deception. Calvin referred to justification and sanctification as a “twofold grace.” What does that mean? Well, both have to do with salvation. But, “Wait a minute!” you say, “I thought justification was the onetime act!” Right…you get it. Protestantism is a morass of confusion. Furthermore, to make progressive justification feasible, JBF splits works into two categories: faith alone works (the “ordinary means of grace” done at church), and works that are works. I kid you not. People listen to this stuff and don’t even blink.
This brings us to point nine: though Protestants claim a doctrine of assurance, obviously, they are lying. According to original Protestant soteriology, perseverance is a gift of God that is not given to all those who are “illumined” (Calvin). Hence, no one who is a professing Protestant can know whether or not they are predetermined to have the gift of perseverance until “final justification.” But, absurdly, there is also the doctrine of the “power of the keys,” which teaches that whatever the church elders bind on earth will be bound in heaven. In other words, if the church elders like you, you’re in. We have citations from the likes of Kevin Deyoung saying this in no uncertain terms, and of course Calvin states it in many of his writings. In contrast, assurance is grounded in the fact that there is no law to judge us. A dead man cannot be indicted. Even if the court dug up our dead body and presented it to the judge, the judge has no law to condemn us with. We contend that someone who is born again cannot be unborn, which leads us to the next point.
Point 10: We deny with prejudice that “believers” remain unregenerate and still need to be saved by revisiting the same gospel that originally “saved” us, as stated by many Protestant theologians including Calvin, Luther, and John Piper et al. This coincides systemically with points 1-9.
Point 11: We deny the idea that a “believer” is sanctified through a greater and greater appreciation for our salvation as amplified by realizing more and more how far we are from our Father, rather than the true goal of sanctification to be more and more like our Father. Hence, we deny that salvation is strictly “confessional” and wholly agree with the truism, “Preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words.” Indeed, we believe that a “tree is known by its fruit.” We are to let our light shine through deeds, not words only.
Point 12: We affirm salvation through justification by new birth per 1John 3, and not through perfect law-keeping by anyone, including Christ.
Point 13: We reject “semper reformanda” or “always reforming.” This is a blank check for making up soteriology as you go. You don’t have to be right about anything. This is identical to the JW doctrine of “increasing light.”
Point 14: We deny that the family of God is an authoritative institution, or a living body with more than one head. We deny additional mediators other than Christ, and affirm the priesthood of believers.
In view of all of this, what should we do? We should wholly reject Protestantism and its JBF soteriology and come out from among them. All the drama regarding church is attributed to one thing: a false gospel. When I was a young aspiring pastor going to seminary, the vision was to “return to the power of the first century church.” Well, first of all, it wasn’t church. Church as we know it today doesn’t come along until the 4th century, with its infant beginnings in the 3rd century. And by the way, “church” is NOT a biblical word. Walk away, and begin informal weekly fellowships with those who are like-minded. A model for such fellowships could be the last supper in John and other related passages. Between Acts and other NT passages, there is a clear model for such gatherings. Like in the NT, these are informal gatherings. What determines a fellowship? Well, fellowship. People who show up are fellowshipping with the body. The gathering should function as a cooperative body with each organ practicing gifts, no authority needed.
I hear a lot about the home fellowship movement being sparsely scattered all over the U.S. I think we are seeing the beginning of change regarding that. Little by little, people are starting to get it. It’s wrong to merely leave church, you must replace it with the real item. Merely meet informally as many times a week as you want to. Share a meal, and the word of God in some type of format. Give time for gifts to be manifested as time goes on. As you grow, split into additional fellowships. Its not complicated.
Church is a lie: come out from among them and be separate.
paul
R. C. Sproul’s Double Imputation Doublespeak.
There are a number of things that are disturbing about what Sproul says here:
1. Jesus Christ had no righteousness UNTIL He kept the law perfectly!
2. The real meaning of “double imputation” means our sin is imputed to Christ and His OBEDIENCE is imputed to us.
3. This means the standard for righteousness is perfect law-keeping.
4. This is heresy because the Bible says that righteousness is APART from the law! (Romans 3:21, 28).
5. “Redemption” is conflated with “salvation”.
So according to authentic protestant orthodoxy, not only do believers have no righteousness of their own, but EVEN JESUS had no righteousness of His own! In other words, Jesus was not righteous because He was the Son of God, He was only righteous because He kept the law perfectly!!!
You people who call yourselves “christians” and go to church every Sunday and listen to garbage like this week after week and read all manner of books from authors like this, you might want to rethink some things!
~ Andy
My Reply to Linda: Yes, I Am a Christian, But Not Sure You Are
Originally published December 15, 2015
I no longer have patience for the evangelical regurgitation of orthodox talking points. Protestants don’t own their own faith that they have seen in the Bible with their own study. What they think they see and understand is what Protestant academics have told them, including the idea that only they have authority to tell them what to believe. So, what is wrong with church? Church is wrong with church because it is predicated on a false gospel. That’s right, the Protestant Reformation was a false reformation founded on a false gospel. And this is why Dr. James White and others have refused to debate me publicly; the Protestant gospel as stated in its orthodoxy is the biblical definition of a lost person…under law as opposed to under grace.
Martin Luther and John Calvin et al proffered a gospel that is under law, but that is supposedly OK because Jesus keeps/kept the law for us, and that obedience is imputed to our Christian status. This is a perpetual covering of sin, or sometimes referred to as “atonement,” but not an ENDING of sin that requires no further justification. Hence, we must “preach the gospel to ourselves every day” to “keep ourselves in the love of God” (CJ Mahaney) etc. White and others know that this is a simple matter of theological math, and do not intend to address it until enough people catch on. The only case they can make presently is for a historical-redemptive interpretation of Scripture that interprets every verse as a justification verse. Sanctification is defined as progressive justification via Protestant talking points.
One day in my personal Facebook account I noticed the following comment to me by a “Linda”:
“Are you a Christian Paul? And secondly do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? That would be my two questions for you. Romans says, ‘There is none righteous, no not one.’ That includes you and me. This doesn’t mean that we never do a kind act or good deed. It means that we don’t and can’t do enough of them to be declared ‘RIGHTEOUS’ by God. We could never do enough good deeds and kind acts to get us into heaven. Therefore we need the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us in order to go to heaven. God imputes this kind of righteousness to those who believe and accept HIS son Jesus and his shed blood as atonement for their sins and their UNrighteousness. We are part of God’s family by adoption. Nothing can make us righteous enough to go to heaven. The righteousness that is applied to our never dying soul can only come from Christ. The ‘part and parcel’ of our own being is puny compared with what God demands. In one place in scripture our puny ‘part and parcel’ is described as ‘filthy rags.’ So our own human effort at righteousness is from our flesh. Our flesh is not saved from sin and unrighteousness. Only our soul is. We are not capable of learning and loving enough to be declared righteous enough for heaven. We could learn and love enough to help another person with a kind act or good deed. But that does not fit our soul for heaven. I don’t understand your third question……’Christ imputing sin’ ????”
Her comment was in reply to previous comments I had made in regard to a post. She was replying to a comment I made regarding her initial comment.
“I am a never dying soul whom Christ died and rose for, approved of by God because I have HIS righteousness. Just by learning and loving we are different. Better means ‘improved in some way.’ Not hard questions for me.”
Here is my reply.
“Linda, where does the Bible say you have the righteousness of Christ? That’s the first question. The second: Are we only approved of God because we ONLY have the righteousness of Christ and none of our own? What about the new birth? If we are literally born of God and now part of His lineage, would that not make us righteous? Do you mean to say that we have a righteousness LIKE Christ’s because we are a member of the same family, or ONLY His righteousness and none that is part and parcel with our own being? Are we truly righteous, or only declared righteous? Third question: was Christ’s role in salvation an imputation of sin AND righteousness, or just sin? On the one hand, you seem to state that we only have the righteousness of Christ, but on the other, you say we learn and love. How exactly do we learn and love if we ourselves are not righteous people? So, I am not trying to be a jerk here, I am simply resolute that Christians should have a clear definition of who they are. Yes, I know exactly what the Reformers believed about our identity, but I would like to see your clarification.”
This is the extreme Protestant cognitive dissonance resulting in the train wreck we call “church” that I no longer have patience for. People who are serious about following Christ need to take their true gospel and leave the institutional church for home fellowship networks. The institutional church is part and parcel with the authority that demands a denial of the obvious. Authority has replaced truth. Nevertheless, I do believe evangelicals will have to eventually address their under law gospel.
I will make this as simple as possible as I am weary of addressing it. Much, much, thanks to Andy Young who is helping to carry the water on this as well. Linda’s response is pretty much the Protestant gospel talking points that we hear often, and pregnant with cognitive dissonance. All in all, her answers to my questions are, “NO.” Please start by noting that. This is where we discuss another disservice the Reformers performed: adding chapters and verses to the Bible. This circumvents the need to read all of Scripture in context. You can form a theological argument by using John Immel’s pet peeve: Scripture stacking. Basically, Linda is using the same verses to argue for the same Protestant talking points that she has received from Protestant academics. As a result, if one examines her statements, the blatant contradictions are stunning.
Where to start? ALL of our works are filthy rags (Isiah 64:6), yet, we can do some stuff that is good? So, “all” doesn’t really mean “all”? Per the usual, Protestants profess a double false gospel because they don’t rightly understand the gospel taught by the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther. In fact, Luther taught that EVERY deed of man is evil, even those that appear good because man’s “good” deeds always have a flawed motive. Calvin taught the same. Hence, if one believes that we can do a good deed, that is “mortal sin” and cannot be forgiven by the church. But, if one believes that every work we do, even works that appear good, are actually evil, all of our sin can be forgiven by revisiting the same gospel that saved us, and that revisitation is only valid under the auspices and oversight of the clergy. This is Luther, this is Calvin, this is the Protestant gospel. I have documented this backwards and forwards as those who follow TANC Ministries know.
Now, for the Protestant part of this that Linda got right, and in fact a mainstay of Protestantism, but still a false gospel. Luther and Calvin orthodoxy already condemns her to hell, but they would agree with her making the law the standard for justification. Biblically, there is NO law in justification. The Bible testifies about justification, but law and justification are mutually exclusive. It doesn’t matter who keeps the law, there is no law in justification. What determines justification is the new birth. The law is strictly for love in the Christian life. Again, the law informs us about justification, and here is the information: law is not the standard for justification, the new birth is. The apostle Paul wrote the epistle of Galatians to make this very point. Again, I predict that folks are going to start catching on to this in the future and the who’s who of evangelicalism are going to have to make a defense; good luck to them as that attempt will be interesting. The Protestant under-law-gospel, also stated by Linda, has Christ fulfilling God’s “demands” in our stead when God’s only demand regarding justification is that we be born again.
In order to make the law the standard for justification, the Reformers resorted to Saint Augustine’s Neo-Platonism, which later became Gnosticism and wreaked havoc on the first century church. We see this in Linda’s talking points about “the flesh.” ALL of our works come from where? Right, the flesh which, like the Reformers, she deems as inherently evil. That’s Gnosticism. The Bible teaches that our bodies, or members, are “weak” not inherently evil. When the Bible speaks of the “desires of the flesh” and the “deeds of the flesh,” that speaks of when our members are used for sinful purposes. Obviously, if Linda would stop long enough to read her own Bible with her own understanding given to her by God, she would see that our body, or “flesh,” can also be used for holy purposes (Romans 12:1 among many other passages). And, what is more obvious than the fact that our bodies are declared to be the temple of God? Actually, a word study reveals that the Holy of Holies is being referred to.
This brings us to Linda’s Protestant confusion in regard to the difference between salvation and redemption. The former is the saving of the soul, the latter is the saving of the mortal body which can be used for evil or good depending on which desires we are obeying. Christians, through the new birth, have the ability to obey the desires of the Spirit stated in the Bible and the ability to say “no” to evil desires that remain part of the body’s weakness and mortality. Because Christ ended the law through the new birth, sin has been stripped of its ability to enslave and condemn. If Christ obeys the law for us, we are still under it and enslaved to sin. The old us that died with Christ violated the whole law with every sin; the new us that was raised with Christ fulfills the whole law with one act of love. Christ didn’t come to obey the law for us—He came to END the law. Christ didn’t come to cover our sin—He came to END our sin.
A book could be written here, but time won’t allow it; nevertheless, let’s address Linda’s confusion, typical among Protestants, in regard to gift and reward. We cannot birth ourselves, but we can obtain the baptism of the Spirit by faith alone in “the promise” (see Galatians chapter 3). Once the gift is received, it is ours to utilize by loving God and others. Exercising the gift is not taking credit for the gift. The Bible states that God would be unjust to forget our good works and service to the saints (Hebrews 6:10). “Unjust”? Yes, because as those literally born of Him (1 John chapter 3), and literally a part of His literal family, our reward is due us as siblings working for the Father. As a slave to the former master, we could only earn death wages—now we can earn true reward. Read the Parable of the Talents and see what the outcome is for those who fear and want to give God back only what was given and nothing more. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the new birth.
As a policy, I don’t judge the salvation of others. I believe that there are Protestants who are confused enough about Protestantism to be saved. So, yes Linda, I am saved, but I find your assurance that you are saved indicative of your confusion. Protestant orthodoxy CLEARLY states that the motor of sanctification moving justification forward is doubt of salvation because being under condemnation is part and parcel with being under law…the standard for justification according to Protestantism. In Calvin’s words, if “Christians” are not still under condemnation, what further need is there for Christ and His righteousness?
So Linda, I am saved, but I recommend that you start thinking for yourself. All of the Protestant academics you trust will not stand in your stead at the judgment. You will be standing there alone.
And you better have more than a covering with sin underneath it, you better be a literal child of God before Him.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment