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
The Protestant Misuse of the Word “Grace”
The Reformed, and Calvinists in particular use the word “grace” to nuance what they really teach about salvation. Primarily, to nuance the idea that sanctification is the progression of justification, they refer to the doctrine of “duplex grace.” This is a soft term for “duplex salvation,” or the idea that both justification and sanctification are part of a single salvation process, viz, “complete justification.”
For another example, consider the expression, “We are all just sinners saved by grace.” According to Reformation orthodoxy, this is really stating: “We all remain unregenerate and need continued salvation.” Evangelical superstar John Piper is far less ambiguous than Protestant bumper stickers:
We are asking the question, How does the gospel save believers?, not: How does the gospel get people to be believers? When spoken in the power of the Holy Spirit, the gospel does have power to open people’s eyes and change their hearts and draw them to faith, and save them. That’s what is happening on Tuesday nights and Wednesday nights this summer. People are being drawn to Christ through the power and beauty of the gospel. But I am stressing what Paul says here in verses 16 and 17, namely, that “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” Believers need to be saved. The gospel is the instrument of God’s power to save us. And we need to know how the gospel saves us believers so that we make proper use of it.
“Believers need to be saved.” Any questions? However, again, most Protestant scholars nuance this falsehood with the word, “grace.” What people assume is being said follows: “Believers still need grace.” Precious few would deny that—of course we need God’s grace continually, but what do we mean by that?
The word “grace” in the Bible rarely refers to salvation if at all; it is NOT a synonym for salvation. The word is simply little different than the word “love” in the biblical sense. The two words could easily be used interchangeably throughout the Scriptures. Grace, according to the Bible, evoked God to save mankind, but is not the act of salvation.
If you want a definition of grace read Paul’s treatise on love in 1 Corithians 13; the meaning of the two words are all but identical. Salvation is one of many, many things that grace does, but it’s NOT salvation.
In yet one more example of Protestant premeditated deception, scholars will concur that grace does not mean “salvation,” but then proceed to use it that way for purposes of disguising their progressive justification gospel.
paul
True Christians Are NOT “Under Construction”
It is one thing to be wrong about the gospel, but it is yet another to be wrong about your understanding of the gospel you identify with which is also an errant gospel to begin with. I guess you could call it double wrongness or something of the sort. This is where Catholics are far less wrong than Protestants; they have a clear understanding in regard to their orthodoxy, though wrong. Most Protestants misunderstand the orthodoxy that is errant to begin with, so they are wrong about what they are wrong about. This is why the world deems Protestantism as stupid…because it is. Nobody respects double wrongness.
And this meme is yet one more example. It is popular because Protestants think the law is the ground of justification, and of course, no one can keep the law perfectly, so this meme is a Protestant lame attempt to explain to the world why professing “Christians” are not “perfect.” Supposedly, we are “under construction,” viz, we are growing in the Lord and learning to keep the law better and better as we grow.
Well, that is wrong, but also, that’s not Protestantism. So Protestants are wrong about the law being the ground of justification, but they are also wrong about the idea that Protestant orthodoxy holds to a progressive maturity of the believer. NOT. “I” is not under construction; that’s not Protestantism at all.
True Protestant orthodoxy holds to the idea that the “believer’s” ability to merely perceive or “see” a Christocentric metaphysical reality is under construction, but that excludes any possible good work done by the so-called believer. The meme suggests that the believer’s life-testimony improves according to Protestant orthodoxy, but nothing could be further from the truth.
What is in view is an ability to see a greater and greater need for our original salvation and thereby magnifying the gospel. Hence, we are supposedly more and more saved by “seeing” a greater and greater need for the same gospel that saved us. This perception supposedly increases our “gratitude” for salvation which moves our progression of salvation closer and closer to final salvation or what is known as “final justification.” According to authentic Protestantism, what is really under construction is our salvation while many assume the meme is referring to sanctification. But in Protestant thought, sanctification has been redefined to mean progressive justification. The often used term “progressive sanctification” in Protestant circles is a lie.
Some contend that gospel contemplationism increases our gratitude for salvation as we seek to see our sinfulness more and more, and this motivates us to good works. The gratitude supposedly purifies our otherwise evil works. In other words, all of our truly good works must be motivated by our gratitude or else the works are moralistic attempts to justify ourselves. So, whenever we do a deed joyfully, by this we know that the deed flows from gratitude and is not works salvation accordingly.
This idea may give some credence to sanctification by justification, but that’s not Protestantism either. Protestantism excludes the possibility of any good work performed by any human being whether saved or unsaved. The only difference between a lost person and a saved person is worldview/perception. This increased perception increases the “glory of the gospel; not our own glory” which would supposedly be works salvation. According to Martin Luther’s 97 Theses, 95 Theses, and the Heidelberg Disputation; the three foundational documents of the Protestant Reformation, any belief that any individual can do a good work is mortal sin (unforgivable and beyond the scope of salvation).
Therefore, salvation is really under construction and that is defined by an increased ability to see one’s own evil and thereby increasing their salvation. It’s salvation by glorifying the cross, not anything we do as a result of being new creatures. This is the crux of Martin Luther’s Theology of the Cross defined by the cross story versus the glory story. Only two things can receive glory: the cross, or man. Any belief that glorifies man; ie., man can do a good work, is a false gospel. That’s Protestantism plain and simple; nothing more or less.
The following illustrations were taken from a book on Protestant orthodoxy:
Note that non-salvation and salvation are defined by “realms” not a personal state of being. The person does not change; only one’s ability to see realms which are only experienced. Our own efforts are works of the flesh while the works of the Spirit are manifestations that we only experience. The “death” we partake in is an endeavor to see how evil we are resulting in a resurrection that increases the glory of the cross.
Seeing the glory of the cross more and more which necessarily demands that you see yourself as more and more evil results in one getting closer and closer to final salvation. Salvation is what is under construction, not the person. This is the Protestant doctrine of mortification and vivification (death and resurrection) which is a redefinition of the new birth. Instead of the new birth occurring once and justifying us by a transformation of our being, one partakes in perpetual deaths and rebirths to gain more and more salvation. In essence, finding joy in finding our evil.
Per the usual, a true understanding of Protestantism is Clintonian; it depends on what you mean by the word “is” when you say something “is.” In the case of this meme and all other words used by Protestants, you must know the actual Protestant definition. In this case, what is under construction?
Well, it depends on what you mean by the word, “I.”
paul
Fact: Protestant Orthodoxy Disavows Good Behavior
TV Shows have been dissing the integrity of church for years. I am not much of a TV watcher, but one of my clients enjoys watching “ME” TV which highlights TV shows of the past. One such show is “Reba” starring the country music legend Reba McEntire. In the plot, Reba has divorced her husband who was having an affair with “Barbara Jean” who Reba nicknamed “BJ.” Barbara Jean plays a dimwitted blonde who is totally unrepentant for destroying Reba’s marriage, and in the plot, is also a confessing Christian and faithful churchian. BJ offers up most of the punchlines in the sitcom through the character’s totally confused mindset and worldview.
Indicative of the confusion that defines churchianity, Christians wail and moan in regard to recent TV shows that continually denigrate the Christian faith. This is what makes Barbara Jean a truthful representation of Protestantism. While proudly espousing the truism that Protestants are just lowly “sinners saved by grace,” they object to being represented as…well, “sinners.” While proclaiming themselves “sinners,” they also insist on being recognized as civilization’s moral compass in regard to every category of life. While popular Protestants such a Tullian Tchividjian preached loosey-goosey grace for years dissing all things good as “moralism,” he and the many leaders like him are forced to resign when their sinful ways become public. These kinds of ridiculous contradictions highlighted the Barbara Jean motif in the “Reba” sitcom.
What’s up with all of this confusion? Well, a leading Protestant evangelical lauded by the who’s who of the evangelical community, Dr. Michael Horton, clarifies the problem in his book, “Christless Christianity.” He accurately makes the case in the book that Protestantism has never laid claim to good behavior, and in fact, rejects it. In many of his writings, he drives home the point that Protestant orthodoxy is solely a profession and not an action (this is why Martin Luther rejected the book of James as a “straw epistle”).
Salvation is defined as a mere ability to “see” the kingdom with no participation other than proclaiming it. In Horton’s book, pun intended, trying to do well is not preaching the gospel, but an attempt to “be the gospel.” In the book, he continually drives the point home that any attempt at promoting the gospel through good behavior is fruitless because on our best day we fall short of God’s perfection. This is also a favorite talking point of Dr. DA Carson lauded as one of the most “brilliant theological minds of our day.” Another evangelical, Dr. Albert Mohler, also touted as the premier intellectual theologian of our day has stated that the sole purpose of the Bible is to show us our sinful nature, not an instruction book for moralism. Horton, throughout the book, bemoans the fact that Christianity has projected a false precept of good behavior and has therefore misrepresented the true gospel. He even suggests that the idea of change from bad behavior to good behavior is just “more bad news,” not good news.
My friends, in fact, this is authentic Protestantism as stated in the founding doctrinal statements of the Reformation. This is why scandals in the church shouldn’t even be news or fodder for gossip-blogs like The Wartburg Watch. Church is fraught with scandals because the foundational precepts of the Reformation reject change as just, “more bad news.” This is why any attempt to address or confront scandal in the church or any “Cry for Justice” in the church is utterly unfounded—Protestant orthodoxy calls for a resignation to bad behavior lest we try to “be the gospel.”
Supposedly, we are to be judged solely by what we say, not what we do. And if it is God’s sovereign will, one will believe the message regardless of any behavior that goes along with it. In fact, Horton suggests in said book that if one is persuaded by our good behavior, that is what they falsely put their faith in; viz, “our doing rather than Jesus’ doing and dying” another popular refrain of the Neo-Protestant movement.
As stated by this ministry often, the catalyst for all of this is authority. The empowered individual who can really change for the better makes for a weak caste system. The issue becomes the protection of an institution at all cost that God has supposedly ordained to oversee salvation…
…versus the soundness of a body gathered together to spur one another unto “good works.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
5 comments