Pristine Grace

Pristine Grace Free and Sovereign Grace published and preached for God's elect sheep!

08/24/2026

Pre-Paid, my next book - it's a parable in novel form... It's a romance book as well. It's a modern day retelling of the story of Hosea and Gomer. I currently have a few beta readers that are working through it. I'm looking for a few more. The beta program asks multiple choice questions at the end of each chapter. Anyone interested, please message me on Facebook. Thanks!

07/31/2026

Not long ago I tried to describe where I stand, and I noticed that every sentence came out the same shape. I am Reformed, but not like the Reformed. I am a baptist, but not like the baptists. I am a complementarian, but not like the complementarians. I believe everything that exists is a thought in the mind of God, but I am not like the philosophers who came near that claim and then wandered off into the fog with it. And after I heard myself say it, I stopped and asked an honest question. Is something wrong with me? Am I simply contrary? Does some part of me refuse to belong anywhere so that I can stand off at a distance and feel special?

I have sat with that question, because it deserves a real answer and not a reflex. Contrarianism is a real disease, and I have watched it eat men alive. But a contrarian sheds his positions the moment they stop being provocative, because the attention was the point all along. That is not what has happened to me. The positions I hold are the costly ones. I hold doctrines that get me put out of one room and doctrines that get me put out of the opposite room, and I hold them at the same time. A man chasing attention picks better positions than these.

So let me tell you what I think is actually going on, because I suspect this has happened to some of you as well.

When a man takes up a label, he is handed a box with the label printed on the side. Inside the box is the doctrine, the thing the label actually names. But the box also carries everything the party glued on over the years, and the party will not tell you which is which. The only way to sort it is to go back to the source. Take the box to the Scriptures and test every item in it. Keep what the Scriptures give. Hand back what the party added. That is the whole method, and I commend it to you. The trouble is what happens next, because when a man keeps what Scripture gives and hands back what the party added, the party never says thank you.

Jude told the saints to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). Once delivered. The faith was handed down whole at the start, and everything bolted onto it since is not the faith, no matter how old the bolts are or how beloved the men who tightened them. Contending for the additions is not contending for the faith. It only looks like it from inside the box.

But hand back one addition, just one, and watch what happens. The party does not hear a man being careful with the Scriptures. The party hears betrayal. You can affirm the doctrine itself as loudly as you please, and it will not matter, because you have declined the package, and the package is what the party actually loves. I have worn the compromiser label for years over exactly this, for handing back things the Scriptures never taught while affirming everything they do teach.

And for a long time I thought that was the whole story. I thought I was doctrinally homeless because of my positions, because my particular mix of convictions fits no existing party. But I have come to believe the real reason lies deeper than the doctrine. A camp, a party, a tribe, call it what you like, is not merely a set of beliefs. A camp is a boundary, and a boundary has to be policed. Full membership costs more than affirming the confession. Membership means guarding the gate. It means running the membership test on other men and excluding the ones who fail it. Those are the dues. And those are dues I will not pay. I will gladly affirm large pieces of nearly every camp's confession. But I will not stand at anyone's gate, and a member who will not guard the wall is not experienced as a member. He is experienced as a hole in the wall. So the camps put me out, and it took me years to understand that they were not putting me out for what I believe. They were putting me out for what I would not do.

Paul watched this disease break out in Corinth while the apostles were still alive. Every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? (1 Corinthians 1:12-13). Notice that the positions themselves were sound. Paul was a true apostle, Apollos was a mighty preacher, and Cephas was a pillar of the church. The corruption was not in the teaching. The corruption was the of. The moment the saints organized themselves into parties around the positions, Paul heard it as Christ being carved up, and he refused to let his own name fly as a banner.

And the Lord Himself received this same treatment, only infinitely worse. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them (Luke 15:2). Consider what actually offended them. His table offended them. Every faction knows itself by the sinners it refuses to receive, and He received them all. Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out (John 6:37). A man with a table that wide cannot be claimed by any party, and the parties do not forgive it. They did not crucify Him for being too narrow.

I will not pretend this way of standing costs nothing. It is lonely out here. I have been preached against by men who never once called me to talk it through. I have watched doors close on rooms full of people I love, and my hands were open when they closed. If you take the position and refuse the party, some of that grief will find you too, and I will not dress it up as a small thing. It is a real wound, and it does not fully heal on this side.

But hear where the Scriptures put the Lord when the gatekeepers were finished with Him. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach (Hebrews 13:12-13). Without the camp. That is not where the failures end up. That is where He is. And if refusing to guard the gates leaves a man outside every camp on the map, he should lift up his eyes and look around, because he is standing in good company.

So I have stopped asking whether something is wrong with me, and I have settled into the only test I ever find in the Scriptures. The question is not which camp holds your card. The question is whether you are resting in Christ alone. If a man is resting in Christ alone, he is my brother, whatever label is printed on his box and however much of the party glue is still stuck to him. Mine came off slowly too. And I will keep a table with no gate for as long as the Lord gives me strength, because the gated rooms are quietly emptying, and the people walking out of them will be looking for a table exactly like the one the Lamb keeps. Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. He said it, and He has never once broken it.

Grace and Peace, Brandan

07/22/2026

The Subtlest Legalism Wears Grace's Clothes

For a long time I thought legalism was easy to recognize. The open kind announces itself. Let a preacher stand up and plainly demand law-keeping as the price of salvation, and half the congregation will catch him before the closing hymn. Open works-righteousness is loud, and the saints have been warned about it for two thousand years. And because I could spot that kind so quickly, I assumed I was safe from the disease altogether. I was wrong. The deadliest legalism I have ever encountered does not wear the law's uniform. It wears grace's clothes.

Here is how it sounds. The preacher says, this grace is yours. Free grace, sovereign grace, grace from the first word of the sermon to the last. And then, quietly, a hook is sewn into the comfort. This grace is yours, provided you have felt it deeply enough. Provided you have repented thoroughly enough. Provided you have grasped it with the correct intensity, surrendered hard enough, have the doctrine of it right. The sermon is all grace on the surface, and the whole thing hangs on a condition underneath. Grace has been turned into a law. And Paul told us plainly that the thing cannot survive that operation: And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace (Romans 11:6).

Because it wears grace's clothes, almost nobody in the room can see it. The congregation receives it as comfort. They leave fed and warm, and they will tell you so. Only a rare palate tastes the hook, and the man who finally tastes it discovers he is alone with it. He cannot point at anything. He cannot prove it to the people still sitting there, because every sentence he objects to had the word grace in it. And if he walks out over it, he is the one who looks proud, the man who could not be pleased. I sat under preaching in this register for years before I could name what I was tasting. That is how good the disguise is.

Let me give you a worked example. A man can preach the doctrines of grace with power and precision and still teach that everyone who is muddled about those doctrines is lost. Consider what that teaching actually does. It makes getting the doctrine right the act that saves, and getting doctrine right is a human act, a work of the mind. That is the exact structure of the freewillism he preaches against, salvation hanging on something the sinner performs, only now the performance is an exam score instead of a walk down an aisle. It is Arminianism in a TULIP sweatshirt. And it refutes itself, because if God elects sovereignly, then He has elected plenty of muddled sinners who love Christ with their theology in a knot. Election does not run on exam scores. To gate the kingdom behind a clean five points is to deny the very sovereignty the five points confess.

Now let me give you a second example, one I watched with my own eyes. I once sat in a church whose hymnals had words struck out in ink. A pen had gone through the word faith, again and again, page after page, with grace written in above it, to keep the singing safely clear of anything that sounded like man's contribution. Think about who was being corrected. Newton, Watts, and Toplady, men who bled free grace their whole lives, were being proofread by a frightened pen. And the Scriptures themselves settle the matter in a single verse, because the two words sit side by side in it: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). Faith is grace's own instrument, the gift grace creates and works through. Striking faith to defend grace is defending grace against its own fruit. It is bricking up the window to protect the light.

And here is the part that stayed with me. The words under that ink were true. In their right light, in the mouths of the men who wrote them, they were gloriously true. But a fearful reader cannot let a word stand in its right light. He reads every word at its single worst possible meaning and then purges it for what it might mean, and so he ends up at war with sentences the saints have sung for centuries. A man secure in grace can hold two truths in one hand. A man who has turned grace into a law cannot, because a law admits no light but one.

The root under both examples is the same root. It is a bone-deep distrust that the gospel works unsupervised. The man who cannot trust grace to save a sinner without the correct doctrinal performance will generally not trust anything else to run without his hand on it either, and where you find the hook in the preaching you will usually find the same fist on every lever of the church. And notice what that fear does with a book. The men who wrote the hymns were so free they could not stop adding to the world. The man with the pen was so afraid he could only take away from it. Fear subtracts. Grace adds. That is the difference grace makes in a person, made visible in what each man did with a hymnal.

So how do you tell whether the grace you sit under has a hook in it? Ask where the comfort finally lands. If the sermon leaves your whole weight resting on Christ and His finished work, there is no hook, whatever the preacher's imperfections. But if the assurance keeps circling back to you, to the depth of your repentance, the quality of your feeling, the correctness of your doctrine, the completeness of your surrender, then what you are hearing is law in grace's clothes, and it will starve you slowly while telling you that you are being fed. The gospel prices nothing. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1). Without money and without price. A grace that bills you for the feeling of it is no more grace.

And if you have tasted the hook and spent years wondering whether something is wrong with you, whether you are the proud one, the difficult one, the man who could not be pleased, hear me. Your palate was working. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bo***ge (Galatians 5:1). The Lord who spoke the widest invitation in the Scriptures put no hook in it. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:28). Rest means rest. He does not ask how deeply you felt it on the way in the door. He asks you to come, and He does the rest, and He always has.

Grace and Peace, Brandan

07/21/2026

The Strut is the Fear

There is a performance of manhood loose in the world, and I have come to hate every version of it. I hate the gym-floor strut and the muscle-shirt swagger. I hate the internet alpha selling other men lessons in dominance. I hate the conservative version, where a man performs headship like a drill sergeant and calls the performance godliness. And I hate the liberal version too, where a man performs enlightenment and apologizes for his own existence with the same anxious eye on the audience. The culture war tells you these are opposing armies. They are not. They are different uniforms on the same armor, and under every one of them is the same scared thing dressed up as a strong one.

Because that is what the strut is. The strut is fear. A man at peace with his strength has nothing to advertise, and no appetite for an audience. The man who cannot stop performing strength is telling you, louder than he knows, that he does not believe he has any. The men who most need to be seen as strong are the smallest men in the room the moment the audience goes home. The armor is not worn over strength. The armor is worn over the hole where strength was supposed to be.

And I will say this as plainly as I know how. I would rather spend one minute in the company of a tender woman than a hundred hours in the company of the strutting man. That sentence will cost me with a certain kind of reader, and I am at peace with the bill. What grieves me is that the church, of all places, should have been immune to the strut, and instead whole sections of it baptized the thing and started selling it from the pulpit as biblical manhood.

So let us check the ruler against the Scriptures. When Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit, meekness is on the list (Galatians 5:22-23). Not on the women's list, for there is no women's list. It is the Spirit's fruit in every believer He indwells, man or woman. And when the Scriptures want to describe Moses, the man who stood in front of the most powerful throne on earth and would not bend, they say this: Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3). Meekness is not the absence of steel. Moses faced down Pharaoh. Meekness is steel that has no need to rattle. He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city (Proverbs 16:32).

But the verse that settles it for me is the one where the Lord Jesus describes His own heart. He does this exactly once in the four Gospels. He had one opportunity to tell us, in His own words, what is at the center of Him, and here is what He said: Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls (Matthew 11:29). Meek and lowly. The self-portrait of omnipotence is two words the strut would laugh at. And this same meek and lowly Lord braided a whip and turned over the tables of the moneychangers, and then went back to gathering children onto His lap. The same hands flipped the tables and washed the feet. That is the shape of true strength. It is gentle by default, it is terrible for one necessary moment, and then it is gentle again. It does not live in the terrible moment. The strut lives there, because the strut has nothing else.

And when the Scriptures finally tell a husband what his manhood is for, there is not one syllable of swagger in the instruction. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it (Ephesians 5:25). There is the whole job. A man covers. A man carries. A man pays. A man gives himself up. The culture's manhood competes, and Scripture's manhood covers, and the two have nothing to say to each other. Strength that has nothing to prove goes quiet, and gentleness is what it does with its hands.

So if you are a tender man, and you have spent years being told by the strutting world that your tenderness is a defect, hear me. Check the ruler, because the ruler was lying. The fruit of the Spirit in you is not your weakness; it is your resemblance to your Lord, who told you Himself that His heart is meek and lowly. And if you are a man still wearing the armor, still performing for an audience that never loved you, there is better news than the strut ever gave you. The yoke He offers is easy, and the burden is light, and the rest is for your soul. Take the armor off. It was never strength anyway.

Grace and Peace, Brandan

07/20/2026

They Do the Roman Thing and Deny the Roman Word

I have spent my whole Christian life among Baptists who define themselves against Rome. Non-conformists, they call themselves, heirs of the men who would not bow to a pope or a bishop or a state church, and every one of them will tell you plainly that Rome is the great counterfeit. I believed that self-description for decades, because I was raised inside it and it never occurred to me to check it. And I want to tell you what I finally noticed after all those years in the pews. The most Roman churches I have ever known are Baptist churches. They do the Roman thing and deny the Roman word, and the denial changes nothing but the vocabulary.

Here is the principle that opened my eyes. If you want to know what a church actually believes, do not read its statement of faith. Watch what it does. What a church performs in worship is its truest confession, deeper and more honest than anything printed in the back of the bulletin, because the body does not lie. When the practice and the paper disagree, the practice is the real belief, and the paper is the alibi.

So watch the practice. There is a clergy caste and a laity caste, though the words are never used. One class of men handles the holy things and the other class receives them, and everyone knows which class he belongs to, and no one crosses the line. Rome calls that a priesthood. The Baptist denies the word while maintaining the thing. Then notice that no man may teach unless the authorization has been granted through the proper channel, ordained hands laid on by other ordained hands, validity flowing down the approved line. Rome calls that holy orders and apostolic succession. The Baptist denies the words while running the system. And Peter wrote to ordinary scattered believers, not to a caste: But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (1 Peter 2:9). Paul described a gathering where every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine (1 Corinthians 14:26). The New Testament church was participatory from wall to wall. The caste came later, and it came from the very city these churches claim to have fled.

And it goes further. Let a layman write something true, and watch what happens to it. The book does not count, however faithful its doctrine, until a clergyman blesses it. Truth itself is treated as unauthorized until the teaching class stamps it. Rome has a word for a teaching class whose approval makes doctrine official. She calls it the magisterium. The Baptist denies the word while enforcing the thing, and a layman with an open Bible feels the enforcement quickly, no matter how carefully he writes.

But the place where the body tells the truth most loudly is the Lord's table. I have watched it many times. The silver trays polished to a shine. The special table with the special cloth, carved with This do in remembrance of me. The funeral silence over the whole room. The ushers marching in step, turning in step, seated in lockstep like an honor guard. The same fixed words in the same order every time, the whole solemn machine run once for the bread and then run again for the wine. Ask the pastor what is happening and he will tell you it is a bare memorial, a symbol only, nothing like Rome's altar. But nobody marches in step to remember a metaphor. You do not hang a sign reading NOT AN ALTAR on a kitchen table. You hang it on an altar. The mouth says memorial, and the body performs a mass, and the body is the honest one. The reverence outran the theology years ago and has been telling the truth on the whole room ever since.

And notice this about the denial itself. The louder and more often a church insists it is nothing like Rome, the more the insisting says. A man does not spend his life denying what no one would ever suspect. The denial is not evidence against the diagnosis. The denial is the diagnosis.

The history makes it bitter. The non-conformist tradition exists because men refused to ask the establishment's permission to preach. Bunyan sat twelve years in a Bedford jail because he would not stop preaching without a license, and the men who jailed him said exactly what the caste says now: no one may teach unless the proper authority has authorized him. That is the club the bishops swung at our fathers. And the heirs of the jailed men now swing the same club at laymen, in churches with Bunyan on the shelf. They kept every load-bearing wall of Rome, the caste, the succession, the magisterium, the altar, and threw out only the brick with the pope's name on it, and then called the building Protestant. They did not reform Rome. They franchised it.

And here I will confess a joke I sometimes tell myself, the kind that is only funny because it is true. There are days I think I would rather sit in an actual Roman Catholic church, because in Rome's building I would be farther from the pope. Theirs is an ocean away in another country. In some sovereign grace Baptist churches he is ten feet from the front pew, and there is no college of cardinals to slow him down.

Now let me say clearly whom I am not writing about. I am not writing about the people in those pews, and mostly not about the men in those pulpits either, for most of them inherited the building exactly as I did and have never once seen its floor plan from outside. I sat in the system for decades and called it normal, and no one had to deceive me into it, because it was simply the water I swam in. The target of this article is not a person. The target is the structure, which harms the very sheep it claims to protect, and harms the men it elevates too.

Because here is what the structure costs. It puts a caste between a sinner and his God, and there is no caste there. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). One mediator. Not a mediator and his authorized franchisees. Every believer is a priest in the only priesthood the New Testament knows, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5). And the great High Priest has thrown the way open Himself: Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need (Hebrews 4:16). Come boldly. No trays, no marching, no license, no caste, no stamp from the teaching class. The veil tore top to bottom two thousand years ago, and no committee has ever been authorized to sew it back up.

Grace and Peace, Brandan

07/01/2026

A Thought in the Mind of God: A Systematic Theology is now on sale. This is the first book ever published by Pristine Grace publishing.

06/06/2026

# The Implication Is Not the Man

*On charging people with conclusions they deny*

I want to write about a habit that has cost the household of faith more fellowship than almost any false doctrine ever has. It is not a doctrine. It is a move. And nearly all of us have made it, myself included, which is why I am writing this for myself as much as for anyone.

Here is the move. A man states what he believes. You hear it, and you run it forward to where you think it leads. You arrive somewhere ugly. And then you turn around and hang the ugly place on the man, as though he had said it himself.

Let me give you my own neck to put under the blade first.

I believe Christ was made sin. Not that He was merely reckoned guilty by a courtroom transaction at a legal distance, but that He truly bore it, the wrath and the shame, in His own body and soul on the tree. I will say it plainly. It was more than imputation. He was *made* sin.

Now a brother reads that. And he runs it forward. If Christ was made sin, then Christ became a sinner. And there it is, the ugly place. So he says it out loud to others: *Brandan teaches that Christ became a sinner.* He has heard me say one thing and charged me with another, and the other is a thing I deny with everything in me.

And here is where it gets sneaky, because I can do the very same thing right back to him. He says it was imputation only. So I run *that* forward. If it was only a legal reckoning, then the suffering was a kind of fiction, a transaction on paper, and he is making light of what my Savior actually endured. So I turn around and say it about him: *he teaches a legal fiction, he makes light of the cross.* And now we have two men, each charging the other with the place the other man's doctrine supposedly leads, and neither one of us has actually listened to what the other one said he believes.

The same thing happens with the providence of God. I teach that God created evil. Isaiah said it before I did. *I make peace, and create evil; I the LORD do all these things* (Isaiah 45:7). A brother runs that forward. If God created evil, then God is evil. The ugly place again. So he charges me with it. And I turn around and run *his* position forward, the one where God merely permits and does not ordain, and I land at *he does not really believe God is sovereign.* And I charge him with that.

Do you see it? Two men, four accusations, and not one of the four was actually confessed by the man it was hung on. We were both billed for a premise neither of us holds.

# # Where the ugly place actually comes from

Here is the thing I want us to see, because once you see it you cannot un-see it.

An implication is not a confession. An implication is a conclusion. And a conclusion does not come from one premise. It comes from two. You take what the man said, and you add a second premise of your own, and only then do you arrive somewhere.

Watch it work. "Christ was made sin" does not get you to "Christ became a sinner" by itself. You have to add a bridge: *to be made sin is to become corrupt in your nature.* That bridge is the second premise. And that bridge is exactly the thing I deny. That is the whole reason I do not hold your conclusion. I confess that He took the weight. I deny that He took the corruption. He bore the consequence of sin without ever becoming the thing He bore. *For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin* (2 Corinthians 5:21). The verse holds both halves in one breath. Made sin, and yet knew no sin. If you want to charge Paul with teaching that Christ became a sinner, you are going to have to take a pair of scissors to the second half of his own sentence first.

"God created evil" does not get you to "God is evil" by itself either. You have to add a bridge: *whoever authors a thing must himself be that thing.* But that bridge is false on its face, and you already know it is. The author of a murder mystery book is not a murderer. The playwright who writes in a betrayer has betrayed no one. The God who ordained the cross is not guilty of the cross. The bridge is yours, not mine. I never laid it down. So when you walk across it and arrive at "God is evil," you have arrived at the end of *your* premise, and you are sending me the bill.

That is the whole trick, laid bare. The implication you find so visible, so obvious, so clearly there, is only there because you carried in the plank that made the crossing possible. The implication belongs to your premise. It does not belong to me.

# # The reason the symmetry matters

Now here is why I keep turning the knife back on myself in this article. Because the symmetry is the proof.

If charging a man with the implications of his doctrine were a fair thing to do, then every one of us is a heretic, and we are all finished. There is no doctrine under heaven that does not have an ugly downstream place if an opponent is willing to supply the missing premise. The Calvinist can be run forward to "God is a sinner." The Arminian can be run forward to "man saves himself." The man who teaches eternal security can be run forward to "so go ahead and sin." The man who teaches you can fall away can be run forward to "Christ's blood was not enough." Every single one of us can be marched to a cliff if the other man gets to carry the second premise.

So the move cannot be valid. It proves too much. A weapon that kills everyone in the room is not a weapon, it is the plague.

# # Paul already lived this

I take great comfort in the fact that the Apostle Paul stood exactly where I am standing, and he named the move for what it is.

Paul preached that where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. And his opponents ran it forward. If grace increases where sin increases, then let us sin so grace may increase. The ugly place. And they hung it on him. Listen to how he answers them: *And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just* (Romans 3:8).

Slanderously reported. As some affirm that we say. Paul is telling us that men were going around affirming that he taught a thing he never taught, a thing they had derived by running his doctrine forward across a premise he rejected. And he does not call it a misunderstanding. He calls it slander, and he says their condemnation is just.

That is strong. But it is right. Because to ascribe to a man a belief he openly denies, and then to carry it to others as though it were his confession, is to lie about him. It is to slander a brother. And it does not stop being a lie just because you sincerely believe his doctrine ought to lead there.

Now I am not going to reach for a stone tablet to tell you why this is wrong. I am dead to the law, and so are you, if you are in Christ. We are not under a code carved on a mountain. We are under a Person. And the Person left us one commandment, and it was not a fence, it was a love. *A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another* (John 13:34). And He said this is the very thing the world would know us by. *By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another* (John 13:35).

So the question is not whether some old statute is still on the books. The question is whether I love my brother. And love does not do this. *Charity . . . rejoiceth in the truth* (1 Corinthians 13:6). Love is glad when the truth comes out, even when the truth turns out to be that my brother believes something better than I feared. Love does not go hunting for the ugliest place a man's words could be dragged and then announce that he lives there. Paul put it as plainly as it can be put. *Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law* (Romans 13:10). I do not need the law if I have the love, because the love does everything the law was ever pointing at, and it does it from the inside. The man who loves his brother will not slander him. He could not stand to. It would grieve him to do it. And that is the whole difference between a fence and a heart. A fence holds you back. A heart will not let you start.

And our Lord Himself walked through this every day of His ministry. He forgave sins, and they ran it forward to *this man blasphemeth.* He ate with publicans, and they ran it forward to *a friend of publicans and sinners,* meaning a man who endorses their sin. He said He was the Son of God, and they ran it forward to *he maketh himself equal with God,* and they took up stones. He was never short of men who could see exactly where His words led, and who were dead wrong about it, because the place they saw was built on a plank they brought themselves.

# # When you actually may hold a man to it

Now let me be honest, because there is a real version of this, and I do not want to hand anyone a license to escape every hard question by crying foul.

There are times you may hold a man to an implication. But there is a test, and the test is clean.

You may press an implication when it flows from premises *the man himself holds.* That is what a true reductio is. You take only his planks, not yours, you lay none of your own, and you show him that his own boards lead off a cliff. That is fair. That is good. That is how iron sharpens iron. If I can get to the ugly place using nothing but lumber the man brought to the site, then the problem is his, and he has to deal with it.

And there is a second half to the test, and it is the one that settles everything. *When you show him the place his doctrine leads, does he own it, or does he deny it?*

Because the denial is decisive. If you show a man where you think his teaching goes, and he says, "No, I reject that, and here is the premise of yours I do not share," then the implication was never his. It was yours all along, riding on your plank. You have your answer. Drop it.

But if you show him the place, and he looks at it and says, "Yes, that is exactly what I mean, and I will stand on it," then now, and only now, may you hold him to it. Because he has owned it. A man is responsible for what he will confess. He is not responsible for what you can construct.

That is the whole rule, and it is short enough to keep. *Judge a man by what he affirms and what he denies, not by the conclusions you can reach by importing premises he rejects.* When you are not sure where he stands, let the love of Christ settle it: do not lie about him, and do not hand him a confession he never made. Ask him. Let him tell you. And believe him when he does.

# # And this is how I preach to myself

I said at the top that I am writing this for myself, and I meant it. Because the hardest part of this for me is not when it is done to me. I have made my peace with the barking. The hardest part is the day I catch myself doing it to a Mike, or to a John, or to a man I think is wrong about the cross. The day I run his doctrine forward and hang the ugly place around his neck and feel that little flush of being right. That is the pride monster, and he eats well on the implication game.

So I am laying it down, and I am asking my brethren to lay it down with me. Charge me with what I confess. I will charge you with what you confess. When my doctrine seems to you to lead somewhere terrible, come and ask me if I go there, and I will tell you, and you will believe me, and I will do the same for you. And the things we genuinely own, we will own, and we will answer for those like men.

Christ was made sin, and He knew no sin. God created evil, and God is not evil. I will hold both halves, because Scripture holds both halves, and I will not let any man cut my sentence in two and bill me for the part I never wrote.

He took the weight. He did not take the corruption. And He bore the false witness too, all the way to a cross, charged with every ugly place His enemies could run Him forward to, the friend of sinners who saved us by being numbered with the transgressors He was never one of.

Grace and Peace,
Brandan

Address

St. Louis, MO

Telephone

+13145962596

Website

,

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pristine Grace posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category