Political Antinomians: This Pastor Says Heaven is Full of Pro-Abortion People
For the record, Pastor Dwight McKissic of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, claims to be pro-life. In related news, Dylan Mulvaney claims to be a woman, Elizabeth Warren claims to be an American Indian, and Joe Biden claims to be Catholic.
We live in a time when apparently anybody can claim to be anything, without much serious introspection. But just as sure as transgender ‘women’ bleed XY chromosomes, those who set about to elect politicians who consider abortion to be their version of Holy Communion aren’t pro-life in any serious or meaningful way.
If your political party’s convention organizers are like, “We want a taco truck and a Planned Parenthood van out front,” then maybe you’re not pro-life. With that crowd, we’re not even sure if the abortion van doesn’t double as a place to eat. Imagine supporting a party like this (below) while having the black-face audacity to appropriate pro-life culture for yourself.
Yesterday’s controversy began with Mark Driscoll, who has appeared to have largely bounced back and reinvented himself after several serious controversies more than a decade ago, made a pretty air-tight claim that you won’t be finding pro-baby murder people on the other side of the pearly gates.
To be clear, Driscoll does not appear to be insinuating that anyone is justified by political stance. And frankly, nothing in Driscoll’s quite extensive volume of work would indicate that’s his position. Rather, Driscoll is saying (to put it in more explicitly theological terms), the inward working of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer (that we call ‘sanctification’) will lead someone away from a worldview that makes Jesus want to throw up a little bit, just as it would lead them away from grievous sins of the flesh.
There is nothing unorthodox about that. In fact, it’s very orthodox. It’s standard fare for those of us who believe Jesus has to be your Lord if he’s also your savior. To divorce political views from the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is a form of political antinomianism.
Antinomianism is the ancient heresy, although still very prevalent today, that contradicts Paul who asked, “Shall we continue to sin, so that grace may about? God forbid (Romans 6:1-2).” The term, anti-nomian, means “against law.” It was coined by Martin Luther, although it goes back to a certain Gnostic sect in the first century, who Paul addresses above, who believed that Christ’s fulfillment of the law meant for us a license to sin.
It’s hard to picture a political position more anti-law than that of the modern Democrat Party. They are against immigration law. They are against law enforcement. They are against the laws of nature. They are against the rule of law, and so on. They are very much the party of promiscuous lawlessness.
But that’s not what we’re getting at. Political Antinomianism is the position of Dwight McKissic and anyone else associated with Evangelicals for Harris. It’s the position that says, “How you vote doesn’t matter. God doesn’t care. There is no righteous standard, as applied to politics. It’s all about how you feel like voting. It’s all good. Do what you want. If your conscience doesn’t offend you, feel free to vote for godlessness.”
McKissic went on a tirade against Driscoll, but not only misconstrued Driscoll’s position, assaulted Biblical soteriology which places sanctification after justification.
It’s doubtful that McKissic really perceives Driscoll’s innocuous statement of doctrinal fact as contrary to the doctrines of Sola Gratia (grace alone) and Sola Fide (faith alone). How could it?
This is, from McKissic, a form of leftist Jesus Juke, an attempt to make someone spiritually ashamed, to change the course of conversation to something it was not meant to be, and to make the other person feel spiritually inferior. It’s a cheap trick, but for McKissic, poorly done. The last time a Jesus Juke was executed so poorly is when Satan tried to quote Scripture to Jesus in Matthew 4:6, trying to get him to commit Harakiri to win an argument. Jesus didn’t fall for that, and neither should we.
In order for McKissic or other Evangelicals for Harris to have any chance of success in convincing Christians to betray Christ in the ballot box, they have to project themselves as being equally interested in spiritual matters. Which, of course, they’re not.
Obviously, being against murder is not a prerequisite for salvation. Neither is being pro-Confederacy. Neither is being pro-Nazi. So what? We’re all quite aware that Jesus came to save sinners. But he did not come to leave them in their sin.
Driscoll would likely be among the first to tell you that there are plenty of former pro-choice people in Heaven, probably sitting right next to redeemed racists like Generals Lee, Jackson, and Forrest.
Hold up, there are no prerequisites to salvation, right? Surely there’s enough room for for those guys if there’s enough room for Kermit Gosnell, should he repent. Unless, of course, McKissic’s gospel stops at modern Democrats getting past St. Peter but not the Old School Democrats. We suspect his political antimonianism stops at the year 1954.
Regardless, the doctrine being denied is not Sola Fide, by Driscoll, but sanctification, by McKissic. Surely if the Holy Spirit has the power to save the most wretched of sinners, he has the power to lead them to the knowledge of truth (Titus 1:1-4). Surely the Holy Spirit will sanctify sinners, conforming their will and desire and worldview with that of God’s (1 Peter 1:2).
Being against murdering infants is not a prerequisite of salvation, but supporting McKissic’s political party of choice is an indication that his heart is still set on flesh and still at enmity with God (Romans 8:6-7). Are we to believe that 80% of church-attending evangelicals have come to the conclusion that the Democrat Party is repugnant to God by mere chance? Surely this crosses the threshold for evidence of the spirit unifying the church (Ephesians 4:3).
Surely we can look at the devil’s ministers, notice that they hold the views (and voting patterns) of the most ungodly, Jesus-hating, Christian-persecuting pagans on planet Earth and ascertain that they have not had a genuine justifying work of the Holy Spirit in their heart. Just as we would expect a promiscuous woman to forsake her sin when she embraces Christ, we should expect a professed Harris supporter to forsake his political party when he comes to Christ (or at the least, eventually).
The Democrat Party claims the government can control the weather, endow us with rights (or take them), can remove poverty from the Earth by government-sanctioned thievery, and promotes an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present power of control over the lives of its people. In other words, the government is their god.
Just as we should expect a born-again believer to forsake their false gods, we should…well…expect born-again believers to forsake the Democrat Party. But, we repeat ourselves.
About Author
So do you also agree that there are no former slaveholders and no former supporters of slavery (dabney, hodge, etc) in heaven as well?
Yes, it is a perversion of the grace of God into a license for immorality, which we are warned about in Jude, and passages in 2 Peter, Romans, and elsewhere. To justify wickedness is an abomination itself (Prov. 17:15, etc.). It is sinful to endorse sin. And those who are born of God will not continue in sin (1 John 3), specifically because of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
This is why those who are opting not to vote are 100% opposite of those who are voting for democrats. Because the new republican platform of 2024 embraces so-called “gay marriage”, goes soft on abortion, the party has embraced homosexuality and the log cabin crowd, has celebrated sin month, and so on.
This is exactly why it is 100% wrong to put those who’ve opted not to vote into the same category as those who vote democrat. They are complete opposites. But many are way too worked up and caught up with the election, and are blinded by the suspicion that both are working for the same team, in an effort to sway the election to democrats. This is not true. As for me, I never would’ve said a word about it here had it not been necessary to rebuke the false accusations. And the reason I spoke of conscience was specifically to make it known that my intent is not to try to sway the election toward democrats, and that there is no conspiracy. On the shallow, immediate level, the result of many Christians not voting could very well be that democrats hold power for four more years. But long run, it would not hurt the republican party to learn the hard way that it cannot take the vote of 100 million Christians for granted. And God wins regardless of who is in office. It is very conceivable that we could make more headway by standing against a more wicked government, than by being hypocritically complicit in a lesser wicked one. Our job is to obey the Lord. The results are His to worry about.
You’re correct that a vote is an endorsement. Driscoll is correct. Those who continue in sin (which includes the endorsement of sin) are not truly born again, have not truly repented, and will not enter the kingdom of Heaven. As Jesus Himself reiterates, through His messenger, in the final two chapters of the Bible, as a final warning.
This distinction becomes more clear as soon as you focus on the issues. Those who refuse to endorse any wickedness on any side, and to leave the results up to the Lord, do so as a matter of righteousness, as a matter of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and a conscience informed by Him. To condemn them is to condemn righteousness, a condemnation which itself is an abominable sin (Prov. 17:15), and is no less sinful than endorsing the slaughter of the unborn.
If you condemn the other side saying their vote is an endorsement of everything on their party and candidate platform, then you must hold yourself to the same exact standard, or else you’re nothing but a hypocrite. And we’re not going to call the nation to repentance, to fidelity to scripture, to return to the Lord, or bring about any change of direction whatsoever, by going around being a bunch of hypocrites.
This article has cemented my decision to skip this year’s election. The lesser of two or more evils is still evil, and I’m tired of voting for evil.