Paul's Passing Thoughts

A Blog for TANC Ministries

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 7, 2013
PPT Heading 2         Paul’s Passing Thoughts           TANC Publishing     Oligarchy White Paper      Blog Talk Radio              Andy Young

The 2016 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 4, 2013 is under construction. 

TTANC 2016

Why TANC 2016 Will Emphasize a Dark Theme

If there is anything that this culture doesn’t need, it is a further emphasis on the glorification of death. Of course, self-sacrifice is honorable; unless it comes from a worldview that despises life.

It is increasingly evident that the Neo-Calvinist movement is a significant catalyst for a culture of death. If mankind, as John Calvin said, is nothing but “worms crawling about on the earth,” there is no reason why the Protestant cannot join hands with the Nihilist. Christ warned us that the last age would be marked by cold-heartedness.

Moreover, the Neo-Calvinist movement has an increasing and significant influence among our youth. The triannual Neo-Calvinist Cross Conference targets and attracts Christian youth worldwide. If this movement is not exposed, what should we expect our future culture to look like? And if it cannot be stopped, what can we do to prepare God’s people for its onslaught?

Major themes for TANC 2016:

  • Protestantism’s Dark History
  • Escaping the Protestant Culture of Death
  • Escaping the Protestant False Gospel
  • Escaping the Protestant Culture of Spiritual Abuse
  • Escaping the Presuppositions of Protestant Orthodoxy
  • Examining the Contemporary Fruit of Protestantism
  • The Politics of Protestant Dominionism
  • The Gospel and Protestant Eschatology
  • Foe NOT Friend: Shining the Light of Truth on the Protestant Definition of “Death”

Following are videos for your consideration. While sounding pious, what do they say in regard to the value of life itself?

Initial comments below regard the TANC 2015 conference. 


Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 5, 2015

TANC M2TANC Ministries is presently working on a book project leading up to our 2016 conference in August. I guess my name will be on the book as the author, but the book is really a group project. Maybe the author should be “TANC Ministries.”

Why this project? I will cite some excerpts from the project objective:

“Those who are disillusioned with Christianity, but haven’t given up on God and are looking for answers, often ask, ‘Where do I start?’ Such people who come to PPT, and are overwhelmed by the mass of information often ask, ‘Where is the best place to start?’ Andy Young recently remarked about the multiple layers of misinformation and the question of where this ministry should start with people on our end of the question…The target audience are those looking for real and truthful answers amongst the confusion; they are those trying to make sense out of life in the confusion of Christianity as we know it in our day. The book will have a theological and philosophical bent. Protestants and Catholics alike are dumbed-down by design, think that the Reformation was a theological debate, are confused about basic elements of metaphysics and being, and need a place to start on their truth journey. Those who buy the book will have this in common: they assume reason is a necessary pathway to finding truth.”

At first, it looked like the project was off to a fast start, but what seemed like great ideas were shot down by the group, so it was suggested that I start submitting free-writing articles to the group based on the usual ministry themes, and this will result in an articulation of objectives that the group agrees with. This article is one such submission to the group.

I am not crazy about Facebook, but on the other hand, it is valuable to our ministry, and yesterday was no exception. I am not going to copy and paste the whole debate here between myself and a couple of Catholics, but I am very tempted to think that it will be the crux of our project. The excerpt that encapsulates the main point follows:

“You act as if the Pope speaking ex cathedra or the council of Bishops as an authority of truth is so absurd. I understand that you disagree with it, and you are entitled to the right to disagree. But the concept in and of itself is certainly not absurd. I have to say, if it comes down to which is less absurd, a church authority instituted by Christ is much more plausible than Jesus giving us a Bible and telling everyone they can discern truth completely (error free) by themselves. (Not saying we are completely void of discerning truth, but we will never be perfect at it). Look around you: if everyone could perfectly discern truth for themselves, then why do non-catholic churches continue to split up each and every day? I think there are like over 30,000 denominations now? We are not trying to attack you, Paul M. Dohse Sr. We are just trying to get to the truth. And I have felt misrepresented by your points, so I have to ask the tough questions.”

To me, this absolutely says it all; perhaps the project group will agree. It boils down to man’s (mankind) identity and his ability to interpret reality. Universally, the goal is man’s well-being.  Is the key to well-being a proper identity? What does man’s identity have to do with evaluating truth? EVERYTHING. Suppose you identify man as a being that cannot know truth? I think that makes the point.

Now, this necessarily involves a discussion about philosophy and its four major tenets: metaphysics (state of being), epistemology (how we know), ethics (the moral application of how we perceive reality), and politics (how the ethics are communicated). But what about the Bible? From my own perspective, I see the Bible as God’s philosophical statement to mankind. If you are able to defend God’s truth, or the Gospel, you must know what the Bible states about these four tenets of philosophy. No? Really? Consider the following fact: this stream of conversation on Facebook was extremely long, and complete with Scripture stacking and citation wars, but to no avail. Why? Because truth is interpreted through the philosophical prism. A Chinese person might as well be attempting to convince an English person that Chinese is better (anything Chinese) while arguing in their perspective languages. The example that astounds me the most follows: people who seek counsel and assume the counselor shares their view of reality. No wonder so few people are helped by counseling accordingly. Another example makes its own point because few Christians will even know what I am talking about. Pastors in our day view reality from two different perspectives, redemptive or grammatical, and most parishioners are clueless in regard to where their pastors stand on that issue. They assume they know what the pastor is teaching from the pulpit, but really they are clueless.

What is the philosophy of the person that I was having the discussion with? Metaphysics: man cannot know truth PERFECTLY. Epistemology: “ex cathedra or the council of Bishops as an authority of truth.” Ethics: prevention of chaos. Politics: expected obedience to authority. Words mean things, so lets examine his words carefully. The issue with man, according to this person, is he cannot know truth “perfectly.” That’s key. So then, what is the ethic? Christ has appointed an authority on earth to prevent chaos because no man can know the truth perfectly.

But wait a minute, neither can the men whom Christ appointed as an authority; likewise, they cannot know the truth perfectly because they are also men, so what gives? This is what gives: authority for the sake of UNITY is the goal, not truth per se. In fact, UNITY defines truth itself. And where does that come from? Yep, P-l-a-t-o. Among most of the classic sophists, unity itself was truth. At least in Plato’s case, this was the definition of social justice as well. Does that ring any bells in regard to churchianity, or Western society in general? Let me further the point. What was this person’s primary argument for the authority of the Catholic Church? Right, to prevent the chaos of “30,000 denominations” the inevitable result of men being free to discern truth for themselves.

But it gets better when one considers biblical metaphysics. Again, via this person’s own words, the issue is INDIVIDUAL interpretation. But wait a minute, I thought a believer is a totally new creature indwelled by the Holy Spirit? What a minute, I thought the Bible said that the Spirit will lead us in ALL truth. So, why would members of one body with one mind in Christ, and striving for that one mind in Christ be lacking in unity? Why is such a notion “absurd.” Answer: because Catholics and Protestants both fundamentally deny the new birth, that’s why. And consequently, we also hear things from Protestant pastors such as Mark Driscoll saying, “Just keep your damn mouth shut and obey.” As Pastor Chad Bresson is fond of saying, Whether an elder is right or wrong is irrelevant to unity. For those who have the audacity to question an elder, Pastor James MacDonald suggests that they be tied to a catapult and “launched into the next county.” Why are they so passionate about being agreed with? Because obedience to authority is what unifies, not truth—authority is truth.

Moreover, with Believers, “perfection” is not the issue, but LOVE is the issue. Law as condemnation versus law as love is also the difference the new birth makes, but enough said for now.  I will see if any of this gets some traction with the project group.


TANC 2015 – Susan Dohse, Session 3 – Jonathan Edwards: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on October 5, 2015

Jonathan Edward’s  famous sermon Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God delivered to a congregation in Enfield, Connecticut on July 8, 1741, is often the only thing written by him some will ever read. American literature courses in high school and college include excerpts, and maybe the entire sermon in literature anthologies. It is usually presented to portray the awfulness of the Puritans and their Calvinistic religion. This was not the only hell fire sermon he delivered, yet, it is the one selected to represent Edwards and the Great Awakening movevent.  Contrary to YouTube and others who do dramatic presentations of this sermon, Edwards was not a pulpit pounding, foaming at the mouth, shouting minister. All of his messages were delivered in his low voice, almost monotone, with little emotion.

The old Puritan Way was eroding in New England for political and demographic reasons. They were no longer the majority population and most people living in 1720  who were born in the Congregational churches took it seriously, but did not regard the ministry or church doctrine with the respect their forebearers had felt.  Congregationalism wasn’t dead; most Congregationalists were still very concerned with their souls.  They just did not respond passionately to traditional Congregationalism anymore.  Voila! Enter the First of the Awakenings sometimes referred to as the Small Awakening. The revivals caught on. They addressed the people’s desire to be passionate about religion again.  In the absence of a literal wilderness to fight against, New Englanders in the 1730’s and 40’s fought against a spiritual wilderness. Preachers such as Whitfield and Edwards fought against the apathy and religious complacency that had replaced the Puritan religious zeal. Puritan religious zeal was more and more being transferred to politics.

Edwards appreciated the religious revivals because it brought people back to church and got them passionate about religion again. After all, true conversion was connected to the church.  Edwards being the theo-philosopher, and amateur psychologist of his time, was given opportunity to study and document the psychological steps involved in religious conversion.  Pre-occupied by this documentation, he did not realize that many who came to church in fear of damnation, did not come to believe that they were saved and fell into despair. Some took their own lives, such as Edwards’ uncle,  Joseph Hawley, who slit his throat in despair of his soul’s damnation.  Is there any question as to why this awakening faded in 1735?

It was sparked back to life in 1740 when the famous English Anglican minister George Whitfield answered Edwards’ request to come preach in Northampton. Whitfield convinced Edwards to preach the full revival.  What some do not know is the sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” was delivered by Edwards at least four times to four different congregations. He studied the make-up and psychology of each audience, and made changes to the sermon to accommodate each one. The first time he delivered the sermon was in his home church of Northampton and he was able to give the full sermon without interruption.  He repeated the sermon at Enfield, but his preaching reduced the audience to wailing, and loud crying, that drowned out the voice of Edwards before he could arrive at his hopeful conclusion.

In the sermon, he crafted his words, illustrations, and metaphors to inspire terror, to lead his listeners systematically and authoritatively to repent and humble themselves before the grace of a loving God in the hope of obtaining salvation.   His sermons were never concerned with persuading sinners to come to Christ or accept salvation. For the devout Calvinist only the arbitrary election of God determined who would be saved. (Voices of Democracy (2006)

The puzzles of his sermon:

  • He tells people they are in immediate danger of hell, urges them not to continue in their sinful ways, and seek a remedy for their sin. As a Calvinist, he cannot tell them to accept Christ and be saved—he doesn’t believe that. So the remedy is very vague, ie, “Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come.”
  •  The emotional nature of his sermon is a puzzle. Edwards disliked hysterical emotionalism that was often connected to these revivals. Remember the Three Bears principle.  He did not approve or encourage his listeners to cry out in church, throw themselves on the floor, or any other dramatic thing. But he could not get the congregation to calm down so that he could finish his message.
  • Puritan ministers usually did not deliver hellfire sermons. He usually focused on the process of searching for God’s grace, the technical points of how to read God’s word, and how to live godly lives.   They were not focused on hell and damnation because he assumed that most people in the audience did not know their state and so haranguing them about hell would be counter-productive.
  • Edwards tells them that very few humans are saved, and even says that most of their friends and loved ones who have died, are undoubtedly in hell. It’s puzzling that he admonishes them to seek the remedy.
  • It’s puzzling that being a Calvinist purist he included Arminian ideas: that God can change your heart (the Puritans believed that to be impossible because God never changed his creation); that humans can become good (Puritans thought that impossible); and that God can decide to save someone previously condemned to hell (again, Puritans believed your fate was determined before the world was created). He repeats that there is nothing humans can do to avoid Hell, and then says humans have to do something, ie, “Thus it will be with you that are in an unconverted state, if you continue in it.”  Saying if you continue in it clearly implies that you can choose not to continue in your sin, and thus can do something to save yourself.

It makes you wonder if Edwards would be surprised to know that “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” would seal his everlasting fame. It was only one of his hellfire revival sermons, and not indicative of the bulk of his work. If he had his druthers, he would likely have chosen his writings on the conversion process, the qualifications one needed for full church membership, even his study of spiders and rainbows to have lived on in popularity instead.

Regardless of this sermon, let’s take a look at the “afterglow” of Jonathan Edwards’ legacy.

Mark Driscoll preaches that God personally hates you and preached a sermon from Mars Hill that drew much comment and complaint.  Rick Holland in his book Uneclipsing the Son tells the reader that God is rightfully angry with us and at us, ie, “Our sin draws His wrath like a magnet draws steel.”  Jonathan Edwards’ sermon depicts an angry God, as does his treatise The End of the Wicked; and Driscoll, Holland and Piper follow in the bend of their beloved icon.

John Piper’s version of Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God after the bridge collapse in Minneapolis: “That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world. The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that we are sinners and need to repent.”

Those of the Calvinist bent inherited from John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards a picture of God who is constantly angry about something or someone and use portions of Scripture such as Nahum 1 as proof texts: “The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The Lord takes vengeance on his foes, and vents his wrath against his enemies.”

We fail to appreciate the difference between an angry God and a God who gets angry.  Jonathan Edwards is the poster child for the angry God group, ie, “The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked.”

According to a study which analyzed the results of a Gallup survey, belief in an angry God is “significantly associated with an increase in social anxiety, paranoia, obsession, and compulsion.”  When you are told repeatedly that you are totally depraved, worthless, and deserve God’s wrath, your mental, emotional, and spiritual health is in peril.  Who would want to join in a relationship with someone who is angry with you all the time? Edwards’ God is bound by His anger, and according to the theology of this American icon, has no choice but to be constantly angry at mankind, that’s His fundamental nature.

Consider this: God is not an angry God; God is a God who sometimes gets angry. A God who gets angry when anger is needed, like we see in Isaiah. God is angry at the hypocrisy of his children. He is angry with their evil deeds and ungodly behavior. But in His anger He gives the remedy: “[w]ash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right, seek justice, defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.” (Isaiah 1:16-17) Quite a different remedy from the one of Edwards, isn’t it? “Therefore let everyone who is out of Christ fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of God is  now undoubtedly hanging over a great number of you.”

Consider this:  churches justify the spiritual abuse of their members because they work out of a place of anger, fear, and hate, thinking this is how God wants them to act. This is what ministers have been taught over the years, and this is what they teach to their congregations. So they pour out their wrath from a never dry well because they are embodying in themselves the type of God they believe in—a God who is fundamentally angry, and who has to be constantly angry otherwise He won’t be the omnipotent Being they need him to be, and want to be themselves, powerful and angry. (Zack Hunt)

We need God to get angry. When He sees oppression, injustice, spiritual abuse and tyranny in His house, we need Him to get angry because this is not the way He created us to be. God is not an angry God who wants His people to suffer, God is a God who gets angry when He sees His people suffer.

As believers, we are under the law of love, not under the law of condemnation. Let’s rejoice in that truth, let’s raise our hands and shout Amen to that truth of Scripture, not elevate dead men to hero status. Let’s refuse to make their false doctrines, their misrepresentations of God, and misuse of God’s Word as mission statements and church constitutions.

The insanity must end. We must continue to work to end it.  John 17:17 says, “Father, sanctify them through the truth, thy word is truth.”

Session 3, Blog TalkRadio Podcast


Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 4, 2015

Smiley 2

God is NOT in Control

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 4, 2015

control 2

Reason and Truth

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 4, 2015


Tagged with: , ,

There is NO Such Thing as “Legalism”

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on October 3, 2015

ppt-jpeg4Originally posted March 21, 2013

We live in a unique era marked in its beginning by Christ paying the penalty for our sin (HEB 1:2). We are in the last days. We know that because it’s post cross. We live in this specific era which is also biblically described as a time of unprecedented deception (MATT 24:3,4; 2THESS 2:10-12).

Therefore, we must be careful to use specific biblical words in our communication of the truth. Those who define the language win the argument. Redefining the meaning of words to deceive is literally the oldest trick in the book; e.g., Satan redefined what God meant by death. “Surely, you will not die.” Depending on your definition of death, that was true—Eve didn’t die on the spot.

“Legalism” is a word that is not in the Bible anywhere. The concept/term was made popular by Martin Luther’s interpretation of law and grace. The term, “legalism” lends strong foundation to authentic Reformed doctrine. If you use the term, you are being a good Calvinist whether you know it or not. The Reformers were anti-sanctification because it suggests enablement and some room for self-esteem. The Bible does not call us to eradicate all concept of self for the sole purpose of the group, it calls us to evaluate ourselves truthfully (ROM 12:3). That’s why there is a severe lack of sanctification in the church today—we are all just good Protestants.

So, legalism is in, but the word for the primary nemeses of righteousness throughout the ages is out: “anomia.” The English word is, “antinomianism.” It means, anti (a) – law (nomia). And I assure you that man made law is not in view. Ignorantly, Christians deem the word as just another 50-cent theological term even though it appears throughout the New Testament and defines the core of human woes. While anomia is ignored, a word that doesn’t even exist in the Bible is thrown around more often than we change clothes.

Because the ramifications of anomia pushback against Luther’s law/gospel theology, the word is translated in English Bibles as “wickedness” and “lawlessness” giving the idea of general bad behavior. The real idea is anti-truth, anti-God’s full counsel, anti-God’s wisdom, anti-sanctification, anti-kingdom living, anti-clear conscience, anti-life, anti-goodness, etc., etc. Christ points to it as the primary cause of lovelessness and cold-heartedness (MATT 24:12; PS 119:70). John indicts it as the very definition of sin (1JN 3:4).

Perhaps the greatest deception in all of this is the Reformed motif that the Pharisees are the poster children for “legalism.” Supposedly, they strived to keep God’s law as a way of earning His favor for both justification and sanctification of which are the same to the Reformers. The opposite is true; the Pharisees were full of anomia and voided the law with their anti-truth (MATT 15:1-9; 23:23-28). The Pharisees were not “legalists,” that’s a lie, they were antinomians.

Nothing cripples sanctification more than the Reformed idea that Christians can sincerely seek to obey God by following their born again new desire for the law and thereby unwittingly partaking in works righteousness. There is no more detestable evil under the sun because it causes a conflict between the new desire God has put in our hearts (ROM 7:25; PS 119:1ff.) and instruction that propagates a relaxed view of the law (MATT 5:19). This is why Calvinism has crippled the American church. They propagate a doctrine that sets us against the very desire that God has put in our new hearts.

Satan did not come to Eve in the garden as a “legalist.” He came to her as an antinomian. In regard to the time of the end, the apostle Paul refers to the antichrist as the man of anomia at least four times in his letter to the Thessalonians. From the beginning, and through the middle embodied in the likes of Baalam’s error and Korah’s rebellion, and culminating in the end, the doctrine of anomia is the primary beast that devours the souls of men. But yet, New Calvinist queen Elyse Fitzpatrick likens anomia to the Loch Ness Monster, and is celebrated accordingly for her supposed biblical insight.

It’s time to eradicate “legalism” from our Christian vocabulary and replace it with a description of the New Calvinist breed of beasts among us: Antinomians.


Sola Scriptura???

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 1, 2015

lawson 2

Sola Scriptura??

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 1, 2015

Mohler 4

Sola Scriptura?

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 1, 2015

Piper 2

John Piper Proclaims “Christians” Condemned and in Need of Continued Salvation

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 30, 2015

JohnPiperOne of the major truths that will be emphasized in the present TANC book project is that the Protestant Reformation was NOT based on the Bible. The Protestant kerfuffle with Rome concerned differences in world philosophy—not theology. Sola scriptura is a blatant falsehood. Martin Luther concocted a contending worldview in opposition to an increased influence of Thomism in the Catholic Church. Luther then dressed up his philosophy in Bible verses. Actually, to be more specific, he dressed up Neo-Platonism in biblical garb. This is hardly some deep, dark secret; a cursory observation of church history reveals this, unless you get your church history from a Protestant seminary.

Since the Protestant Reformation was really based on Plato’s Republic, the necessary theological fit was/is progressive justification for those who are preselected and the last to know if they are really selected or not. They get the news at the final judgment. Until then, EVERYBODY is presently under condemnation and in need of continued justification because we have “present sin.” In order to be perpetually rejustified, we must “preach the gospel to ourselves every day,” obey the pastors, and be a faithful church member.

Due to the fact that sola scriptura is a farce, the present-day expression of authentic Protestantism via New Calvinists routinely contradicts the plain sense of Scripture in insane fashion, and nobody blinks an eye. Moreover, cowardly pastors who know better even as confused Protestants allow the New Calvinists to be named and quoted among their sheep.

Let’s talk about one example, the one that prompted this post. On August 22, 2015, John Piper prayed at a Christian anti-abortion rally at a Planned Parenthood location in St. Paul, Minnesota. In that prayer, he stated:

And we acknowledge in the face of your holiness and power that we are sinners. Everyone standing here in this gathering is a sinner in desperate need of salvation that you offer in Jesus Christ. We know that our conscience condemns us, and if our own consciences do, how much more your holy law. So we have not lived up even to our own standards, let alone to your standards. And we confess our sins corporately before you as individuals.

In direct conflict to the Bible’s clear definition of a believer, Piper proclaimed everyone at the gathering as condemned under the law; this is the Bible’s succinct definition of a lost person. In addition, Piper clearly proclaimed in the prayer that Christians are still in need of salvation.

How does he get away with this and stand as one of the most beloved evangelicals of our day? Because he supposedly has authority, and we the believers have no real ability to perceive truth. Clearly, if it comes down to what we understand our Bibles to say versus what John Piper says, he will win the day every time.

So then, for all practical purposes, he speaks for God.


The Neo-Protestant Happy Death Culture

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 30, 2015

ppt-jpeg4TANC Ministries is presently in the middle of a book project that will hopefully produce a finished product by our 2016 conference in August. In the midst of the grind, one is reminded of why somebody has to do this. What is the this? And what reminds me of the why?

TANC Ministries attempts to supply a service to people searching for the truth. It’s a valid service because the Bible states that something comes part and parcel with the new birth (salvation); a love for the truth. That is the tie that binds, a mutual love for the truth.

When I was young I didn’t think truth could be known, and therefore, life looked futile to me and I lived it out according to that attitude. But life brings challenges resulting in a search for meaning, and I thought I found it in the Baptist church. I did find God, and then spent 32 years trying to make sense of church. Finally, the right church folk came along and ruined my life, and as a result, unwittingly set me free to pursue truth without their presuppositions. I was so thoroughly betrayed by the church that everything I had ever learned there was not salvageable for any use in the new journey.

Paul’s Passing Thoughts is the blog for TANC Ministries. There are over 2000 articles posted here. They are pieces of the journey. Presently, several people are scouring these articles trying to make their own sense of church. Some keep in regular contact with this ministry, others don’t for whatever reason. It’s painful to watch as I can track their process; some are up to 400 articles.

This is why I am working on this project with the help of other TANC associates; I want a book that I can hand these people and say, “Here, this will explain it.” That’s what I want. I want to be able to summarize the most important things I have learned in the past eight years and hand it to them on a silver platter. I want them to know in one month what it took me eight years to learn. That’s my joy, that’s what I live for.

What is the most important message that people must get in this book? Answer: the Reformation was NOT founded on an exegetical interpretation of the Bible. Yes, that is the filthy lie of the Protestant Reformation, sola scriptura, and behind that lie is the reality of the Reformation: it was founded on a worldview that finds happiness in hating life. When we see a picture of a Middle East terrorist holding up a head without a body with a big smile on his face, we don’t see a Protestant, but we should. Is that an outrageous statement? Get over it…I can prove it.

In my book, no pun intended, standing up at your father’s funeral and proclaiming him a “wicked sinner” with a proud look on your face is barely less honorable. You can add to that idea that Protestantism holds the keys to your salvation through membership in their local churches. No, no, a Protestant won’t cut off your head because of American jurist prudence, they will merely have your name removed from the book of life for daring to refute their authority. Gee, no terrorism there in the least.

This brings me to the post sent to my email yesterday that reminds me of why I have to do this project, and with the help of our wonderful associates, it must be done well. The post came from a typical New Calvinist mommy blog. The article is indicative of how the original Reformation ideology of death is manifested in our present day. On the one hand, the author of the blog is, “a wife, mom, & seeker of joy!” And what is the worldview that brings this happiness? The same worldview she prescribes for her children: “…feel less than. Esteem not yourself. Feel lonely. Feel unworthy. Feel unaccomplished. Feel small. Feel lost. Feel broken. Feel least. For if you believe you are greater than, your father and I have failed miserably. Among the broken you will find Christ. My prayer for you is that you see Him everywhere.”

Well, there you have it. Imagine laying on a hospital gurney, prepped for major surgery, and hoping that the surgeon performing the operation is a Christian. And in fact he is. And so he comes in and introduces himself with a big, big smile on his face: “Hi! My name is Bob! I am no better than Adolf Hitler, unworthy, and unaccomplished; praise God!” Also, per the normal, the article includes at least one snarkey reference to America because this ideology disdains individualism; their nuanced word for everyday “freedom.” Neo-Protestantism is no friend of liberty, and the original article never was.

What kind of havoc will this worldview wreak in the lives of people? I have seen it for 32 years. Many have struggled in the milieu of this ideology for years and are looking for answers in order to know whether to stay or go, and where to go if leaving is the answer. That’s what this project is about: answers for truth-lovers.

And in regard to the researchers coming to PPT, we could use you. If the book fills your needs, that’s the proof that’s in the pudding. If you are a typical dumbed-down Protestant looking for answers—you are perfect. Join the editing committee. If you have interest in that regard, email the PPT moderator, Pearl, at

What you are looking for, what you understand, and what you don’t understand would be invaluable information.


The Dirty Dozen: 12 Things that the Lying Calvinists Want You to Assume

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on September 29, 2015

Originally published June 16, 2013

1. Total Depravity pertains to the unregenerate only. No, they mean the saints also.

2. Sola Fide (faith alone) only pertains to Justification. No, it pertains to sanctification also.

3. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) means “alone” and not other “subordinate” truth that also has authority though “subordinate.” No, creeds and confessions also have authority; it is not Scripture “alone.” What does “alone” mean?

4. Solus Christus (Christ alone) only regards the way to the Father. Not so, Christ is the only way to understanding all of reality. This was the crux of Luther’s Theology of the Cross.

5. Progressive sanctification sanctifies us and is separate from justification. No, they say, “never separate” but “distinct.” Then why not call it “progressive justification”? Why not clearly say that we are sanctified by justification?

6. Election predetermines our eternity. No, the elect have to persevere. The perseverance of the saints is not a characteristic of the saved, it is something that the saints have to add to their faith to complete their justification. They call this “already-but not yet.” The promises of God are “conditional.”

7. Proponents of synergistic sanctification are mistaken. No, Calvinists think they are lost and promote a false gospel.

8. Spiritual growth is about change. Absolutely not. Calvinists believe we experience manifestations of Christ as we live by faith alone.

9. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is only imputed for our justification. No, they believe it is imputed to our sanctification as well.

10. We should learn what the Bible teaches and apply it to our lives. No, they believe we should look for the cross in every verse which results in Christ manifestations in the Spirit realm. They call this “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.”

11. Calvinists don’t believe in absolution. Not so. Calvin believed Christians need a perpetual forgiveness of sins that can only be found in the church. Augustine and Luther propagated this as well.

12. Christ works within us. Only BY faith, and faith only exists in the object that it is placed in. Calvinists believe that when the work of Christ moves from outside of us to inside of us that it makes “sanctification the ground of our justification.” The contemporary doctrinal term for Calvinism is “the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us.”

If Calvinists want to deny this, have them explain to you what all of the aforementioned para-biblical expressions mean. If they don’t mean what is stated above, what do they mean? Perhaps there is a perfectly logical explanation for all 12.


The Protestant Twisting of 1John: A Clarification, Part 5 – Law, Gospel, and Love

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on September 28, 2015

Blog Radio LogoOriginally posted April 27, 2015

Listen to show audio or download audio file. 

Welcome to Blogtalk Radio False Reformation this is your host Paul M. Dohse Sr. Tonight, part 5 of “The Protestant Twisting of 1John: A Clarification.” If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback. Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.

If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at That’s Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat, I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in.

This is our final segment on 1John, and next week we will be doing a book review on “How People Change” by Paul David Tripp. I will be doing an overview of each of the 16 chapters in the book according to the theses of each chapter, and then will explain how the different points of each chapter fit together to form a particular doctrine. All in all, the book represents a pretty impressive application of Reformed mysticism.

Then, the following week, starting on May 8th, I think the time has come to do an in-depth evaluation of the Heidelberg Disputation. Martin Luther’s  95 Theses launched the Reformation, but all Reformed doctrines flow from the Heidelberg Disputation. Though very subtle, our present church culture is saturated with a collectivist doctrine of death, and I want to show exactly where this culture of death came from. We will be evaluating the Heidelberg Disputation theses by theses. How many Baptists know anything about the Heidelberg Disputation? Few, if any, yet the foundation of evangelicalism flows from this document.

Last week, I got away from our Gnostic theme and showed a correlation between John’s theology and that of the apostle Paul. The focus was the new birth, which Gnosticism denies. The historical backdrop is John’s pushback against Gnosticism which denies that people change. The Gnostics of that day believed that the material realm is evil and the spiritual realm is pure.

The goal is well-being that comes from getting beyond the five senses in order to gain knowledge. The particular vein of Gnosticism that John was contending against believed that sin only occurs in the body, and man’s spirit has never sinned per se. As a result, God’s people were being taught that what they did in the body was insignificant, and man didn’t need to deal with sin. Gaining spiritual knowledge for their own well-being was the key to having a happy life.

They denied that Christ really came as a man and was God’s Son. They taught that there were two Christ’s; one born of men and a Christ that was a spiritual avatar of sorts.

At any rate, the doctrine denied Christ’s deity, that He came to die for sin, and that mankind needed forgiveness for sin. Consequently, it also denied the new birth. In the same way Protestantism obviously denies that people change, redefine the new birth as an ability to perceive realm manifestation, and have their own unique distortion of the Trinity. When it gets right down to it, authentic Protestantism posits the Father and the Spirit as shadows of Christ.

Therefore, in chapter 3, John focuses on the new birth and why it changes us. But the dominate theme of the book, especially chapters 4 and 5, concentrates on love. Why is that? Because love in action should be the primary focus of Christians. Instead, what is the primary focus of Protestantism? Right; sin, sin, sin, sin, sin. Yes, our focus must be keeping our sins covered by the perfect righteousness of Jesus. Every song you sing, every sermon you hear is about how glorious Jesus is as set against our wretched vile selves. It boils down to praising our ability to see how rotten we are in the name of Jesus. (more…)

Election and the Real Golden Chain of Salvation, Part 3: The Potter and the Clay of Romans 9

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 25, 2015

Blog Radio LogoTonight (9/25/2015) @ 7pm. Live program link: Election and the Real Golden Chain of Salvation: Part 3; The Potter and the Clay of Romans 9 Call in and join the discussion!

Election and the Real Golden Chain of Salvation: Part 3; The Potter and the Clay of Romans 9

Welcome truth lovers to Blog Talk radio .com/False Reformation, this is your host Paul Dohse. Tonight, Election and the Real Golden Chain of Salvation: Part 3; The Potter and the Clay of Romans 9. Greetings from the Potters House and TANC ministries where we are always eager to serve all of your heterodox needs. Our teaching catalog can be found at

If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback over your cellphone. If you choose to use Skype to listen to the show, my advice is to just dial direct from your Skype account without using any of the Blogtalk links. 347-855-8317.

Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.

Remember, you may remain anonymous. When I say, “This is your host; you are on the air, what’s your comment or question”—just start talking.

If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at That’s Paul @ Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat .com. I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in. You can post a question as well.


Christ said that salvation is of the Jews (Jn 4:22). That’s what election is; it is God’s chosen means of salvation that includes the Son of God, the nation of Israel, administering angels, the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, and the patriarchs (Rom 9:4,5). The unregenerate are “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12).

Those of the Reformed tradition who define election as the preselection of individuals for either salvation or damnation deny the biblical definition of election through Replacement theology and Supersessionism. They must insist that the church replaced Israel in order to redefine election as individual rather than promises made to all that they can reject or receive. This far exceeds theological quibbling; the redefining of election is the propagation of a false gospel.

In this propagation, one of their proof texts of choice is Romans 9; specifically, Paul’s analogy concerning the potter and clay. Supposedly, Paul is driving home the point that God creates people beforehand as either vessels of glory or vessels for wrath, and He is glorified by both. Furthermore, God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were born or had done anything good or bad.

Also note: this view has even become known as the “gospel of sovereignty.” This is the idea that salvation must be all of God without any participation by man; the ability to believe, be persuaded, or choose God is a work. This is also known as “total inability.”

Let’s examine this proposition carefully. First, in the initial text of Romans 9 Paul makes it clear that the means of salvation belong to national Israel. It’s beyond obvious and pointless to make the case farther. Paul states that if national Israel has lost its election status, the word of God has failed. Paul’s point is that salvation comes through faith in “the promise” apart from anything man can do. More specifically, salvation comes through the promise of miraculous new birth beyond the control of anything human beings can do.

Romans 9:9 – For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

Backdrop of Romans 9: The New Birth, and Law/Gospel

This is the subject in context: God elected miraculous new birth as the standard for righteousness. The giving of the law is part of that process, but the ruling class of the Jews made the law the standard for righteousness, and not the new birth. And frankly, this is exactly what Protestantism does as well which is why they have to interpret Romans 9 as individual preselection. One thing you should note about the election process follows: Sarah was already saved. She was used in the development of the election process after being a believer. Likewise, God used unbelievers in the process as well, but that doesn’t mean that they had no choice in the matter. Pharaoh was one of those individuals, and is discussed by Paul in Romans 9. Old Testament believers were saved by believing in the promise (election) and looking forward to it, New Testament believers are saved by believing in a righteousness obtained by new birth that has been fully revealed. The process is totally separate from anything human beings can affect, but they can obtain it by faith alone. Again, the law is part of that process, but the ruling class of the Jews made the fulfillment of the law the standard, and not miraculous new birth.

Let’s also interject some additional things here. EVERYTHING apart from the new birth is works; even a libertine or antinomian stance is a work because it perceives the so-called saved person as still under law, that is, the law of sin and death that condemns. So, in order to not be condemned by the law, you have to avoid any effort to keep it because that would be works salvation. But here is the problem: the avoidance is a work. Abstaining from something is doing something even if you aren’t doing the something. Here is some weird Pauline theology that you will understand as we progress: the new birth enables a person to obtain the law apart from the law. And something else; right now, let’s define “works salvation.” This NEVER means that someone is trying to earn their salvation by keeping the true intent of God’s law. Works salvation is ALWAYS an attempt to fulfill the righteous demands of the law through some shortcut, ritual, tradition, or obeying man rather than God. This is what happens when the law is the standard for righteousness rather than the new birth. The new birth results in a different perspective on the same law.

This is why the Jews, that is, the ruling class, rejected Christ; He was elected to make righteousness apart from the law possible. The law was established for the imputation of sin:

Galatians 3:21 – Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

This is why Christ died on the cross to end the law (Rom 10:4). But, this is the law that condemns the unbeliever, and to which all of his/her sins are imputed because “all sin is against the law” (1Jn 3:4). So, when Christ died on the cross, He ENDED sin:

1John 3:5 – You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed [OFFSPRING] abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

This is why THE PROMISE was also to Christ (Gal 3:16). He died to end the law and all sin imputed to it, and was resurrected by the Holy Spirit as the first fruits of all of those who would be resurrected to new life by faith alone. The law held sin captive until “faith came.” Old Testament believers were held captive by the law in Sheol until Christ was resurrected by the Spirit; He then led them to heaven in triumph. During the three days He was in the grave, he preached to the captives in Sheol which was divided between believers and unbelievers. The unbelievers remain there and will be judged by the law at the white throne judgment at the end of the ages. To the unbeliever, the law can only bring death, condemnation, and judgment to varying degrees, but to the one who has died with Christ and has been resurrected, the new way of the Spirit (Rom 7:4-6) brings life through the same law:

Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

 Only those who have been resurrected with Christ by believing in the promise of the Spirit can find life more abundantly in the law. To the unbeliever, the Bible is the LAW OF SIN AND DEATH. To the believer, it is the LAW OF THE SPIIRT OF LIFE (Rom 8:2). The law cannot give life; ie., righteousness, only the new birth can (Gal 3:21), but once a person has received the Spirit, he/she can have life more abundantly through obeying the law. An unbeliever can only have more or lesser death through the law while a believer can only have more or less life through the law. BUT, the difference is obtained by faith alone in the promise of the Spirit that resurrected Christ from the grave. The unregenerate can only find death in the law while the saved can only find life in the law, but righteousness is not obtained by the law, but only the new birth. Life is obtained by faith alone in the promise of the new birth executed by the Spirit. The food for growth once life has been obtained is the law. For the believer, the law did not obtain life; only the new birth can do that, but we grow by the milk of the word:

1Peter 2:1- Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, 2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby (KJV).

Translations of stouter Reformed tradition such as the ESV leave out, “word” because of the implications that the law can give life to the believer. This disrupts their single perspective on the law as the standard for righteousness. But the bigger point follows: when Moses called on the Israelites to choose life or death, he was calling on them to choose the promise by faith alone resulting in life or death as set against the law of God. The law of God could only mean life or death to them, and the difference is by faith alone in the promise. Hence…

Romans 10:1 – Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

What Moses stated follows: it is impossible for the one who has not believed in the promise by faith alone to obtain life by law-keeping. However, this is not true for the believer:

Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

All of this is the backdrop for Romans 9. The religious Jews insisted on obtaining righteousness through the law of Moses rather than believing on Christ who came to “end the law FOR righteousness.” They chose the law as a means of salvation rather than the promise illustrated by the miraculous new birth of Isaac, Christ, John, and eventually all who believe in the promise. But wait a minute. The religious Jews never intended to obtain righteousness by obedience to the truth as they knew, like all false gospels by works, that such is impossible. This was also Moses’ point: only the righteous can live by the law once they obtain righteousness through the new birth made possible by Christ and the promise of the Spirit. Therefore, by seeking a righteousness of their own in the name of the law they fell short of the law (Gal 4:21, Rom 10:3,11:30-32). What they did follows: They first made the law the standard for righteousness instead of Christ, and then they sought to fulfill the righteousness of the law through some ritual or tradition; primarily, circumcision:

Galatians 5:2 – Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Notice that the religious Jews thought that circumcision and the “recognition of days” (Gal 4:10) fulfilled the righteous demands of the law. Paul said no, the righteous demands of the law can only be fulfilled in Christ, not the traditions of men. The true fulfillment of the law has nothing to do with being saved, but is a natural result of the new birth. Protestantism is really guilty of the same exact thing; except they insert Christ into the process. The law is still the standard for righteousness, and through traditions of men and ritualism, the so-called perfect obedience of Christ that fulfilled the law is imputed to us IF we participate in certain traditions. It is still a righteousness by the law apart from the new birth; except Christ keeps it for us IF we persevere in the Protestant traditions of men. Of course, this removes any ability by the Protestant to exhibit a faith that “works through love” (Gal 5:6), and replaces it with circumcision-like rituals.

Back to Romans 9

So, because the religious Jews refused to obey the promise, and sought to establish a righteousness of their own, God judged them by hardening their hearts. But at the same time, he sought to make them jealous by also offering the new birth to the Gentiles. The word of God has not failed, and Israel remains God’s elect according to His foreknowledge (Rom 11:2). God’s elect plan includes foreknowledge about everything (Eph 1:8). He lavished grace upon the Jews according to election regardless of knowing they would rebel, and in fact, used their rebellion to save more people including Gentiles.

Romans 9:30 – What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

As an aside, Israel didn’t succeed in “reaching the law” because they did not pursue it by faith, not because God had preselected some over others. Just a thought. Nevertheless, God did judge Israel by hardening their hearts:

Romans 11:7 – What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” 9 And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.”

Romans 11:11 – So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Romans 11:23 – And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Romans 11:25 – Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Notice in Romans 7:11 that the elect obtained righteousness, but the rest were hardened. The elect are the ones who answer the call and accept the gift of salvation (Rom 11:29, Matt 22:1-14). At issue is who God CALLS, not who He chooses. The means of salvation is chosen; all people are called, and in this case, both Jew and Gentile. Those who believe become part of the elect group whether Jew or Gentile.

Romans 9, 10, and 11 are the Book of Acts

When did this hardening take place, and when did the religious Jews stumble over the “stumbling block”? When they rejected Christ. When this happened precisely is arguable, but here are some possibilities:

Matthew 25:16 -Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Acts 1:1 – In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Acts 13:46 – And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

Acts 18:6 – But when they opposed and insulted him, he shook out his garments and told them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”

 Acts 22:17 – “When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance 18and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’ 19And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in one synagogue after another I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. 20And when the blood of Stephen your witness was being shed, I myself was standing by and approving and watching over the garments of those who killed him.’ 21And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’

The Potter and the Clay

As far as the time of the partial hardening of Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles have come in (Rom 11:25), we are in that time right now. The hardening took place during the ministry of the apostle Paul. However, God has retained a Jewish remnant for Himself until the day that all of Israel is saved. And this is the hypothetical objection that Paul addresses in Romans 9. The objection accuses God of being unfair for hardening the hearts of the Jews as a judgment; how can He then find fault with them? Paul’s hypothetical analogy has nothing to do with a plenary preselection of individuals for salvation, but rather God’s right to Judge Israel for rejecting their Christ and showing mercy to the Gentiles instead. Yet, God even does this to make the Jews jealous in order that some would be saved. Furthermore, the focus of God’s mercy is His calling according to election, not a preselection of individuals. His focus in our day is the calling of the Gentiles—that doesn’t mean no one has an ability to choose.

And what is it that they had the ability to choose? Christ and the new birth.

Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

“Children of the flesh” are the descendants of Abraham who have not been born again through believing in Christ… “You must be born again.” God’s plan of salvation is founded on miraculous new birth demonstrated by Sarah, Rebekah, Mary, Elizabeth, and now those who believe. In the case of Rebekah, God broke tradition and gave the birthrights of the firstborn to Jacob.

Romans 9:10 – And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

A popular notion among the Reformed, based on this passage, is the idea that God decided to hate Esau and love Jacob, in a saving way, before they were born. But God’s position on the two prior to their birth was, “The older will serve the younger,” not a salvific preselection. The Reformed continually cite this text with no mention of, “The older will serve the younger,” but rather cut that out and insert God’s hatred of Esau and love for Jacob, supposedly prior to their birth. However, if you note carefully the passage that Paul cites the latter is based on Esau’s behavior and subsequent judgment:

Malachi 1:2 – “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob 3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.”4 If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.’” 5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, “Great is the Lord beyond the border of Israel!”

The point here is God’s judgment on Israel in regard to the descendants of Esau, or as some argue; God allowing the descendants of Esau to persecute the descendants of Jacob. On any wise, the topic is not individual selection, but the fact that God’s word has not failed in regard to God’s election of national Israel… “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.”

And from a grammatical perspective with the fewest assumptions, an interpretive question must be asked: was God’s statement to Rebecah a prediction, or instruction due to God’s foreknowledge regarding the two? Rebecah’s manipulation of Isaac is often seen as less than honorable sibling favoritism, but was she in fact following God’s instruction?

Genesis 25:19 – These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham fathered Isaac, 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to be his wife. 21 And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren. And the Lord granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.” 24 When her days to give birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb. 25 The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau. 26 Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them. 27 When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents. 28 Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob.

So, you have this miracle to begin with because she was barren, and then God tells her that the older will serve the younger. And per the usual, the Patriarchs favor the guy that God doesn’t, right? With Abraham, it was Ishmael, and then Isaac favors Esau, and apparently, God had to use Rebekah to get things on track. You know, we read our Bibles and wonder why we have to suffer through all of the concubine drama. The verses prior to Genesis 25:19 is an example. But past getting hung-up on why God allowed all of that drama, it certainly establishes the fact that the problem wasn’t with the fathers, but God chose barren women to bear the righteous offspring, and everyone but them were having the babies until God intervened, and the point is this: miraculous new birth, miraculous new birth, miraculous new birth, and more miraculous new birth, and for good measure; miraculous new birth. “You must be born again.” That’s the point. The righteous line ends with Christ who then makes it possible for the Gentiles to become the offspring of Israel through the same miraculous birth made possible by the Holy Spirit.

The Purpose of the Hardening

And let’s remember, the partial hardening of Israel while maintaining a remnant, and refocusing the call towards the Gentiles to make the hardened Jews jealous for purposes of saving some of them (Rom 11:13,14), was in response to steroidal rebellion and outright rejection of plain truth. Paul uses Pharaoh as an example, and a close observation of the historical event in Exodus reveals that God hardened his heart after Pharaoh willfully hardened his own heart against God. We also see an example of this in Romans 1:18ff. God not only made sure that the Jews understood the difference between the promise and righteousness based on the law, he prophesied/warned them that they would rebel against it:

Romans 10:14 – How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

18 – But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” 19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” 20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” 21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

In addition, at least in Israel’s case, the hardening does not exclude the possibility that the hardened will  yet believe. Paul states clearly that making the Gentiles equals in the commonwealth of Israel was designed to make the Jews jealous with the anticipated result of saving some of them (Rom 11:13,14). So, the hardening was not to solidify some individual preselection by God, but rather to facilitate the salvation of many. Note what the apostle Paul wrote:

Romans 11:23 – And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

In conclusion, do a test. Read Romans chapters 9,10, and 11, and wherever there is a cause and effect statement, or purpose transition, or reference to the calling, and where also the word “choose” would fit into the sentence grammatically, take note of it, and see how many times the word “choose” is missing when that is supposedly the crux of these chapters. The theme is the “purpose of election,” and then the purpose is stated throughout these chapters. And conspicuously missing is the idea that God preselects certain individuals for salvation and others for damnation. In these passages, the clay pots refer to people groups; namely, the offspring of Abraham, the hardened, the remnant, and the Gentiles.

Also, Paul states that these groups come from “one lump of clay.” I think the one lump of clay is Israel, and symbolizes God’s purposes in uniting Jew and Gentile into one body. I think election is God’s means of working all things together for those who love him according to foreknowledge. Israel was God’s elect through foreknowledge as Romans 11:2 states which means He devised His plan of salvation according to all wisdom and knowledge of future events (Eph 1:8), including Israel’s rebellion. He worked all of this foreknowledge together into His election purpose for the goodwill of all men (Lk 2:14).

Let’s go to the phones.

The Cross

Posted in Cross by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 25, 2015

Cross 4

TANC 2015, Susan Dohse, Session 1 – Jonathan Edwards: An Introduction to the Man of Many Words

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on September 23, 2015

TANC LOGOI love history, and although I give my dear husband fits when I am preparing for our conferences, this studying and doing research does give me an element of enjoyment. This is also one of my preventive measures to staving off Alzheimer’s – engaging in mentally challenging activities. However, I am motivated by truth. That is the mission of TTANC, The Truth About New Calvinism.

For our new guests either here or in cyberspace, I will quickly introduce myself. My name is Susan Deborah Dohse. I was married to Wayne St. Denis for thirty-six years, and together we had three sons: Timothy, Benjamin, and Philip. Wayne passed away in December of 2009 of congestive heart failure and diabetes. The Lord blessed me with a new husband and so I lost my “sainthood” when I married Paul 4 years ago. I actually married him twice. We eloped on January 1st and, April 9th, had a public marriage ceremony to announce our union. I am in my 42nd year of teaching, and my present title is that of a Developmental Specialist. This means I get to play with babies whose ages range from birth to age three. I have taught every grade except Kindergarten and the first fifteen years of my teaching career was at Xenia Christian. Two children were added to my clan, Heather, and Paul Jr.  Together, Paul and I have four grandchildren, Blayne, Benjamin’s son, whom you will meet on Saturday, and Hannah, Jacob, and Joanna, who live in Puerto Rico with their missionary parents Heather and David.

If I were to take a survey such as what might be taken for the game show Family Feud, and ask people to name one thing they know about Jonathan Edwards, here is what I believe the top answers might be:

1) Who?
2) He wrote that anti-war song, Sunshine.
3) Wasn’t he the man who fell into the hands of an angry God?
4) I know, he woke up during that Great Awakening.
5) He’s running for President, isn’t he?

The young, restless, and reformed call him their “home boy”, and pastors elevate him to equal importance of the Apostle Paul. There is a Jonathan Edwards Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, a Jonathan Edwards Classical Academy in Whites Creek, Tennessee, a Jonathan Edwards Conference held by John Piper, Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University which houses all his known writings, a Jonathan Edwards College at Yale, and a Jonathan Edwards Gordon Conwell Seminary. The list can go on. Just Google it. This Puritan minister of the 1700’s is immortalized, idolized, and almost canonized. The Puritan Board Blog holds Edwards in high esteem, and why wouldn’t they? It’s the Puritan Board. They extol his life and elevate his teachings to be on par with Scripture. John Piper rarely has an original sermon because of his heavy reliance on the theology and epistemology and writings of Jonathan Edwards. “Alongside the Bible, Edwards became the compass of my theological studies,” writes Piper. Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones made this claim: “I am tempted perhaps foolishly, to compare the Puritans to the Alps, Luther and Calvin to the Himalayas, and Jonathan Edwards to Mt. Everest. He has always been to me a man most like the Apostle Paul.” Author Stephen Nichols speaks of a lecturer who stated, “Next to Scripture, Jonathan Edwards’s Religious Affections stands as the single most important book for any Christian to grapple with.”

He is called the Prince of Pastors, America’s greatest theo-philosopher, and America’s Augustine. Do I even try to say something the least bit negative about this golden boy of the Puritans?

So, the Why question. Why study history in general and Jonathan Edwards in particular? We live in the here and now, the present. We are supposed to be planning for the future, our retirements, Christmas, our next conference, lunch. We plan for and perhaps worry much over the future. With all that we have to do today, and with all that we have to look forward to in the future, why bother with discussing someone from the past? Consider all the demands that press on us daily and the anticipation of what is. Peter Stearns said, “Any subject of study needs justification.” Why is Jonathan Edwards worth our study, worth your attention? What is the justification for my sharing what I have learned about this man?

Let’s look at it from this perspective: How can we evaluate war if the nation is at peace –unless we use historical material? How can we understand the role that beliefs play in shaping church history, and family life if we don’t study the impact of such historical figures as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine, and Jonathan Edwards? Let’s use this analogy: Jonathan Edwards is our laboratory and the data learned from him and what he taught serves as the evidence in figuring out the answers to other Wh questions: Why is Protestantism, i.e. Christianity, pursuing New-Calvinism? What factors contribute to this resurgence? What elements of Protestantism persist despite change? When we unfold his record, it could provide some light on how New Calvinism works, and the road it is taking us down.

Jonathan Edwards, destined from birth to be a Puritan minister. His parents, Timothy and Esther Edwards, hearty Calvinists, believed in predestination and the sovereign will of God, but were not disposed to helping God define the direction, shape the will, and mold the mind of their only son, Jonathan. He had no other calling but that of a Puritan minister. His mother, father, and older sisters made sure that he would follow in the path of their father, Timothy, and grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. He was the fifth child of eleven, and the only boy. He was extremely loved and doted on but not spoiled. His father was a micro-manager and had the highest of expectations for his only son. He learned Latin at the age of 6, and before entering the Collegiate College of Connecticut, later named Yale University, at the age of 13, he would know both Latin and Greek. His father, Timothy, a teacher himself of Latin and Greek would see to it that his son would know the languages necessary to enter college.

From an early age, religion was a preoccupation with Jonathan. He dated his interest in spiritual things to when he was 9 or 10, calling it “a time of remarkable awakening” when he had been for months concerned “about the things of religion and [his] soul’s salvation.” Moved to both private meditation and prayer, and religious exercises with other children, he often went to “secret places” in the woods, “a booth in a swamp, in a very secret and retired place, for prayer.” He later wrote, “I seem to be in my element when engaged in religious duties.”(Samuel Miller, Jonathan Edwards, and Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards.)

He entered the Collegiate School of Connecticut at the age of 13, intellectually precocious, and an un-regenerate pre-teen who did not measure up to his father’s expectations because, although overly pious, Jonathan did not show a heartfelt love of God, which was the true sign of conversion.

He went off to school with ten other boys ages 13-15; typical age for boys to attend college during those days. The course work was rigorous, and life structured. Breakfast followed morning prayers, with classes through midday; an hour and half of free time after the noon meal and before afternoon classes, more prayers, Bible reading and explication. Supper came after early-evening recitations, with study hours from 9-11. Lights out at 11. Monday through Thursday first year students studied Greek and Hebrew grammar, sophomores began work in logic, and the upper classes moved on to natural philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics. All students studied rhetoric, oratory, ethics, and theology. This puts the common core philosophy in a bad light, doesn’t it?

The final examination for receiving the Bachelor of Arts degree was: a student had to convince his rector of his expertise “in Reading the Hebrew into Greek, and into Latin and grammatically resolving said languages and in answering such questions in their systems of logic and in the principles of natural philosophy and metaphysicks.” Edwards did so well that at the commencement in 1720 he gave the valedictory oration, in Latin. He returned to work on his Master’s degree.

Scholasticism gave him satisfaction and recognition in the collegiate community, but not peace. Although well-read and informed in the reading and study of philosophy, particularly European high culture ( Locke, Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Henry More, Malebranche, the Cambridge Platonists, to name a few), he still anguished over the issue of conversion. In his Personal Narrative he reported his earliest religious experiences and wrote that just prior to going to Yale he believed that he had experienced spiritual transformation. But he lost his exuberance. He had at least four spiritual awakenings, he records.

When 16, he became bed-ridden with pleurisy and almost died. He wrote that it was a divine intervention, for God held him over the pit of hell and it was his sinful life that brought him to the verge of death. Believing, as all good Puritan Calvinists do, that experiences such as this is part of the sovereign will of God and part of the spiritual conversion process, he resolved to rearrange all things in his life to allow him to focus on Christ alone. He tried to renounce his former ways and obey the Lord’s Word. He “fell again” into the “old ways of sin” which led him to many great and violent struggles in his soul. He broke off all former wicked ways, all known outward sin, and applied himself to see salvation and to practice many religious duties. (Please note these words: see salvation and practice religious duty: they are important in the pursuit of salvation) Through self-searching he felt the need to change his attitude from “seeking salvation” to contemplation of Christ’s place and role in the world—develop a new awareness of Christ’s glory. Please note the first two steps one takes to conversion: recognizing how wicked you are by identifying all known sin, and contemplation of Christ’s glory. Now he needed to shift his attention to God. Only by turning to God would he be able to experience a true spiritual transformation. He writes that when he saw the once horrible doctrine of God’s sovereignty he was able to “see further.” His reasoning was that he “apprehended the justice and reasonableness regarding the doctrine of God’s sovereignty” and became “convinced and fully satisfied as to this sovereignty of God and his justice in thus eternally disposing of men according to his sovereign pleasure.” He found the breakthrough to being converted. Only through the full realization of the glory of the Divine Being did he develop new convictions about Christ and the work of redemption. He describes his mystical and existential conversion as “an inward, sweet sense” of the work of redemption, “a calm sweet abstraction of soul from all the concerns of the world.” His experience had been so overwhelming that he writes in his diary that “often he had a kind of vision, or fixed ideas, and imaginations of being alone in the mountains, or some solitary wilderness, far from all mankind, sweetly conversing with Christ, and wrapped and swallowed up in God.” (Diary, Works of Jonathan Edwards)

Now on the verge of complete conversion, on the edge of self-transformation according to his new and vivid experience of the sovereign majesty of God and Christ’s glorious work of salvation, he needed a stamp of authority to certify that these spiritual experiences were indeed evidence of conversion. He traveled from New York in 1723 to tell his father his spiritual odyssey. Without the approval of his father, the long and agonizing journey of the past two years might prove invalid. “Not long after I first began to experience these things I gave an account to my father of some things that had passed in my mind. I was pretty affected by the discourse we had together.” With his father’s final affirmation and approval, his son’s process of conversion was complete. In his Personal Narrative he tells his readers that after the discourse with his father, he went for a short walk, when “[i]t came into my mind so sweet a sense of the glorious majesty and grace of God…The appearance of everything altered. There seemed to be as it were, a calm, sweet cast or appearance of divine Glory in almost everything. God’s excellency, his wisdom, his purity, his love, seemed to appear in everything.” Although he writes that he does not know the exact moment when conversion happened, he knows that one day he had a “delightful conviction” accompanied by a “sort of inward, sweet delight in God and divine things” that he had never experienced before. He dated this remarkable change in attitude to the time between his graduation from Yale and his pastorate in New York.

It is important to keep the steps of his conversion in the back of your mind because we will revisit these again.

Throughout his life Jonathan Edwards spent a considerable amount of time and energy in fashioning the conduct and character of his person. At the beginning of his literary activity he kept to being the careful, organized writer, following the rules he wrote in his Cover-Leaf Memoranda where he would engage the reader, and gently lead them into some new dimension of belief. By the 1730’s he abandoned his rule book and became aggressive and assertive with the intent to expound serious Christian doctrine rather than just chronicle events.

The timeline of events from his conversion experience to his death revolve around Edwards establishing his ministerial authority. Called to be an assistant pastor to his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, was a major role for Edwards. He was entering a territory with increasing social instability and potentially explosive situations. Corn, cattle, and land were central to the region’s interests and social divisions within the town had become significantly exacerbated. The Stoddard family controlled the military, the judiciary, and the church, and this control was a constant thorn in his flesh. Edwards did not long have the benefit of his grandfather’s counsel or authoritative position. On February 11, 1729, after 60 years in the same town and ministry, the great man finally died, leaving his 26 year old grandson to continue his work. Elijah’s mantle had fallen on his shoulders, but he was far from earning the respect it marked, for he would always live in the shadow of the Pope of the Connecticut Valley, his grandfather. From 1729 to 1743 he was on the rise as the sole pastor of the prestigious Northampton congregation that experienced awakenings in 1734-35 and 1740-42. Some historians calls these times the Little Awakening, and the Great Awakening.

His strategy during these years consisted of three elements: cultivate a patronage of influential people in Northampton, cultivate a patronage of influential people beyond Northampton, and continue to grow his self-confidence in the rightness of his personal beliefs as foundational to true religion. He accomplished this not through his preaching solely, but through his prolific writing.

The congregation of Northampton had to get used to a minister that was “stiff and unsociable”, a man of few words and a man reserved with strangers. He was never comfortable visiting people’s homes and making small talk. He wrote, “I prefer the study of books than to the company of people.” When they had spiritual concerns, he preferred to counsel them in his study, not visit them in their homes. Unlike his grandfather, who preached without notes and with much emotion, his pulpit manner reflected his constitution and habits. His voice was not particularly loud, but that did not diminish the fact that he commanded his audience with distinctness, clearness, and precision. He rarely moved his hands or looked out on his audience unless it was to stare at the bell rope in the back of the church, for he wrote out his sermons and read from his texts.

His life was marked by rigid structure –rising early, thirteen hours of study in which he wrote treatises, and prepared his sermons. Edwards wrote in his diary in 1728, “I think Christ has recommended rising early in the morning, by his rising from the grave very early.” After the evening meal, he often devoted one hour engaged with his children in conversation and singing. He also wrote “I judge that it is best when I am in a good frame of mind for divine contemplation, or engaged in reading the Scriptures, or any study of divine subjects, that, ordinarily, I will not be interrupted by going to dinner, but will forego my dinner, rather than be broke off.” After family worship, he would return to his study for 2-3 more hours before retiring to bed. Much praise must be given to his wife Sarah, for she was glue that held the household together. She was responsible for running the household, discipline and instruction of their eleven children, and caring for the steady stream of visitors and apprentices, often overseeing their home and 50 acres while nursing one child and pregnant with another. When it came to the management of a household, it has been said that Jonathan Edwards had no common sense, often unaware of how many sheep they had, or the condition of their fields. It was Sarah that helped to make the man, Jonathan Edwards.

From 1744-50, he became embroiled in controversies and conflicts in which his downward spiral in the eyes of the town led to his dismissal in 1750. Edwards had inherited a church socially fractured and in spiritual decline. His effectiveness as spiritual leader diminished with each passing year. He was dismissed from his ministerial position and on July 1st 1750, he severed his formal connection with the church of Northamption. To pour salt on his wounds, the church retained him for another year, hiring him by the week to preach to a congregation that was having difficulty in obtaining a new minister, in no part because of the town’s reputation for contentiousness. In the summer of 1751, he moved 60 miles west of Northampton where he was to be the minister and schoolmaster at an Indian mission school in Stockbridge, Massachusetts.

Finally convinced that his talent was writing, in a few short years he completed 4 theological treatises on topics of transatlantic interest. The strategies he developed after graduation from Yale were now being played out in the wilderness of Massachusetts.

The theme of his writing was the most important and urgent: the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and excellence. He now had the self-confidence and the growing conviction that he had the duty and right to communicate this message. He had internalized the message to the point where it was shaping him, the message became the man. The message of God’s sovereignty with its human counterpart of the need for total dependency on God dominated him to where he was convinced that he had a role as proclaimer of that message. Now his role became one of quasi-apostle. He journeyed from the desire to be heard, to one who felt he had the right to be heard, to this quasi-apostle, one who must be heard.

Now more than 290 years and 4,000 words of scholarship later, we see that the person of Jonathan Edwards was shaped not by his practice, but by his writing. Is it no wonder that the young, restless, and reformed are urged to “take up and read Edwards”? He fits well in their TULIP cult; since the TULIP cult works from the principles taught in the highly fallible writings and sermons of men, men such as John Calvin, and their home-boy, Jonathan Edwards.

Session 1, Blog TalkRadio Podcast

Why Al Mohler is a Heretic

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on September 22, 2015

Big AlOriginally published April 10, 2012

Listen friends, the gospel of progressive justification is a false gospel; it’s just that simple. I don’t care how educated Al is, how many followers he has, or anything else save the gospel he preaches. In the following video trailer from the 2011 Resolved Conference, Al Mohler states that the only purpose of the law in the life of a believer is to show us our ongoing need for salvation. Of course, he doesn’t word it that way. He states that believers have an ongoing need for Christ (which no Christian would refute), but note carefully: he is speaking in context of our initial salvation. So, instead of saying plainly that Christians need to be continually saved, or continually justified, he replaces that wording with “Christ.” However, again, the context is clearly salvation. He is saying that we need Christ in the same way that we needed Him for salvation.

Mohler is also saying that the law has the same relationship/purpose to unbelievers as it does believers: to show us our need for Christ. So, obviously, this is in contrast to any ability on the part of the believer to keep it. All the law can do is show NEED. Need for what? Well, what’s the context? Mohler also presents an either/or choice in regard to the law: it either shows us our need for Christ (again, what need specifically?), or we are using it to “rescue ourselves from sin.” Hmmm, what does it mean to “rescue ourselves from sin”? I believe Mohler deliberately uses the word “rescue” instead of “save” in order to add nuance to his point. “Rescue” is less direct, and could refer to a believer trying to overcome sin on his own. This is the same reason he replaces “salvation” with “Christ” in his prior point. It’s deliberate deception. Excluded is any mention that the law can be used by the believer to please God and glorify Him in all we do by “observing all that I have commanded.”

Mohler’s trailer starts at 1:35.

Overcoming the Protestant Divorce Mill

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 22, 2015

ppt-jpeg4The unregenerate normally do life better than the religious because they believe God made the world to work in certain ways. In contrast, if much of life is self evident, what do we need witch doctors for? Most religions are predicated on the idea that reality is not self evident to the masses.

Catholicism gave birth to the second great super-cult of the ages: Protestantism, and like most cults, marriage is seen as something that contributes to the control strategy. As Protestantism comes more into its own through the Neo-Calvinist movement in our day, the rearranging of marriages for the benefit of the institution will become more and more evident. In Neo-Protestant speak, it sounds like this: “We want marriages that look like the gospel.”

Over the past couple of years, Susan and I have had opportunity to counsel several people in regard to their marriages of misery as well as some premarital counseling. It’s interesting, they want to talk to us regardless of our confession that as recovering Protestants, we know little about living for the kingdom. In regard to premarital counseling, we focus on the few things that we have learned and are certain of, and after that they are on their own. They need to be pioneering disciples and teach us a few things.

Here is what we know through God’s word and what we have learned through counseling others stuck in a marriage of misery: the marriage is miserable because of sin, but don’t miss the main point of such crass simplicity. One must consider a primary essence of sin. Sin seeks to control others through condemnation, and if others don’t supply enough ammo for condemnation, the controller will make some up, usually through assumptions or outright slander. But in almost every counseling situation involving a horrible marriage, both spouses come with their condemnation lists. If only he or she would do this or that, or believe this or that, our marriage would be healed. Nope.

“Christians” stuck in a bad marriage because there is no biblical premise for divorce are indeed stuck, unless they go to a Neo-Calvinist church, and since Neo-Calvinism has completely taken over the American church, they probably do. The movement, through its para-church counseling industrial complex, is dolling out sanctified divorce right and left. But even the world knows that divorce does not reduce life’s misery scale. While the church is rearranging marriages through sanctified divorce and remarriage, the unregenerate are finding happiness in their marriages through state sponsored marriage workshops. This ministry endorses such because we do not believe that happy unbelievers are necessarily blinded to the gospel. Protestants, like all cults, feel threatened by happiness outside of their realm of belief. As the Protestant Gnostic Paul David Tripp asserts, happy unbelieving spouses are simply “feeding each others’ idols.”

Really? Or are they simply wiser about life? This is the crux: the world will only begin to listen to our gospel if it looks like we know more about the life our Father supposedly created than they do. Beware of the whole deep things of God routine which often translates into… “I understand things that you cannot understand so you need to let me control you.” Or, “Since God spoke to me in a dream/vision, and he doesn’t speak to you directly, you need to submit to me.” Or, “Since I completed the seminary test course that validates philosopher kings, you need to obey me, and if you do, it proves that you are saved.”

This is the true reality: believers, or Christians stuck in a bad marriage have three choices: divorce your spouse and find someone more compatible, stay married and remain miserable in the marriage, or stay married and be happy in the marriage. The Bible is explicit about how the third option is obtained. And this is important to know because it is the same principle for unity in home fellowships. Basically, you allow your spouse to live according to their own conscience, and also allow time for them to be convinced in their own minds about life and truth in general. This doesn’t mean persuasion is excluded, but it does mean control as an agenda is excluded.

What about “submission”? Same deal. The Bible states that it is of no benefit to individuals when they refuse to obey truth, and they need to be given room to figure that out on their own. In a marriage counseling situation where the husband is obsessed with the “submission” of the wife, his words are often telling. He thinks she should “obey” him for what reason? Because God has ordained the husband as head of the wife, the woman sinned first, and therefore…etc., etc., etc. Apparently, in God’s grand scheme of things, the husband understands things that the wooooman cannot understand and she should therefore obey him. And since we are in America, he can’t beat her, or set her on fire for daring to disrespect his authority, so the next best thing is to get her into counseling where a philosopher king tells her to obey lest her salvation be revoked by John Calvin’s “power of the keys.”

This simply won’t work, unless for whatever reason the wife capitulates and becomes a living manikin in both life and the bed. For certain, control freaks (really sin freaks) embrace any sexual satisfaction perceived as a cut above masturbation in the same way they are aroused by the respect of others. The husband as head of the home is a goal—not a caste system. How convenient: Christ is the head of the man, and the man is the head of the woman, but when it comes to the man being dealt with by Christ, that’s of the invisible realm. Per the usual, in all caste systems, it’s a bitch being a serf, or in this case, the serf is the bitch.

So what is the answer? Lots of wisdom that we do not yet have in this Protestant dark age, but we must start someplace. Husbands must learn the art of leadership, and they must know that authority is a cheap shortcut. They must live with their wives according to knowledge, regardless of the wife, and remember, authority doesn’t need any knowledge other than one’s own brute instincts. Husband, if you are a believer, your wife is also your sister and joint heir in eternal life. If you have a bad marriage—you lack knowledge. And that’s a starting point in your miserable marriage: “We have a bad marriage because we both lack wisdom. And that lack of wisdom is presently being passed on to our children. I am going to do my best to fix this, and the judge will be our love for each other, or at least my love for you.”

Wife, likewise, your husband is not always going to get it. Unless you have biblical grounds for divorce, your goal is to live with him on common ground and in love. Simply refuse to discuss issues where you cannot find common ground. The more you master the art of respecting him for his truly good characteristics, and not dwelling on his faults, you will learn to love him. If he responds in a negative way, your conscience is clear, and that is where you are ultimately going to find peace.

The gospel? Your children are not stupid. If God can’t fix a marriage—He can’t fix a soul. Get it together. Your longstanding bad marriage is a living bad news of hopelessness to the world. God is bigger than your bad marriage—figure it out for the sake of the gospel. In some cases, that may mean sleeping in the same room again, which will get the attention of your children big-time. And when they ask, and they will, tell them that dad and mom don’t have all of the answers, but this one thing is what you both know: God is bigger than your bad marriage. That’s common ground even if nothing happens. That’s a beginning, and that’s the gospel. And if your spouse is a Protestant, you may even make him/her late for Sunday school, which is also helpful.

A beginning truce is fairly painless: “Is it all about us, or something bigger? And does that mean we do everything your way, or my way? Or is there another way?”


Acts Lesson 62

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on September 22, 2015

Acts Series


Tuesday Night Bible Study – Now LIVE on Blogtalk Radio!
Lesson 62 – September 22, 2015 (click here to listen)



Join us each Tuesday night at 7:00 PM as the host, Andy Young, leads a verse by verse exegetical study of the Book of Acts.

In tonight’s lesson, Paul remains in Roman custody.  We explore a short historical context of the Roman occupation of Israel and how it pertains to the events in our text surrounding Paul’s testimony before King Agrippa.

Tonight’s Text – Acts 25:13-27





The Problem With Protestant Election

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 22, 2015

Blog Radio LogoListen to the program or download audio file. 

Welcome truth lovers to Blog Talk radio .com/False Reformation, this is your host Paul Dohse. Tonight, another Paul Dohse parenthesis in our Heidelberg Disputation series, “The Problem With Protestant Election.”

Greetings from the Potters House and TANC ministries where we are always eager to serve all of your heterodox needs. Our teaching catalog can be found at

If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback over your cellphone. If you choose to use Skype to listen to the show, my advice is to just dial direct from your Skype account without using any of the Blogtalk links. It’s the same number, 347-855-8317.

Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.

Remember, you may remain anonymous. When I say, “This is your host; you are on the air, what’s your comment or question”—just start talking.

If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at That’s Paul @ Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat .com. I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in. You can post a question as well.

Before we get started tonight, I must implement our new policy here at False Reformation. I think as recovering Protestants, we must embrace our fears and failures. One example is the sin minefield. Whenever disciples endeavor to embark on some new project, deep introspection ensues. Could the project cause us to sin? Pray tell, what are our true motives? And overall, we deem it our duty to recognize the major weaknesses of the other disciples, and for me, that is, “going off on rabbit trails all the time.”

Therefore, as a recovering Protestant, I have decided to embrace this failure as one no longer under condemnation. Yes, whenever I go down a rabbit trail, I want to make it a memorial of remembrance that I am not condemned for going down that rabbit trail. Hence, from now on, just prior to going down a rabbit trail in this show, the rabbit trail will be introduced with the following song:

So basically, when you hear an excerpt of that song on the program, you know that it is a rabbit trail coming. The upbeat introduction is also a remembrance that I need not seek forgiveness for the rabbit trail least I be condemned. Ahmen.

What is the major problem with the Protestant view of election? It is tenfold. First, as thoroughly documented by TANC ministries, the Protestant Reformation is dead wrong on salvation. The second point exacerbates the problem: all positions on election come from Protestantism, and all positions are framed by Protestant scholars. In other words, Protestant academia controls the context in which the issue is debated. Think about the insanity of this: all arguments about election start with a Protestant context; the so-called 5 points of Calvinism. In the same way that a “Band-Aid” viz, a brand defines what something is, Protestants of the authentic Reformed tradition have completely co-opted the context and framework of the argument which virtually guarantees the outcome that they want; either capitulation, or confusion which only bolsters their worldview that mankind cannot comprehend reality.

Thirdly, while there are many verses in the Bible that seem to indicate an individual preselection for salvation and damnation, there are also many that indicate that mankind is able to choose or reject salvation. There is obviously a contradiction which is written off as paradox, BUT, with one side of the paradox being the engine of existence. What am I saying here? They claim paradox, but only one side of the paradox is applicable—the sovereign side.

Fourthly, Protestantism deliberately uses a process of assimilation based on allowing the saints to assume things about orthodoxy at its progressive points. As the saints are gradually assimilated into full blown Platonism dressed in biblical garb, they are allowed to assume that “faith alone” does not include sanctification, and that “total depravity” does not include the saints, and that God does not preselect people for eternal damnation. This is a 500 year-old system of assimilation that is evil genius. And they know exactly what they are doing. How do they condone it? Well, we must not teach things that the great unwashed masses are not yet “ready for.” Nevertheless, in the same way that pot leads to harder drugs, hardcore Protestant Platonists invariably move from a grudging soft determinism to soft determinism, ie., so-called 3 or 4 point Calvinism, but eventually become advocates of hard determinism.

Fifthly, we are allowing a religion that continually produces bad fruit to dictate the confines of the debate and define the interpretive terms and words. Protestant orthodoxy has effectively defined all of the biblical terms in which our reality is interpreted, and be sure of it, those who effectively define the definition of words control reality. We have allowed a religion that continually produces rotten fruit to co-opt the grammar. That’s a really, really bad idea.

Sixth, a casual reading of Scripture is tortured because of the overall biblical dialogue found by independent reading. If God preselects some for salvation and others for damnation for his glory and self-love, why do we have Christ weeping over Jerusalem, why do we have God saying, “come let us reason together saith the Lord,” why do we have the apostle Paul expending all kinds of energy to “persuade” people in regard to the gospel? If individual determinism is true, the Bible makes NO sense whatsoever. Let’s look at a specific example of this:

Luke 16:19 –  “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried,23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No,father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Ok, so, the guy asks Abraham to send Lazarus over to give him relief from his suffering, and Abraham’s answer includes nothing about preselection; why not? If the guy is over there suffering for God’s glory, what’s all of this other discussion about? And why do they discuss the best means of persuasion? If the point is preselection, how people might be best persuaded is certainly a mute point, no? What is problematic is the Bible’s constant passing on making the preselection angle the main point when such opportunities appear over and over again throughout the Bible. Let’s look at another example. Matthew 26:24.

The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

Well, doesn’t God always want what’s best? Consider this verse in context of what love is via 1Corinthians chapter 13. Love ALWAYS seeks what’s best for others. Bottom line: if preselection is true, the Bible is nothing more than a convoluted quagmire of confusion. But God is NOT a God of confusion.

Here is another thought. The Reformed love to talk about the potter and the clay deal in Romans 9. The potter has a right to make some vessels for wrath and others for salvation and He is glorified by both. But then there is this also…

2Timothy 2:20 – Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. 22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.

Here, what kind of vessel you are is determined by “cleansing” yourself. We will not be discussing Romans 9 tonight, but it will be covered in a series of articles I am presently writing.

Seventh, Biblicism rejects plenary paradox as an interpretive method because of interpretive presuppositions demanded by Scripture itself: God is NOT a God of confusion. Though paradox is a biblical reality, it is rare, and always suspect. It is guilty until proven innocent.

Eighth, individual HOPE is an acid test for truth. If something lacks individual assurance or hope, it is extremely suspect. And regardless of Protestant squealing of denial in epic volume, the engine of its progressive salvation is predicated on the so-called Christian being under a greater awareness of condemnation and fear—not a soteriology that escapes the terrible-two.

Ninth, because of the way the Bible is written, Protestant paradox demands an inconsistent method of interpretation. In some verses paradox is employed while in others grammar is employed without any determinate principle whatsoever except orthodox presuppositions. In other words, interpretive methodology demanded by the context is ignored and exchanged for orthodoxy. I suppose the classic example of this is Romans 8:2 where the same word for “law” used twice in that verse is interpreted both as a written standard and a realm. Once you break an interpretive rule of that sort, anything goes; you can interpret the Bible any way you want to.

Lastly, the injection of chapters and verses into the Bible by the Protestant Reformers has made it possible to proof-text orthodoxy without considering the corpus of Scripture. Furthermore, it suits preaching and not the necessity of reading the corpus without elements being emphasized through a numbering system. It is incredible to consider that chapters and verses were deemed unnecessary until the 16th century. It should not only seem suspect, it should be deemed such. Chapters and verses make it possible to sell a doctrine with a collection of biblical one-liners.

Therefore, an alternative to the traditional view of election must be sought, and the traditional definition of the words used to discuss this issue must be traded for their biblical assessment.

Indeed, there are many verses in the Bible that seem to indicate that people are preselected for salvation; after all, the word “elect” is in the Bible, but there are just as many or more verses that seem to indicate people are able to believe or reject the gospel. You can understand why we are still at a stalemate 500 years later. But again, is this because we are constrained by Protestant rules of engagement? Unfortunately, for the most part, logic enters in based on subjective criteria rather than conclusions drawn from the objective definition of words. And again, if one buys into the paradox argument, they are merely on their way to being full-blown predeterminists.

Before we get into the meat of our study, let’s serve up a few appetizers. First, the word “elect” or often translated “chosen” does not always apply to people who need salvation or people at all for that matter. The word “election” sometimes applies to deity, ie., Christ, or the holy angels, or a thing such as the nation of Israel. The nation Israel spoken of as being elect is a major Old Testament theme.* Not only that, in Romans 11:2, Israel is spoken of in the exact same way that elected individuals are spoken of in Romans 8:29. This should alert us that something is up with all of this.

Secondly, the definition of “called” creates critical problems for the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP) with the other points attempting to cover for the one fundamental flaw. Again, this has to do with the definition of “called.” God calls all people because Christ died for everybody. In the minds of the Reformers, if God preselected some for salvation and others for damnation, He could not have possibly died for the sins of the damned. If He died for their sins, they are forgiven, and only need to accept the pardon. If Christ died for all sin, this suggests a choosing by men rather than God. Hence, the Reformed called for a limited atonement (the “L” in TULIP) effected by an “effectual calling” (Irresistible grace [the “I” in TULIP]).

Herein is the problem: Christ died to end the law, and how many people are under the law? Right, everyone. So, Romans 10:4 alone completely blows up the leading authority on predeterminism; the 5 points of Calvinism. Or…

Colossians 2:11 – In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God,who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Instead of Christ dying for everyone, which throws a large monkey wrench into the 5 points of Calvinism, the Reformed merely keep the so-called “saints” under the law and its “legal demands.” This takes care of the problem of the law being ended because everyone remains under it while those who are preselected receive a perpetual forgiveness from Christ for their ongoing sin. This makes limited atonement possible. According to the Synod of Dort  and the Canons of Dort in 1618 and 1619 which codified the 5 points of Calvinism:

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle. (Christ’s Death and Human Redemption Through It, Article 8)

Here is the point: the leading authority on Protestant election is the 5 points of Calvinism which is plainly wrong and defines the saints as unbelievers according to the biblical definition of under law versus under grace.

Verses that assume choice more or less speak for themselves—let’s examine verses that seem to indicate preselection, and we will start with the book of Ephesians:

1:3 – Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Let’s begin by defining who the “we” and the “us” are. In context, it is the Jews. When Paul wrote that “he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” he is talking about the predestination of the Jews as a group, not individuals. Hence…

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

The first to hope in Christ and obtain an inheritance are the Jews. The “you also” are the Gentiles to whom Paul is writing. Keeping in mind that Christ is elect, note the following:

In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

It’s Christ and the plan of salvation that is in Christ, or the “mystery of the gospel”** that is preordained—not individuals. But, how do individuals obtain this “inheritance”?

13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

“You also” is the Gentiles in general, “when you heard the word of truth, and believed in him” is how the inheritance is obtained: by individual faith. At the time one believes they receive a “guarantee.” This is why Christ is elect, and why Israel is also elect: national Israel is also part of the salvation plan and the mystery of the gospel.

Ephesians 2:11 – Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Other than the fact that this passage makes being part of the commonwealth of Israel synonymous with salvation, we see that “we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.” This speaks of two groups, not individuals who have access to the father through the Spirit. God’s clear purpose in election was to unite both Jew and Gentile into one body, not the preselection of some individuals over others.

There are many, many other verses we could discuss, but we will close with a couple of tough ones in this whole discussion. First, the dreaded Acts 13:48.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

First of all, as Andy Young aptly pointed out in his Acts series, the context of Acts 13 is a historical account of Romans 11 in full action. Second, many who contend against preselection of individuals quibble about the actual meaning of the word “appointed” or “ordained” in said verse. For example, here is what the late Dave Hunt said about it:

Some claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as comments from early church writers, indicate
that the first 15 chapters of Acts were probably written first in Hebrew. The Greek would be a
translation… going back to a “redacted Hebrew” version, based upon word-for-word Greek-Hebrew equivalents, would render Acts 13:48 more like “as many as submitted to, needed, or wanted salvation, were saved (Dave Hunt, What Love is This? 3rd Edition, 2006, page 264).

Perhaps, but I think there is a better explanation. Go with me to Romans 13:1ff.

 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good.

See the word, “appointed” in this verse? It is the same word for “appointed” in Acts 13:48. In fact, I believe, if I am not mistaken, these are the only two places in the NT where the word is used in the exact same form (tense, voice, etc., etc.). It is the governmental authorities that are ordained for a specific purpose plainly stated in the context. Now, let me ask you a question: does that mean everyone who works in government didn’t have a choice to do so? Does this mean that everyone who works in government was preselected to do so and had no choice? Or, did their own decision to work in government make them the appointed authority? You see that God appoints the means to an end and not necessarily those who choose to be part of the means. Likewise, as many Gentiles who believed became God’s appointed heirs to the commonwealth of Israel in Christ. That doesn’t mean they had no choice in the matter.

Let’s look at this from yet another angle. If an appointed means necessarily means that all of the individuals that are a part of the means were also preselected, does that mean all government officials were chosen to be such by God? Did God choose Adolf Hitler for your good? That’s the stated purpose for governmental authorities, no?

But thirdly, why are the Reformed so keen on using this verse anyway? By their very doctrine, those who presently believe do not necessarily possess ETERNAL life. If you presently have eternal life, it’s eternal, right? Because of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (the “P” in TULIP), the jury is out on whether you get eternal life or not at “the tribunal” as Calvin called it.

In closing, what am I saying here? Am I saying that this proposition is the definitive answer to Protestant determinism? No, so what am I saying? I am saying that the purveyors of a false gospel have dictated the definitions and confines of the debate for 500 years, and the time for an honest discussion is now, and that discussion must be divorced from Protestant orthodoxy found egregiously wanting. I do believe that this proposition, ie., God preselects the means and not individuals, is a good starting point.

With that, let’s go to the phones.


* Deuteronomy 7:6

“For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Exodus 19:4-6

‘You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself. ‘Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”

Psalms 135:4

For the LORD has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His own possession.

Isaiah 41:8-9

“But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend, You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, And called from its remotest parts And said to you, ‘You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you.

Isaiah 43:10

“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.

Isaiah 44:1-2

“But now listen, O Jacob, My servant, And Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, ‘Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

Isaiah 45:4

“For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me.

Amos 3:2

“You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”

** Ephesians 3:1 – For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles—2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.


Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 21, 2015

leadership 2

The 2016 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 20, 2015

The Good News About God

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on September 20, 2015

TANC LOGOGod is good news. This is perhaps the simplest distinction between Biblicism and Protestantism; Biblicists believe that the gospel, or the good news about God is good news to everyone. It believes that the offer of salvation is a valid offer. It believes that the gift is offered to everyone. This speaks to the pejorative claim that Biblicists are unreasonable wooden literalists; indeed, we believe that words mean things. We believe that “news” informs someone of something that they didn’t know previously, and that God is a good reporter tending towards full disclosure; it isn’t good news to some and bad news to others. How is predetermined eternal suffering for the glory of God good news? How can a promise be a promise to you if you have no way of knowing if the promise is actually for you or not? Biblicists assume different word choices from a God that is not a God of confusion. Biblicists believe words mean things; Protestants don’t, and even say so in no uncertain terms! (Note Rick Holland’s heading on page 39 of Uneclipsing The Son: “When Bad Grammar Makes Good Theology”).

In these sessions, the term “Protestant” refers to the authentic doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. The fact that many have strayed from the original article is noted, but what Protestant gives a waiver to a Buddhist that doesn’t believe everything Buddha believed? It’s still Buddhism.

Consider an apple tree. Apple trees do not produce peaches. However, nor are the branches or the fruit exactly the same. The branches differ, and the apples vary in size and color, but it is still an apple tree. Biblicism is an altogether different tree.

Before we examine the Biblicist gospel, let me take you to the book of Genesis to illustrate the aforementioned elements of Biblicism.

Genesis 1:1 – In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

All kinds of hay is made with these opening statements from God’s word; if this creation account is really about the gospel, or symbolic of it, then outrageous presuppositions can be assimilated into the thinking of people without plainly stating the thesis. If you believe that the creation account is about the gospel, you also concede that God preordained the fall of man, created evil (darkness), and goodness, (light). And in fact, as I think will be ascertained from Susan’s sessions, this very belief, that God created evil and preordained the fall of man for his own glory, is very much a part of Protestant tradition.

There is no doubt that many of the biblical authors used the creation account for metaphors, but that does not speak to the primary purpose or point of the passage. The idea that this creation account is about the gospel is an assumption, and Biblicism chooses conclusions that are plainly stated over assumption in all cases. This is an account of the “first day” of creation and how God brought that about. The rightness of this epistemology can also be seen in the same passage:

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

Hence, from the very beginning, we see that reality is defined by what it is called through using words. If the meaning and science of words are not concrete, reality cannot be known. If this is a metaphysical statement concerning the gospel and good and evil, why wouldn’t God simply state that accordingly?

As far as words interpreting reality, God involved Adam in the process:

Genesis 2:19 – Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

Don’t misunderstand, things don’t cease to exist because they are not named, but there is no way to define existence without words, at least not in our reality, and therefore, the unnamed thing has no meaning. Remember also that people can be manipulated into doing absolutely anything if they are convinced by others that certain words mean certain things.

The definitions of words define reality in the minds of people. Those who control the definitions control what and how people think, and thus control their actions as well. Some call this “propaganda.”

Symbolism is the most often-used communication technique to convince people that certain words mean things they don’t mean. This is very subtle and effective; if creation represents the gospel, then obviously God anticipated the fall of man because it was part of His intended will for mankind.

But mankind did fall, and the recorded account in Genesis gives us insight into the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of Sin, the gospel, evangelism, and the Caste religion.

This shouldn’t surprise us, but the serpent approached Eve with a religion. Well, really, THE religion. If this approach worked, and it did, why would there be a deviation from the original article? Sure, applications will differ, but the basic principles remain the same; it’s a tree of kind. What is it?

Genesis 3:1 – Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

Let’s focus on the obvious here. The Religion has four basic principles, and the second point is less obvious, but valid: for the most part, ALL religious and political ideologies flow from this religion. Mankind was absolutely hell-bent on functioning by this premise until the Enlightenment Era. Here are the four basic principles of the Caste religion:

1. There is spiritual knowledge that is separate from material knowledge; the knowledge of good and evil.

2. Mankind is unable to comprehend the spiritual; he is enslaved to the material world.

3. Mediators are needed between God and man to understand the spiritual knowledge and apply it to the material realm for the overall well-being of mankind.

4. These mediators are divinely gifted by God and preordained.

The first three points can clearly be seen in Genesis 3:1ff. “Hey Eve, there is a whole body of wisdom that God is keeping from you, and you need me to mediate that wisdom between you and God because I am superior to you and therefore qualified to do so.”

Notice the communication techniques used by the serpent to deceive Eve: he changed the definition of words; “No, no, Eve, you misunderstand what God said, he didn’t mean that you will literally die.” And she ate, and guess what? She didn’t drop dead. The serpent changed the definition of the word, “death” as God meant it in that context, and nothing has ever changed accordingly. When we allow mediators between ourselves and God, we are trusting them to define words for us because we supposedly can’t understand God. Take note: when men speak of “subordinate truth,” this is set against the superior truth that only they and God understand, and we call that “orthodoxy.” When Biblicists are criticized for thinking we do not need creeds and confessions, that ought to make cold chills run up our spine. Creeds, confessions, and counsels are nothing more than mediators penning bedtime stories for the great unwashed who are childlike in their ability to understand realty. Consider this illustration once again:


What is this? Right, the knowledge of good and evil. Right? Let me show you something else:

Our wisdom, insofar as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and ourselves.

That’s the very first sentence of the Calvin Institutes. If only God is good, and mankind is totally depraved, how is this not the knowledge of good and evil as the premiere epistemology of all metaphysics? It’s the knowledge of good and evil mediated by those preordained by God for the well-being of society at large. This religion brought death in the garden, and created elitist caste systems that dictate life from the family unit to offices of governors and kings.

We saw it in high school, and we even see it in the Republican primary. The elitist party hacks are beside themselves that the great unwashed are being duped by Donald Trump, but instead of asking “why?” and looking in the mirror, it is chalked up to the total depravity of the masses. Therefore, the party elitists must neutralize Trump in order to save the great unwashed masses from themselves. Though Trump continues to lead the pack in the polls by double digits, he is summarily dismissed by political pundits. One cannot by any means separate this from an elitist mentality that dismisses the discernment of the voters.


Something else can be learned here about the nature of sin. What is the biblical definition of sin? It is defined as a master, or slave master. Sin is defined as a separate entity that seeks to enslave.

Genesis 4:5 – So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. 6 The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

In what can be considered the first detailed account of a gospel presentation and that by God Himself, sin is identified as something that has desire, and that desire is to rule over others. God tells Cain that he must instead rule over sin. We also find that sin makes its appeal through desire:

Genesis 3:6 – So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

James 1:13 – Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

This is a fundamental definition of sin that is an important building block for additional understanding: it is a slave master that desires to rule over others and makes its appeal through desires, or “sinful desires.” The results of sin are types of death experienced throughout life leading to ultimate death. Sin is also empowered by its ability to condemn:

1Corinthians 15:56 – The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

When we get into the subject of law/gospel in part 3 of this session, the correlation between law and condemnation will be explained, but for now, the main point is that sin is empowered by its ability to condemn. It’s a master who desires to rule over people and bring many faceted deaths into their lives, and makes its appeal through the desires of others. It is empowered by the condemnation that results. In one way, sin rules over people by paralyzing them with guilt and fear.


We see this in the garden. After Adam and Eve sin, they hide from God because they are afraid of God’s condemnation.

Genesis 3:9 – But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”

Sin and fear of condemnation go together. This also speaks to evangelism and free will. Protestants love to make much of “No man seeks after God” (Rom 3:11). But this is not because man is totally depraved and has no inkling towards God whatever. Man does not seek God because he fears condemnation. Obviously, when Adam and Eve sinned, they did not immediately seek out God for a solution. Instead, they hid from God because they were afraid of His condemnation. This is why man does not seek God, he is afraid—not because he is totally depraved.

In addition, we see the essence of evangelism from the very beginning: God seeks out man with the remedy for sin. Just because God is the one who is proactive does not mean man has no ability to make a choice when confronted by God. Adam and Eve had no ability to come up with a plan that would fix the fall. Obviously, God is the only one who could remedy the problem. Man’s inability is in regard to proposing a plan of reconciliation with God, not an inability to accept the gift of salvation through a plan devised by God when offered.

Blog TalkRadio Podcast, Session 2: Challenging Doctrinal Presuppositions of Orthodoxy

Love Over Law

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 19, 2015

Love over Law 2

Tagged with: , ,

Election and the Real Golden Chain of Salvation: Part 2

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 17, 2015

ppt-jpeg4Those who still need salvation have that need for a reason; they yet remain damned. Furthermore, they saturate themselves with a justification only perspective on the law which will magnify their damnation unless they repent.”

An item of particular interest in regard to the Reformed use of Romans 8:29,30 for the ordo salutis (order of salvation or the golden chain of individual salvation) is that sanctification is missing from the process. Sanctification is not in Romans 8:29,30. Let there be no doubt about it when the least common denominator is front and center: this issue concerns two different gospels. One gospel states that sanctification is not mentioned because it is the same thing as justification; the other gospel states that sanctification is missing because justification and sanctification are totally separate.

And obviously therefore, one states that salvation is a finished work while the other sees salvation as a process that the individual experiences and lives in while the process is ongoing. This is why Protestantism has ALWAYS been characterized by weak sanctification and lack of assurance. If justification and sanctification are the same thing, there is going to be an over emphasis on justification; if we are in the midst of the justification “process” and our salvation depends on whether or not God chose us to believe, and our individual election will not be verified until the “tribunal,” assurance will be lacking.

The Bible is clear. Assurance is based on two things: confidence in the FINISHED election process preordained by God, and the ability to work out the gifts given to us with our finished and final salvation being of no consideration in regard to our works of love. In other words, one of the purposes of election is to radically separate justification and sanctification leading to assurance and aggressive sanctification. The Reformed order of salvation uses election to fuse justification and sanctification together resulting in that train wreck we call “Protestantism.”

This is why I think Romans 8:29,30 is in the past tense; it concerns justification ONLY as a finished work. Yet, the Reformed use it to make a case for a salvation that is yet future; in other words, the Reformed throw out grammatical considerations regardless of whether it is in the English, Hebrew, or Greek. While they claim deep knowledge of the languages are efficacious to valid understanding of the Scriptures, they rape and ravage normative grammatical rules unfettered. While using knowledge of the languages to intimidate the great unwashed, they say, “good grammar makes bad theology” as if there are no rules of grammar in the Greek and Hebrew. But there are, and the rules are fairly consistent in all languages. Knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is oversold for purposes of control. More relevant than anything is a good working knowledge of grammar.

Romans 8:29,30 speaks of a group, or classification of people who were pre-loved, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. However, not all who are called within the group answer the call, but rather reject it. Those who accept the invitation of the calling are part of the elect group. In the same way, Israel was elected, but not all Israelites accept the invitation. Therefore, God also preordained the Gentiles for salvation in order to make the Jews jealous. In part one, I cite Matthew 22:1-14 to make this case in regard to the “called”, and would also like to add Romans 11. The “remnant” can also be considered an elect group as well, and any Jew can be saved by becoming a part of it IF they believe individually (Romans 11:23).

Throughout the Bible, people are called to believe and are warned that they will be judged if they don’t. The means of salvation being elected rather than individuals, and those individuals being called on to become part of the elect group excludes the need to relegate the gospel to paradox. God is not a God of confusion. If the “called” are not distinguished from the definition of “elect,” the Bible becomes utterly confusing. Nevertheless, Matthew 22:1-14 seems to end the argument altogether; many are called but few are elect. The elect are the ones who accept the invitation to the wedding feast.

Admittedly, this is a working hypothesis for consideration among the laity, but the following is certain: the Protestant gospel of a progressive order of salvation must be rejected with extreme prejudice for many, many definitive reasons. And Biblicism knows the following concretely in regard to its alternative gospel: justification is a finished work by God alone and the saint is free to love aggressively without fear of condemnation. We leave the cross and move on to maturity in love. Those who still need salvation have that need for a reason; they yet remain damned. Furthermore, they saturate themselves with a justification only perspective on the law which will magnify their damnation unless they repent.

At any rate, the idea that a group is elected for a certain purpose without all in the group being saved is far from being unbiblical, and Israel is the primary example (NASB):

Deuteronomy 7:6

“For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Exodus 19:4-6

‘You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself. ‘Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”

Psalms 135:4

For the LORD has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His own possession.

Isaiah 41:8-9

“But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend, You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, And called from its remotest parts And said to you, ‘You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you.

Isaiah 43:10

“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.

Isaiah 44:1-2

“But now listen, O Jacob, My servant, And Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, ‘Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

Isaiah 45:4

“For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me.

Amos 3:2

“You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”

In Romans 11:2, the apostle Paul even writes that God “foreknew” Israel. This is the election and foreknowledge of a group of which all are not saved. God calls all of those belonging to the group, but many within the group reject the call. Again, note Matthew 22:1-14. If they answer the call, they are elect because they are part of the group that was elected. It is plain that election is not defined by individual pre-selection alone, and in fact, specific verses that seem to indicate the election of individuals are not only rare, but ambiguous at best while the former are ample and concise.

Let me throw a couple of thoughts in here that would be prompted by reading almost anywhere throughout the New Testament. First, if individuals are pre-selected, the Scriptures pass on the opportunity to make that clear over and over again. For example:

Luke 16:27 – And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No,father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

If the issue is pre-selection, why wouldn’t Abraham merely say so? Why is the source of information that would persuade the rich man’s brothers the issue rather than God’s choosing? Individual pre-determinism makes the Bible an illogical convoluted mess, not to mention a god that is playing head games with mankind.

Secondly, if there is no future purpose for Israel, or the “church” has taken Israel’s place, which is an idea firmly embedded in Reformed tradition via amillennialism and supersessionism, does that not deny a true link in the election chain? Does it not make some aspects of election temporary? Why not? In part 1 we discussed John Calvin’s interpretation of the “called” as those who are temporarily chosen and therefore relegated to a greater damnation in the end.

So, what is the true golden chain of salvation? We begin to explore that in part 3.


Also recommended: Live: Friday 9/17/2015 @ 7pm. Call in and join the conversation! 

Cult of Personality: Tyrannical Theologians, Part 1

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 17, 2015

Originally posted on The Oligarchy White Paper:

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom”, writes Thomas Paine in the introduction of Common Sense.

This mindset holds true to any set of ideals, whether related to a form of government, accepted societal norms, or religious theologies. The rulers among a people will continuously reign from a self-serving perspective as long as their subordinates allow it. This holds true to any system of authority in which the minions consent to the authority of the leaders without questioning reason and using some ‘common sense’.

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” This again is from Paine, who nails it once more. While I cannot speak…

View original 1,115 more words

The Problem With Protestant Election

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 17, 2015

Blog Radio LogoLive: Friday 9/17/2015 @ 7pm. Call in and join the conversation! 

This program outlines 10 fundamental problems with lending any merit whatsoever to the Reformed perspective on election, and introduces a new perspective for consideration.

The Protestant Twisting of 1John, Part 4 – A Clarification: Gospel and Obedience

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on September 16, 2015

Blog Radio LogoOriginally published April 20, 2015

Listen to audio or download audio file. 

Welcome to Blogtalk Radio False Reformation this is your host Paul M. Dohse Sr. Tonight, part 4 of “The Protestant Twisting of 1John: A Clarification.” If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback. Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.

If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at That’s Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat, I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in.

Initially, I wanted to just address 1John 1:9 in a thorough way to debunk this whole Protestant idea that we keep ourselves saved by returning to the same gospel that saved us. And, the way we reutilize the same gospel that saved us is a continued repentance for “present sin.” It’s this whole idea that Jesus died for our past sins, but we must ask forgiveness for known present sin in order to keep ourselves saved. When we do that, it’s a reapplication of Jesus’ death for present sin. Hence, 1John 1:9.

But it doesn’t stop there in Protestant soteriology. They then concern themselves with the question of true righteousness.  If our sins are forgiven, that keeps us out of hell, but it doesn’t make us truly righteous. What to do? So here is what they came up with: Jesus came to die for our forgiveness, past and present IF we return to the same gospel that saved us by faith alone, but He also came to keep the law perfectly so that His perfect obedience could be imputed to “Christian” life. The Reformed call this “double imputation.”

And it turns the true biblical gospel completely upside down. First, it makes the law the standard for justification. There is no law in justification, we are justified APART from the law. Why would Christ obey the law for us when justification is apart from the law? Then what is the standard for righteousness?  NOT the law, but rather God’s righteousness. What’s that? For one, and primarily, it’s the new birth. For us, the standard of righteousness is being a child of God. Being the offspring of God is what makes us righteous. Kinship, not law.

Secondly, we are not justified by the law, no matter who keeps it—who keeps it is not the point, the law itself is the point, because there is no law that can give life. Only the new birth gives life (Galatians 3:21).

Thirdly, double imputation is obviously a covering for sin with the righteousness of Christ and not an ENDING of sin. Our sins are not “taken away” they are only covered. “Christianity” is about living a life of faith only to maintain a covering for sin. Therefore, we are not the ones really obeying, and therefore, we are not the ones performing love either.

And boy does this notion land us right where we are at in 1John. I have invested so much in the untwisting of 1John 1:9 in this series, that I thought, “I might as well finish the book out and make it our 1John commentary.” And so it is.

This is our theses: the new birth creates us anew into people who love the truth, and therefore practice oblove. That’s a new word that I made up. What is the definition of oblove? It’s the combination of the words “love” and “obedience.” Biblically, you cannot separate these two words, they are synonymous.  The law is the Bible, and it is a book of condemnation to the unsaved and a beloved love manual for those born again. This is also why our sins are not covered, they are taken away (1John 3:5). Christ came to take away sin, not cover it.

You know, many go to church and sing the hymns, and many listen to Christian radio and raise their hands in praise while stopped at red lights, but a lot of that good Protestant music is just really bad theology that imperils the soul and stops far short of inciting the curiosity of the unsaved. One example is a beautiful song by Steve Camp titled, “He Covers Me.” But again, the premise of the song is that our sins are covered and not ended.

You know, there is a quiet revolution going on in Christianity. Christian husbands are beginning to stand up and assume their rightful role as spiritual leaders. This necessarily means leaving the institutional church which deliberately seeks to emasculate the men among us. One thing that I hear back is that fathers are beginning to stand silent and not sing traditional songs that are deviations from the truth. Good for them. I even hear back that their children ask, “Daddy, why aren’t you singing?” And they tell them why. Undoubtedly, children and wives will get way more out of these types of examples rather than 365 different versions of the same gospel that saved us.

“Why is it that all we ever hear about in the church is the gospel?” Because we have to keep returning to the same gospel that saved us to keep ourselves saved, and by the way, the only place that this continued atonement is valid is in the institutional church. Sure, Protestants will deny salvation by church membership; they will rather become indignant and state that salvation is only found in the gospel. However, the fact remains that they also believe that authority to preach the gospel is vested in the institutional church.

If our sins are only covered, the focus of the Christian life is to keep ourselves covered, not obedience because now obedience is defined by law-keeping. We have been trained mentally to think of obedience as something demanded by the law. This makes the law a co-life-giver with God. At least in one regard, the idea of one God connects with this idea. There is only one life-giver (Galatians 3:10-21).

I strongly suspect that when the Bible talks about God being one, it in no way includes the context of the Trinity. It’s interesting to note that in context of Galatians 3:10-21, the point is that the law is not a coequal with God—there is only one God.

1John 3:1 – See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17 But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

The law is not the standard for justification; it is the standard for our love, obedience, and submission. If there is a standard for justification at all, it would simply be defined by the new birth. We are justified by virtue of being in God’s family. The first man was a created being. God did not decide to save man by restoring a covenant of works, or restoring man’s image created in the likeness of God, or to restore paradise lost. He decided to save man by making him His literal family. The gospel isn’t about restoring things; it’s about making all things new. This defines you as pure, albeit in mortality. Nevertheless, being born of God in mortality results in the inevitable morphing into more and more purity:

See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

Let’s ask an interpretive question here. What did Jesus mean when He told John the Baptist that His baptism by John would fulfill all righteousness? I think it fulfilled all righteousness by representing the literal new birth, or Spirit baptism. Though we still reside in mortal bodies, the decision to be saved is a decision to follow Christ in baptism, or a decision to be born again. That’s the gospel. That’s what the gospel is.

Romans 6:1 – What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self  was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

The more you study the apostle John, the more you will see the apostle Paul. Romans 6 is key here. The perfection of the law is not the standard for righteousness, passing from life to death is the standard. Though we still sin, we are dead to sin. Being deemed righteous in our present state is defined by a reversal of slavery leading to a new direction in life. Romans 6 explains, as we shall see, 1John 3. The literal new birth, in essence reverses slavery (Romans 6:20). This also debunks the whole Reformed total depravity song and dance. Before the baptism of the Spirit that comes by believing on Christ, the unregenerate are free to do good, but enslaved to the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2).

Being under the curse of the law is both a forensic statement and a state of being. It is true, while under law, a perfect keeping of the law is demanded. But this is key: when it gets right down to it, unbelievers are indifferent to the Bible or the law of God. And remember, the law and the Bible are the same thing. Man is capable of doing good, and in fact does do good, but because he/she has no love for God’s truth, and in fact are indifferent to it, life decisions lead to many-faceted forms of death, and ultimately, eternal death. Unbelievers that live according to conscience will suffer a lesser punishment in this life and the life to come.

Believers can in fact make life and death decisions, but are inclined towards obeying the law because of the new birth. Clearly, the Bible states that there is a reversal of slavery. The believer is enslaved to righteousness, but unfortunately free to sin. But according to Paul, a believer can stupidly enslave themselves to certain sins by obeying the desire that the sin produces. The believer is no longer enslaved to sin, but can be ignorant of this fact. And keep in mind, Protestantism is predicated on the idea that we are still enslaved to sin as believers which goes part and parcel with still being under the law and law continuing to be the standard for justification.

Listen, here is why the home fellowship movement is going to eventually take off: the alternative is Protestantism which defines the believer according to how the Bible defines an unbeliever. Eventually, people are going to figure out that they have been proudly proclaiming themselves as unregenerate in the name of Christ.

Lastly, this is defined by the fact that believers have the freedom to present their bodies as living sacrifices, or in other words, present their members for holy purposes that please God. The body is not inherently evil because it is part of the material world. Whether saved or unsaved, the body can be used for good purposes. However, in the case of an unbeliever, good behavior doesn’t lead to life more abundantly, it just leads to lesser punishment and a more bearable eternal state. For the unbeliever, good behavior merely leads to less death. For the believer, obedient love leads to more life.

Now with all of this in mind, let’s read further in 1John Chapter 3:

4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

John wrote what he wrote in 1John 3 because of what Paul wrote in Romans 6—it’s saying the same thing. Obeying the law isn’t the issue, a “commitment” to obey the law isn’t the issue, the reality of the new birth is the issue.

1Corinthians 15:1- Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

This is, as Paul called it, the gospel of “first importance” or literally “the gospel of first order of importance.” There is way more behind this than a mental ascent to the facts of the gospel. You have to believe that this first happened to Christ in order to believe that it really happened to you spiritually. Repentance is a change of mind in regard to many things concerning your life and the life of Christ.

By the way, there was an evangelical movement for a while that emphasized the new birth. It peaked in the 70’s and was considered to be the most egregious of all false gospels. The Australian Forum, the think tank that gave birth to the present-day return to authentic Reformed soteriology, actually published an article titled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.”

John continues in chapter 3 to explain one of the characteristics of being born again, love. But let me insert this, and this is VERY important: the characteristics of the new birth are framed in what the Bible refers to as “abiding.” If God’s seed “abides in” us (1John 3:9), other things also abide in us: the fact that we abide in Him also; the truth abides in us; we know the truth; we love the truth; we love fellow Christians; we do not practice sin, but rather practice righteousness as a life direction and pattern; we love God’s law; we submit to need; we obey; we seek to please God; we have a hunger for learning more of God’s word, and many more can be listed.

Let’s read more of John 3 with this in mind:

11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17 But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

See, the order in which John discusses these things is in no wise disconnected. We need to start thinking about “obedience” in reference to love and the new birth. Really, the Christian life is about love. But listen, any love that flows from you starts with a love for truth. Also, please take note of a more biblical definition of love: love is a submission to need—that’s love. When the Scriptures tell women to submit to their husbands, that’s just another way of telling wives to love their husbands. When the Bible tells men to love their wives, it’s simply telling men to submit to their needs. Look at 1John 3:17 again. How does benevolence get parachuted into that body of text out of nowhere?  John goes from discussing murder to meeting financial need; it seems like he is all over the map, but not really.

Lastly, working out the new birth with love leads to assurance.

19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

Assurance of salvation comes through working out our new birth in fear and trembling. Assurance of salvation is grounded in the ending of the law because the old us died with Christ resulting in no condemnation, while our new relationship to the law leads us in love and life. Now listen, even a casual student of the Bible can begin to hang Bible verses all over this framework.

Next week, we will build on this as we go into chapter 4—let’s go to the phones.

The Heidelberg Disputation Series Part 12, Theses 22 and 23: The Vital Union, Ritual, and Law

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 14, 2015

Blog Radio LogoListen to the program or download audio file. 

So, I was over at my mom’s house minding my own business watching a little Fox News when I noticed a little booklet on the table beside the easy chair. I picked it up and observed the title: Devotions and Prayers of Martin Luther. Of course, I thought that would be interesting. When I opened it, I observed that my dad bought it for mom in 1962. That would be when her three boys, of which I am one would have been 6, 4, and 2. That’s three boys, 6, 4, and 2 which means she would have been needing a lot of prayers during that time. So this gift makes perfect sense. Anyway, I just indiscriminately cracked the thing open roughly in the middle to see what was there. Here is the prayer that I read:

Almighty God, great that we and all Christians may receive the holy sacrament savingly by thy grace. Give us our daily bread that Christ may abide in us and we in him, and that we may worthily bear the name Christians which we have received from him. Amen.

Welcome truth lovers to Blog Talk radio .com/False Reformation, this is your host Paul Dohse. Tonight, part 12 of “The Magnum Opus of the Reformation: Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation – Theses 22 and 23: The Vital Union, Ritual, and Law.”

Greetings from the Potters House and TANC ministries where we are always eager to serve all of your heterodox needs. Our teaching catalog can be found at

If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback over your cellphone. If you choose to use Skype to listen to the show, my advice is to just dial direct from your Skype account without using any of the Blogtalk links. 347-855-8317.

Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.

Remember, you may remain anonymous. When I say, “This is your host; you are on the air, what’s your comment or question”—just start talking.

If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at That’s Paul @ Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat .com. I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in. You can post a question as well.

Tonight, we continue in our sentence by sentence evaluation of the HD with thesis 22. This is where we get into the true heart of the Protestant Reformation which concerned philosophy, or state of being.

Anything to do with justification or soteriology was grounded in philosophical or metaphysical presuppositions. I opened tonight with an example of that. Notice that Luther prayed that salvation would be imparted to believers through participation in the Lord’s Table. Whether Protestants know it or not, that’s why the Lord’s Table is such a solemn ceremony in the church—it’s imparting salvation. The solemn examination of self while droopy faced deacons or elders pass around the holy plastic thimbles filled with either grape juice or real wine depending on the outcome of the Baptist civil war in your neck of the woods is the mortification part of the ceremony, and one should expect a joyful demeanor following, ie., vivification.

The Lord’s Table is one of the big five that you do to run the Protestant race of faith alone on the way to the one big final “tribunal” where you find out if you lived by faith alone well enough to make it into heaven. The other four are church membership, sitting under elder preaching, prayer (primarily confession of “present sin”), and the baptism of the holy spirit through mortification and vilification. These all result in the vital union also mentioned in the same prayer: “that Christ may abide in us and we in him.” So, in regard to the initial baptism signified by water baptism which also initiates one into membership, this same baptism is lived out through self deprivation of some sort leading to resurrection experiences of one sort or another—usually incited by praise and worship music.

The Lord’s Table was never some solemn ceremony in the Christian assemblies, but rather an informal remembrance of Christ’s death during the fellowship meal. As Rome began to take over the home fellowships and assert authority over them, the paganization of Christian traditions took place; not least of which is this idea of perpetual union, or becoming one with some god through some sort of ritual. I would like you to observe the black chart on the slide show. Remember, this is not our chart, this is a visual illustration of the vital union, a formal Protestant doctrine.


Notice that in this case, the union takes place through the “deep repentance” process noted on the left. Obviously, if the process on the left is not a onetime event, nether is the right side of the chart. Notice the title of the chart: fundamentally, Protestantism is a returning to the same gospel that saved you in order to relive the baptism of the Spirit over and over again. In other words, the “new birth” is not a onetime event that makes you part of God’s family. The goal of the so-called Christian life is new birth experiences in which the works of Christ are manifested in our realm or through us (double imputation). The Reformers draw from a number of different metaphysical theories to explain this like Idealism philosophy. That is the idea that reality only exists in the perception of the mind, and God is in control of the perceptions. But that is only one angle among many.

But let’s take that example as a way to explain how this all works. Protestantism is about justification by faith…ALONE throughout the whole course of our life. So, it begs the question: how does one live, which assumes human activity prompted by cranium activity, by faith alone? How does one work meditatively? Well, if the work you are doing is really nothing more than perception placed there by God, you aren’t really doing the work, right? You are only EXPERIENCING what Christ accomplished when He was living on earth. He lived out a perfect life for us (double imputation) which is now experienced through the vital union (“I’m in him, He’s in me”). This is also known as Christ for us, or Christ 100% for us. But you say, “But look at the top part of the chart! It says “heart changed.” Ok, let’s go to another Reformed illustration.


What does the downward trajectory represent? Right, the left side of the other chart. What does the upward trajectory represent? Right, the right side of the chart. What does the cross represent? Right, the cross on the other chart. Now, what changes, you or the cross? Right, you don’t change, and in fact, if you fail to see how sinful you are the bottom trajectory goes up and the cross gets smaller. So, what is the authentic Protestant definition of “heart change”? Right, a mere perception or experience. I have at times likened this to standing in the rain. You experience the rain, you feel the rain, but you have no control over the rain. You are not doing the rain. Sanctification is being done to you, not by you. But you do something—you merely participate in the experience of salvation—it’s experiential only. This is how you supposedly live by faith alone.

This idea of being unified or becoming one with a god through some ritual is expressly pagan. Of course, what immediately comes to mind is the Aphrodite cults throughout history. This idea of union with a god through sexual intercourse with a temple prostitute even crept into the first century home assemblies:

1Corinthians 6:14 – And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sine a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

From the historian Herodotus we learn:

The foulest Babylonian custom is that which compels every woman of the land to sit in the temple of Aphrodite and have intercourse with some stranger at least once in her life. Many women who are rich and proud and disdain to mingle with the rest, drive to the temple in covered carriages drawn by teams, and stand there with a great retinue of attendants. But most sit down in the sacred plot of Aphrodite, with crowns of cord on their heads; there is a great multitude of women coming and going; passages marked by line run every way through the crowd, by which the men pass and make their choice. Once a woman has taken her place there, she does not go away to her home before some stranger has cast money into her lap, and had intercourse with her outside the temple; but while he casts the money, he must say, “I invite you in the name of Mylitta” (that is the Assyrian name for Aphrodite). It does not matter what sum the money is; the woman will never refuse, for that would be a sin, the money being by this act made sacred. So she follows the first man who casts it and rejects no one. After their intercourse, having discharged her sacred duty to the goddess, she goes away to her home; and thereafter there is no bribe however great that will get her. So then the women that are fair and tall are soon free to depart, but the uncomely have long to wait because they cannot fulfil the law; for some of them remain for three years, or four. There is a custom like this in some parts of Cyprus (Herodotus, The Histories 1.199, tr A.D. Godley 1920).

What is our major concluding point here? That authentic Protestantism traded the biblical definition of the new birth, a onetime event that makes us a permanent part of God’s literal family, for the ongoing experience of so-called vital union, and that Protestantism’s way of obtaining that experience is just one among many not excluding the ritual of temple prostitution. It’s the same idea; temporary experiential union in contrast to a permanent new birth and onetime Spirit baptism.

Also, and more to the point regarding this area of the HD, is that these rituals necessarily take the place of knowledge because of the authentic Protestant worldview. More on that shortly, but let me now address a comment received this week on because it’s a good example of the waters of confusion that Protestants swim in as a result of historical ignorance.

This honestly saddens me… I just finished reading Platt’s “Radical”, and I don’t feel that he deserves this. My understanding of his book is “if you truly love Jesus, it will change your life”. Platt is living out John 14:21 by obeying God’s commands to take care of the poor and needy, and living out Matthew 28:18-20 in bringing the gospel to all nations. This book (and Platt’s life) is designed to get the church on board with the mission of God, and is built on passages like 1 John 3:16-18. I’d much rather be like Platt, trying to get the church involved in the mission of God, instead of sitting in the pews screaming at anyone who doesn’t agree with what they think. Honestly, how can we call ourselves followers of a God (who IS love), and then unlovingly thrash another human being? Maybe we should read 1 John 4:21 before we start hating on a brother? Just a thought… lest we be condemned before God for not loving him.

More than likely, the individual who wrote this comment doesn’t understand how authentic Protestantism interprets the reality that Platt appears to be calling people to. More than likely, a more careful examination of the sentences in the book would paint a different picture. Platt is a Neo-Calvinist purist and would hold to almost everything in the HD, so let us consider thesis 24 in comparison to the reader’s comment:

He, however, who has emptied himself (cf. Phil. 2:7) through suffering no longer does works but knows that God works and does all things in him. For this reason, whether God does works or not, it is all the same to him. He neither boasts if he does good works, nor is he disturbed if God does not do good works through him. He knows that it is sufficient if he suffers and is brought low by the cross in order to be annihilated all the more. It is this that Christ says in John 3:7, »You must be born anew.« To be born anew, one must consequently first die and then be raised up with the Son of Man. To die, I say, means to feel death at hand.

Platt is therefore not “living out” anything nor is he calling others to do so. Platt isn’t really talking about good works in the book, but rather manifestations of Christ’s imputed righteousness. It is VERY unlikely that Platt does not hold to double imputation.

Again, this soteriology is necessarily the application of the Reformed world philosophy of choice integrated with Scripture.

Thesis 22: That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.

This has already been said. Because men do not know the cross and hate it, they necessarily love the opposite, namely, wisdom, glory, power, and so on. Therefore they become increasingly blinded and hardened by such love, for desire cannot be satisfied by the acquisition of those things which it desires. Just as the love of money grows in proportion to the increase of the money itself, so the dropsy of the soul becomes thirstier the more it drinks, as the poet says: »The more water they drink, the more they thirst for it.«The same thought is expressed in Eccles. 1:8: »The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.« This holds true of all desires.

Thus also the desire for knowledge is not satisfied by the acquisition of wisdom but is stimulated that much more. Likewise the desire for glory is not satisfied by the acquisition of glory, nor is the desire to rule satisfied by power and authority, nor is the desire for praise satisfied by praise, and so on, as Christ shows in John 4:13, where he says, »Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again.«

The remedy for curing desire does not lie in satisfying it, but in extinguishing it. In other words, he who wishes to become wise does not seek wisdom by progressing toward it but becomes a fool by retrogressing into seeking»folly«. Likewise he who wishes to have much power, honor, pleasure, satisfaction in all things must flee rather than seek power, honor, pleasure, and satisfaction in all things. This is the wisdom which is folly to the world.

Therefore, the Reformation called for the eradication of all knowledge as an evil lust that cannot be satisfied. Consequently, the Bible only has ONE use:

Thesis 23: The »law brings the wrath« of God (Rom. 4:15), kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ.

Thus Gal. 3:13 states, »Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law«; and:»For all who rely on works of the law are under the curse« (Gal. 3:10); and Rom. 4:15: »For the law brings wrath«; and Rom. 7:10: »The very commandment which promised life proved to be the death of me«; Rom. 2:12: »All who have sinned without the law will also perish without law.«Therefore he who boasts that he is wise and learned in the law boasts in his confusion, his damnation, the wrath of God, in death. As Rom. 2:23 puts it:»You who boast in the law.«

Hence, the Bible only aids us in self condemnation in regard to the downward trajectory on the cross chart and the process of vital union. The Bible is not to be used to gain any kind of knowledge, but is only a tool for self-condemnation, or “death at hand” in order to experience the vivification of what Reformed soteriology defines as the new birth. As seen in the summary of the 22nd thesis, any notion that objective conclusions can be drawn from that which is seen is utter wickedness according to this view.

That concludes tonight’s lesson, let’s go to the phones.

Election and the Real Golden Chain of Salvation: Part 1

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 14, 2015

Let’s discuss yet another Reformed doctrine; the ordo solutis, or “order of salvation.” This is also known as the “golden chain of salvation” and the proof text is Romans 8:29,30.

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

It goes something like this: God fore-loved certain individuals and not others. He then predestined them to salvation. He then at some point in time calls them, and then justifies them resulting in glorification. Here is a Reformed illustration below:

Golden Chain

Catholic theologians often object to this take on Romans 8:29,30 because they reject once saved always saved, but they misunderstand, authentic Protestantism does NOT hold to OSAS. More to the point here, the golden chain of salvation is seen as individual, rather than a means of salvation. And that’s what election is: it chooses the means of salvation, and chooses individuals who have roles in the various purposes of salvation. God chose Christ to die on the cross, therefore Christ is elect; He chose the holy angels for certain roles in the salvation process, therefore they are elect; He chose the nation of Israel as part of the process, therefore the nation of Israel is elect, and He chose certain individuals throughout history to contribute to the process of salvation, therefore they are chosen as well to play a part in the means of salvation. That does not mean that they did not have a choice to follow God prior to that choosing for a role in God’s salvific plan. For instance, obviously, God chose the virgin Mary to bear and give birth to Christ as part of the salvation plan. It is also obvious that Mary was saved prior to that choosing. It is obvious that Christ chose the 12 disciples for a role in the slavific plan, but that doesn’t mean they had no choice in choosing God prior to that, hence,

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.  This is my command: Love each other.

In context, Christ is referring to their election as apostles, not some inability to choose God. As we shall see in the future parts, the REAL golden chain of salvation is a mode of salvation and those used by God to execute it, not a golden chain of salvation that pertains to individual salvation through determinism. Let me now make a beginning case for your consideration. Let me create some reasonable doubt in regard to the Reformed ordo solutis.

First, if you will note once again the Reformed illustration posted in this first part, it illustrates a past tense that preludes present continuous action. This, of course, is necessary for a deterministic conclusion. However, if you carefully examine Romans 8:29,30 it is strictly past tense. Paul is speaking of something that has already taken place. Any other conclusion is presumptuous at best. Paul is writing about something that has been established in the past, or a group of people who have already been glorified. This clearly casts reasonable doubt on the ordo solutis.

Secondly, the ordo solutis would indicate that all of those who are called are also justified, or saved. This is clearly not the case.

Matthew 22:1 – And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants  to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants,treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

In this passage, the “called” are defined: the called are all peoples who are invited to believe in the gospel of the kingdom, and those who except the invitation are of the elect group. Not all of the called are elect. This throws a very large monkey wrench into the Reformed golden chain/order of salvation. Hence, John Calvin came up with three categories of individual preselection: the non-elect; the called; or those temperately chosen/illumined/born again, and those who persevere; or those who are both called and elected in the final analysis. Therefore, assurance of salvation is absolutely impossible in context of the ordo solutis. NO ONE can really know for certain that they are saved until they are “manifested” in the “final tribunal” where “final justification” is determined.

Yet, the apostle John wrote an epistle so that we may “know” presently that we are born again (1John 5:13). The Reformed order of salvation seems apparent based on its deterministic presuppositions, but further investigation is needed.


The Protestant Twisting of 1John: A Clarification, Part 3

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on September 14, 2015

Blog Radio LogoOriginally published April 5, 2015

Listen to full show audio here in separate window.

Welcome to Blogtalk Radio False Reformation.  This is your host Paul M. Dohse Sr. Tonight, part 3 of “The Protestant Twisting of 1John: A Clarification.” If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback. Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.

If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at That’s Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat, I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in.

We are going to back up a little bit to start tonight’s lesson in order to observe some very important addendums to our series. I am just going to simply state the first one that is something to keep in mind while you read the book of 1John. John states two primary purposes for writing the letter. First…

1John 1:4 – And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

Tradition holds that the apostle John wrote this book, and obviously on behalf of the apostles. Note how the ESV translates “our joy.” Taking other translations into consideration, the “our” probably includes all those who have fellowship with the Father. Also…

1John 5:13 – I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

The achievable goal for every Christian is joy and assurance of salvation. Obviously, falling into the false teachings that John was contending against was going to steal that from them. More importantly, we must keep in mind that this letter claims to have the knowledge that leads to joy and full assurance of salvation.

But in addition, there is something else I want to take note of. It’s a third primary reason that John writes this epistle:

1John 1:3 – that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

You might miss it because instead of referring to the writing of it, John wrote that “we proclaim also to you,” and the stated reason is mutual fellowship with the Father and the Son. These aren’t the only stated reasons for writing this epistle, but they are primary and let’s review them: joy, assurance, and fellowship.

Note that the apostles didn’t write this letter demanding that their authority be followed. The letter is written for the benefit of the readers and fellowship. Again, notice the fellowship is mutual fellowship with the Father and His Son. The goal is a mutual goal of fellowship, joy, and assurance. We find this elsewhere in Scripture.

2Corinthians 1:21 – And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

23 But I call God to witness against me—it was to spare you that I refrained from coming again to Corinth. 24 Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, for you stand firm in your faith.

That’s it. Teachers don’t lord it over people’s faith, they co-labor for their joy. This pattern of co-laboring versus authority saturates the New Testament while elder authority is conspicuously missing. Do you know why proponents of elder authority always go to Hebrews 13:17? Because that’s the only verse they have, so let’s address it. This series is about why Protestants twist 1John and we have looked at a lot of things in the first two parts, but a distorted view of what Christian assembly really is also comes into focus in this discussion.

Are we merely part of a club that gets us into heaven in the end, or is salvation a settled issue leading to the gathering together for service and good works? Obviously, as with the Protestant case, if you need a continued forgiveness of “present sin,” and that forgiveness can only be found in allegiance to the institutional church, your whole interpretation of Scripture is going to be overshadowed by that.

The introduction to 1John emphasizes what gathering together as Christians is all about: fellowship, not authority. Home fellowships are an organized body of gifts under one head for the purpose of faith working through love. The church is a mediator of progressive salvation through authority structure and co-mediation with Christ. The goal of the institutional church is getting people from salvation point A to salvation point B and collecting a temple tax for that purpose. The goal of home fellowships is the full exploitation of the gifts granted to every believer. Leaders equip for that purpose and lead by example while the only authority is Christ. Throughout the New Testament assemblies are called on to strive for unity in the one mind of Christ.

That’s what we are going to focus on tonight. We are going to debunk the whole notion that there is horizontal authority in the body of Christ. All authority is vertical because Christ said ALL authority has been given to Him, and ALL means “all.” Let’s think about this: a horizontal authority also assumes the dictation of truth by those who have an elevated ability to understand truth. Folks, you cannot separate authority from a claim on truth. We hear this all of the time in the church, this idea that the elders need to be obeyed because they are preordained to understand things you cannot understand. We hear this all of the time. And does this impact the book of 1 John? Sure it does.

 1John 2:19 – They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life.

26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Why do you think John wrote that? Those who were trying to deceive them were claiming a higher knowledge that the common believers were supposedly not privy to. And by the way, this is a hallmark of Gnosticism which was cut from the same block as Plato’s epistemological caste system. Anyway, let’s debunk this whole idea of horizontal authority among God’s people.

Before I do, I would like to add yet another thought. I have spent eight years researching the Protestant false gospel of progressive justification and refuting it, but I am beginning to think of it as just another mere symptom of the bigger problem: “the church,” the marriage of authority and Christianity.

The Bible states that there is one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ (1Timothy 2:5). I now realize the real significance of that after eight years of research. I see “one” really means “one.” Something has happened this week that this ministry is taking note of: HBO’s documentary “Going Clear” on Scientology premiered 3/29/2015. Megan Kelly of Fox News interviewed one of the key figures featured in the documentary who shared an astonishing bit of information: members who offend leadership are locked up in a literal prison until they repent of whatever the offense is; release is contingent on signing a written confession. Kelly was incredulous that any adult would agree to such a thing and asked the guest if he could explain it. I was surprised when the guest said he could not explain it.

Maybe the explanation is too simple, but here it is: every false gospel opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ is predicated on the idea of an additional mediator between God and man other than Christ. Even if one man or women is representative of the false doctrine, it will always be expressed in the form of an institution and its authority. Rather than all authority and mediation being in Christ, a subset of Christ’s mediation and authority is claimed; a claim that has no biblical merit whatsoever. These religious institutions always claim authority to grant salvation on behalf of God as co-mediators, but will also use the authority of government whenever they can get away with it.

So why do the institutional members of “the church” agree to every insane notion proffered by these institutions? It’s not complicated in the least: their salvation depends on it. The temptation is great; people relate truth with authority and want to be told how to get to heaven. Some sort of lofty authority gives the seekers confidence that God will accept their salvific pedigree. And Scientology has all of the elements common with these institutions, especially a strong emphasis on glorious infrastructure.

This documentary is important because Scientology is indicative of institutional religion in general. It claims authority and mediation it doesn’t have, quibbles over words, and entangles itself in the frivolous affairs of the world. And another important element–a major one should be noted as well: cults are spawned by authority. Hence, religious institutions often get a pass on being cultic because people don’t understand the catalyst of cultism: authority.

The alternative is a functioning body under one head. Gifts replace rank, and fellowship replaces authority. The goal is agreement on truth as defined by Christ and agreement according to conscience determines who fellowships together. Christ said, “All authority has been given to me.” ALL means “all.” If people get together for the purpose of following an authority anyway, why not Christ as opposed to some man or institution? If the divide in regard to what Christ is saying is too wide, go start your own group–Christ is the final judge anyway. A final point: institutions focus on getting people to heaven; fellowships focus on the unfinished work of service to God and others.

The following are relevant audio clips that make the point. First two are from Pastor John MacArthur Jr., and the third is from Pastor James MacDonald.

Audio links here. 

These clips are just too rich and could be the whole show. I mean surely, someone has some thoughts on theses clips. Where to start? When MacArthur talks about putting ourselves under the authority of godly men, what are the parameters of such authority? Historically in regard to the institutional church, this authority knows no bounds. And did you notice who decides what your gifts are? That’s right, not you, the leadership. Oh my, let’s just throw out one little example of this going completely wrong. If a guy gets saved but his wife doesn’t, she just may divorce him eventually. The Bible is very clear on this; the believing spouse is no longer obligated to that marriage. But if that young man comes to believe that he is called to be an elder—you can forget it. So, he will not fulfill his gift because of the traditions of men, and that’s a pity.

Many more examples could be given, but let’s get into our argument against authority among God’s people, or what I will call horizontal authority. The argument is that God’s people are a body of gifts cooperating together with one head. Horizontal co-laboring with vertical authority. I am going to be arguing this from a message I taught on Romans 14:2-12 titled, “Authority’s Assault on Unity.” So here we go, let’s see if we can learn anything.

The week before this lesson we talked about the mystery of the gospel. The mystery is God’s intention to bring Jew and Gentile into one body by the Spirit. Undoubtedly, this posed significant unity challenges because of the diverse cultures. When the Romans inquired of Paul as to whether or not they should bother associating with Jews due to these cultural differences, it sent Paul scrambling for his writing utensil because that issue is one of the core values of the gospel itself.

The bone of contention was dietary laws and the observance of days which would have been deeply entrenched traditions for the Jews. In addition, there were a plethora of issues among the Jews concerning the decadent culture of the Gentiles. Some of these issues included the eating of meat and its preparation according to Old Testament law. For sure, pork was out, but there were other issues, apparently, with meat sacrificed to idols and then sold on the open market at a reduced price. Hence, because what had been done with meat would have been ambiguous in many cases as far as its source and preparation, it’s possible that many Jews decided to play it safe and become vegetarians.

As far as convictions concerning the observance of days in this transition from the old covenant to the new, there would have been many days sacred to the Jews that would have had little significance among the Gentiles. So, what is Paul’s solution to these differences for purposes of fulfilling the mystery of the gospel?

In verse 2, Paul identifies the two parties: Gentiles who believe they can eat anything, and the weak Jew who understandably was not yet up to speed on the mystery of the gospel in regard to the law. Also consider, much like today, the Jews had been dumbed down in regard to Scriptural knowledge. The leadership of that day replaced Scriptural truth with the traditions of men. Specifically, like today, the integration of Gnosticism with Scripture saturated Jewish thought and religion.

In verse 3, Paul defines the attitudes that fueled the division between Jew and Gentile: the ones who eat should not “despise” the ones who don’t eat; i.e., the Jews, and the Jews should not “judge” the ones who eat according to what? Right, the law. And why? Because God had come to receive who? Right, the Gentile. Paul shifts his focus to the Jewish responsibility of accepting the ones God received into the one body regardless of the fact that they did not keep or regard much of the Old Testament law. This would have been a really challenging transition of thought for the Jew. But the main point here is that the Jew had a tendency to “judge” because they had the what? Right, the law.

The way Paul addresses this (v. 4) towards the Jew is very interesting. In that culture or the Jewish culture as well, it would have been very uncouth to tell another person’s slave what to do. It would have been absurd. In ancient times there were many types of slaves in regard to social strata, but let me use the types of slaves that were more like today’s employee as an example. It would be like a manager from Wendy’s walking into a Kentucky Fried Chicken and telling those employees what to do. Or, closer to the point Paul is making, openly criticizing them in some way. The absurdity demonstrated in this illustration falls a little short because the servants Paul is talking about only served their own masters whereas in my illustration you could argue that the Wendy’s manager was a customer at KFC and had a right to complain about something. But slaves of Paul’s day only served one master. Christ used the same kind of illustration Paul is using here when he said you cannot serve two masters.

So, what Paul is saying is that ALL Christians, Jew and Gentile, only have one master, Jesus Christ.

4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

“It is before his own master that he stands or falls” is a reflection of the slave culture. Typically, slaves only answered to one master. This is interesting to think about in our day. First, like most of the New Testament writings, and for that matter the Old Testament writings as well, the letter is addressed to the whole group. It also regards the problem with arguing over what Paul called, “opinions.” In all of this, where is elder involvement discussed? Thirdly, Paul is about to teach us that no one has a right to judge you or others in the Christian realm because everyone answers to one master and one master only—Jesus Christ.

The more one studies the Scriptures independently, the more one notices that elders (or pastors) are conspicuously missing. The context of Romans 14 makes the absence of elders odd in our minds because of what we have been taught about “elder authority.” We see this elsewhere concerning conflict among God’s people. In Matthew 18:15-20, again, elders are conspicuously missing. Often we hear the call to be willing to “place ourselves under the authority of godly men.” What I understand here is that we only have one master. Salvation is not in view here, the authority to pass judgment on another is what is in view. What is in view is a judge who is able to make the Christian “stand or fall.”

What becomes more and more clear is the fact that “pastor” or “elder” is just another gift and has NO element of authority. It has even been suggested that elders are optional for home fellowships where Christians gather together for edification and fellowship. The suggestion is that 1Timothy 3:1 could refer to a fellowship’s desire to have an elder and not necessarily an individual’s desire to be an elder.  Practically, this makes sense because wherever God’s people meet there may not be any elders. What I am saying follows: in geographies where there is no sound gathering of professing Christians, saints are not forced to fellowship there because eldership validates an assembly. Clearly, it can be surmised that some 1st century Christian fellowships had elders and others didn’t.

But at any rate, elders are not lords (1Pet 5:3), they are leaders. Even the apostle Paul stated that he was to be followed only as long as he followed Christ (1Cor 11:1).

Putting all of these ideas together, I like the rendering of 1Timothy 3;1 by the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB):

Here is a statement you can trust: anyone aspiring to be a congregation leader is seeking worthwhile work.

Elders lead by example. I believe their oversight is primarily a proper interpretation of the Bible. They are ministers of the word (Acts 6:4). We only have one Lord—Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul continually pointed to the authority of God’s truth as the only authority:

Galatians 1:8 – But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

1Corinthians 3:21 – So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Paul sets forth another rule in verse 5: Each believer should be persuaded (KJV) in their OWN mind. There needs to be space given for everyone to grow in wisdom. See here that we don’t believe certain things just because certain people believe it. We are to be persuaded in our OWN minds through the continued study of God’s word. PERSUASION is a major theme in the New Testament. The idea of persuasion is often translated “obey” in English translations for some incredibly strange reason. Listen, “obedience” is not the heavy emphasis among believers, persuasion is the key. Here is the word for persuaded in verse 5:

g4135. πληροφορέω plērophoreō; from 4134 and 5409; to carry out fully (in evidence), i. e. completely assure (or convince), entirely accomplish:— most surely believe, fully know (persuade), make full proof of. AV (5)- be fully persuaded.

Listen, before I develop this important aspect of persuasion, I am going to jump ahead to Paul’s next principle of motive in verse 6:

The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Giving room for motive is huge in our day because we are all so dumbed down theologically. Admittedly, these are difficult waters, but if the home fellowship movement is going to work, we need to chill out on the dogma thing and emphasize the fact that we all need room to grow in God’s word. What we are looking for is honest seekers of truth—people who are persuaded by truth and the one mind of Christ that brings unity. Basically, a genuine love for the truth. That’s THE truth not A truth.

Meanwhile, Paul is saying that the spiritually weak have the right motives and are thankful to God. Other than a love for the truth, even the spiritually weak will have a spirit of thankfulness.

Probably, the beginnings of fellowship should begin with a fundamental agreement on the gospel of first importance and the sufficiency of God’s word. From there, you study the Scriptures together and let all be fully persuaded in their own minds. It boils down to this…

Does the person love THE truth? (2Thess 2:10).

Now, back to developing verse 5. I am going to develop this point by looking at Hebrews 13:17:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

As we can ascertain so far, no one among God’s people can demand that you believe anything—only Christ has the authority to demand that you believe something. Otherwise, it would have been like passing judgment on someone else’s slave which was an absurd notion in that culture. In contrast, what is in vogue in our day is this whole idea of “putting yourself under the authority of godly men” lest you be a spiritual sluggard. A verse often used is Hebrews 13:17.

The word for “obey” is the following word:

g3982. πείθω peithō; a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):— agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) content, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.

The idea is to be persuaded, or following as a result of being persuaded or convinced. The same word is used about 50 times this way in the New Testament. Here is just one example:

Matthew 27:20 – Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded (peithō) the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.

There is a Greek word for outright obedience, it is…

g5219. ὑπακούω hypakouō; from 5259 and 191; to hear under (as a subordinate), i. e. to listen attentively; by implication, to heed or conform to a command or authority:— hearken, be obedient to, obey.

Here is one example of about 20 in regard to how the word is used in the New Testament:

Matthew 8:27 – And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey (hypakouō) him?”

Again, among fellow Christians, we don’t demand obedience, we persuade. Elders lead, but they do not have Christ’s authority. You obey Christ no matter what.  Such is not the case with elders or pastors. Notice in all of chapter 14, the key to unity is not the authority of leaders.

Continuing on…

7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Honestly, I am not entirely sure of the point Paul is making in verses 7-9. There is even the transition “For” that links this idea to the previous thought in verse 6, but it’s like Paul just parachutes this idea in here out of nowhere. Each sentence in verses 7-9 link together with verse 6 by a conjunction, “For,” “So then.” Somehow, Christ being the Lord of those who have passed on figures into the equation, but I simply don’t know how.

At any rate, Paul is back to the main point with verses 10-12:

10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” 12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

This is clear, we will all give an account for ourselves regarding what we have done as Christians in the body (1Cor 3:10-15, 2Cor 5:10). Therefore, do not judge a fellow believer who is doing his/her best to honor God with what knowledge they presently have.

Second, let them be convinced in their OWN minds.

Third, stay focused on glorifying God in regard to the purposes of the mystery of the gospel.

At this time, let’s go ahead and take calls.

Romans 9:11- God Does Not Choose, He Calls

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 13, 2015

ppt-jpeg4How should we interpret our Bibles? Clearly, Christ set the example. Throughout the gospels He reasoned with many via interpretation based on the technical meaning of words and how they are used in a sentence. We are to interpret the Bible grammatically. Also, the Bible is purposely written in a way that defines certain words according to the plain sense of context; so, while knowing Greek and Hebrew may be helpful, it’s far from being a prerequisite to understanding. The rules of grammar, for the most part, transcend culture. A noun is a noun, and a verb is a verb in any language. To even cite examples of this is to state the obvious, but I will mention Christ arguing for the resurrection based on the tense of “I am” in Matthew 22:31,32.

So, in regard to the question of determinism and the idea that God chooses some for salvation and others for damnation, we find something in the grammar of Romans 9:11 that should give us pause.

…though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—(ESV)

If the point of Romans 9 is God’s pre-choosing of some for salvation and not others, why would Paul not have written, “because of him who chooses” rather than “him who calls”? Did Paul have a senior moment? Also peculiar to this passage is the stated purpose of election: the eradication of works from salvation. It seems that election accomplishes this for purposes of God calling all people to accept salvation as a pure gift rather than God’s choosing being the linchpin. Note the following:

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

Again, why is it not the choosing of God that is irrevocable rather than the calling? This grammatical roadblock to determinism was not missed by John Calvin. If choosing and calling are something different, it could mean that the means of salvation was chosen for a particular purpose and then offered to all people as a gift that they could choose themselves or reject. Hence, Calvin separated determinism into 3 separate categories: the non-chosen, the temporarily chosen (the called), and the truly chosen (those who persevere). But of course, Calvin’s three-fold election construct is rarely discussed in Reformed circles for obvious reasons. You can add this fact to the list of other Reformed dirty little secrets relegated to the closets lest they would incite some sort of chemical reaction of thought within the cranium cases of Reformed Kool-Aid drinkers. And of course, no one is going to challenge me to come up with the specific citations from the Calvin Institutes because they know I can.

Here is my rudimentary hypothesis at this time: “election” is primarily a noun in the Scriptures that denotes a category of people and purpose while “calling” is the action taken by God, or the verb. God calls people, He doesn’t choose them. God chose the means of salvation, and calls all people to accept the means of salvation as a gift. The purpose of election is that salvation would be by PROMISE, and not works. Also, “election” is primarily defined in terms of miraculous new birth into the family of God and something made entirely possible by God alone. Any Bible passages that seem to make a direct connection between election and God’s choosing of individuals are rare, or completely absent at most, and ambiguous at least.

Let’s also remember that those who are not in need of salvation are also considered to be God’s “elect”; namely, the holy angels and Christ. The nation of Israel is elect for a particular purpose, and this is perhaps the best definition of election: it is a chosen means to obtain a particular purpose. God chooses the means of salvation, not individuals. Election makes salvation a pure gift and promise apart from the will of man or his abilities, but mankind is free to choose or reject the gift. True, because man fears the condemnation of God, his tendency is to not seek God, but the loving God seeks out mankind through the gospel. God seeks out man and corners him with the truth of the gospel, but man’s tendency to hide from God does not mean he has no ability to make a choice.

A good example of the ambiguity that surrounds the idea of God choosing individuals is 1Peter 5:13. Depending on the translation, it’s the “sister” that is chosen or the “church.” If the latter, that makes my point, but more interesting is the disagreement in translations concerning “elect” used as a noun or adjective as opposed to “chosen” or “elected” regarding those defined by an action, or verb. While the likes of the ESV translate “elect” as… “elected,” or “chosen,” many other mainstream translations like the ASV translate it “elect” without the ed suffix. In other words, a statement concerning the fact that we are all part of the family of God and His plan of salvation does not necessarily equal determinism, or the idea that “elect” equals those who were predetermined to be in the family of God coupled with total inability on man’s part to choose God.

And, if Christ wasn’t mincing words in His argument for the resurrection, neither is this consideration by any stretch of the imagination. And it’s funny; when I was doing word study on this and initially observed 1Peter 5:13 with the word “elected,” I assumed that if my hypothesis held any water that I would also find translations using the word “elect,” and as noted, that in fact ended up being the case.

If you follow the apostle Paul’s argument throughout Romans 9, 10, and 11, and Galatians 3 for good measure, the concern is that salvation is solely by the promise of miraculous new birth. Whether Sarah, Rebekah, Elizabeth, Mary, or the Spirit’s role described in Galatians 3, salvation is NOT by any will or work of man, but a onetime miraculous new birth. A denial of literal new birth paths the way for progressive justification via determinism which is the number one nemesis of the true gospel.

The new birth is a work of God alone, but that doesn’t mean man cannot choose it.


The Protestant Twisting of 1John: A Clarification, Part 2

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on September 12, 2015

Blog Radio LogoOriginally published March 31, 2015

Listen to show or download audio here. 

Listen or download full show uninterrupted. 

Welcome to Blogtalk Radio False Reformation this is your host Paul M. Dohse Sr. Tonight, part 2 of “The Protestant Twisting of 1John: A Clarification.”

How is 1John used to argue for a progressive salvation, and what is John really saying in his epistle? That’s what we are discussing tonight. If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.

If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at That’s Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat, I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson.

Ok, so this whole idea is very Protestant, that we must keep going back to the same gospel that saved us in order to keep ourselves saved. But, it’s all good because we are going back to the “gospel” and the “gospel” is by faith alone so going back to the gospel is a faith alone work which isn’t really a work. So, it’s ok to do something to keep ourselves saved as long as it’s a faith alone work.

As we discussed last week, here is where the home fellowship movement stands apart from the institutional church: salvation is a finished work; salvation is NOT a progression from point A to point B. The new birth is a onetime instantaneous quickening of the believer. The believer then in fact does move on to something completely different—kingdom living, or discipleship. Central to Protestantism is the idea that moving on from the gospel to doctrinal maturity is an abomination. The who’s who of Protestantism can be cited many times in stating this in no uncertain terms.

The home fellowship movement is not a mere preference over the institutional church—it is an anti-progressive justification movement. It is a return to the true gospel of Christ. All of the institutional church either embraces progressive justification or is willing to fellowship with it and is therefore altogether guilty.

Last week, we also introduced the fact that 1John must be interpreted according to its historical context. The number one nemesis of the 1st century assemblies was Gnosticism and 1John is a treatise against it. We covered John’s introduction which was a direct pushback against the Gnostic idea that the spiritual Christ did not die on the cross. We believe that John was specifically addressing the Gnostic teachings of Cerinthus. He taught that there was more than one Christ; one born naturally of human parents that will be resurrected with all other men in the last days, and the spiritual Christ who dwells in heaven. Elsewhere, John wrote:

1John 4:1 – “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”

The very definition of antichrist teachings is the denial that the true Christ (Messiah) was part of the material world, or actually came in the flesh. Gnostic systems of thought are very complex, but the cardinal principle is that material is evil and the spiritual or invisible is good.

The important distinction is that biblically, the material creation is not inherently evil, but weak. This is an important distinction because Christ coming as man makes it possible for men to be literally recreated and part of God’s literal family. The teaching that “denies Jesus is the Christ” (Messiah: 1Jn 2:22) circumvents the new birth. Throughout this epistle, John refers to the recipients as “little offsprings”(teknion; little children). I want to dig into this a little deeper; the new birth and its relationship to apostolic succession, but first, let me address the crux issue here.

John was also addressing an aspect of Gnosticism that believed the following: sin only resides in the material, and the spiritual part of man is sinless and has never sinned. In essence, it doesn’t matter what we do in the body because the spiritual part of man is sinless and has never sinned, and that is the only part of man that is eternal anyway. Many scholars concur that this was a common form of Gnosticism. Of course, this disavows any need for Christ to die on the cross and makes the knowledge of this supposed lie salvation itself. Salvation by being made into something new is out—coming to grips with the gnosis regarding man’s inner spark of divinity is in. This backdrop now explains exactly what John was getting at in 1John 1:7-10 and 2:1,2.

1John 1:7 – “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

1John 2:1 – “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

“We” in these verses should be viewed as speaking to mankind in general while including both saved and unsaved individuals. Recognizing that Christ came to deal with man’s sin problem is efficacious to the gospel.

John is NOT stating the Protestant gospel of “deep repentance” which teaches that we keep ourselves saved (or washed) via a “lifestyle of repentance.” That would be a perpetual return to the same gospel that saved us for relief from “present sin.” That flies in the face of biblical justification. This makes “if” in these verses a conditional conjunction. That would mean that our sins continue to be forgiven, or washed, or cleansed “if” we “walk in the light” and continue to repent. That’s clearly works salvation, and clearly a reapplication of Christ’s sacrifice to present sin. As actually taught in Protestant circles, the sacrifice only happened once, but the remembrance of it continues to cleanse present and future sins.

This is the whole deal behind, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day” and the vital union doctrine. Living a “lifestyle of repentance” or deep repentance “keeps us in the love of Jesus.” This is salvation by Jesus + deep repentance to keep ourselves saved. The Reformed say, “No, it’s not works because repentance is a faith alone work,” but not even a so-called faith alone work can keep you born again—you can’t unborn yourself by not doing something. Look, here is the money point on all of this: the needed present and future forgiveness can only be found in the Protestant institutional church via baptism/formal membership. And we will be addressing that a little further along.

One of the many problems with this is, in regard to believers, follows: in order for present sin to exist, there has to be a law, and the blood of Christ ended the law—it’s a onetime cleansing. To have some need to reapply the blood of Christ to present sin implies that there is still sin, and there is not because where there is no law—there is no sin, and Christ died on the cross to end the law. This fact is found in Romans 3:19,20, 4:15, 5:13, 7:8, 10:4.

Some insist that John’s context here is fellowship, and since fellowship is the context, John is writing about repentance that is necessary to keep us in proper family relationship with God, and not a repentance that keeps us in the family of God; ie., John is talking about sanctification and not justification. Frankly, that’s the view that I used to hold to as well.

But John is talking about the onetime cleansing that justifies. Note that throughout these verses that it is a forgiveness that cleanses from “all sin” and “all unrighteousness.” That has to be justification. What John is saying is that no matter who you are in humanity, you have need to be forgiven of sin by believing that Jesus is the Christ and died for you. Note the subjects of these verses: “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

However, John is also saying that this fact doesn’t give us a license to sin any more than the Gnostics, “I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.” But watch this: “But if anyone does sin, we [everyone] have an advocate with the Father.” Ok John, an advocate for what purpose? Answer: “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Who are the subjects? It’s obvious who the subjects are.

If this isn’t speaking to a onetime cleansing of sin, the world doesn’t need the new birth any more than Christians—they only need to ask forgiveness so the blood of Christ will be applied to the particular sin. Not only that, the new birth is also disavowed through the denial of a new creaturehood displayed by people who have passed from death to life. And John is speaking directly towards this issue as well. You see, who the “we” are and what the “if” is—is critical to interpreting these verses properly. The “we” are the “anyone.” The “if” is a cause and effect conjunction and not a conditional conjunction.

And let me tell you something, Protestant theologians rarely have any qualms about saying that God’s promises are conditional. I mean, what’s the paramount example? Replacement theology/supersessionism, right? This whole idea that Israel’s election was conditional on them holding up their end of the covenant. I just don’t know what can be more obvious, and this is their exact take on justification as well.

This is the crux. John is saying that if we walk in the light, it’s because we have been born again, not that we keep ourselves born again if we do our part by walking in the light. Walking in the light is not our part of the so-called vital union, we walk in the light because that’s what new creatures do; cows like hay and ducks like water—it’s a cause and effect conjunction not a conditional conjunction.

Now, here is where we really struggle with these verses: in verse 7, the English word in the plural strongly suggests a present continuous action. Verse 9 really isn’t that much of a problem as it’s merely saying that anyone that confesses their sin is cleansed of all unrighteousness. Note the following verse 10 that can be rendered this way: “If we say we have not [never] sinned.” The English “ed’ on the end of sin indicates past tense like, “I sinned.” That’s past tense. If John is speaking to the present continuance, why would he have not written, “if we say that we do not sin.” Right? Verse 9 simply fits into the Gnostic motif that John was arguing against.

Neither is 1John 2:1, 2 a problem. John is simply stating that anyone who recognizes their sin and wants to do something about it has an advocate in Christ who cleanses all sin. And by the way, the rest of John’s letter backs up my Pauline argument to the hilt. Just, all over the place in the rest of the letter, for example,

1John 3:3 – “And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. 4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.”

He came to “take away sin,” not to cover it with His own righteousness and to continue to forgive it. Christ came to end sin altogether. Are we “in Christ”? Well, in Him there is NO sin. So if we are in Him, why would we need forgiveness for present or future sin in regard to justification? In 1John 2:12-14, forgiveness of sin and overcoming the evil one is spoken of in the past tense.

The only matter at hand is the word “cleanses” in verse 7.  Let me point something out to you. Most of the English translations that we have come out of the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, and there are myriads of examples of this, the translations are tainted with progressive justification presuppositions. And unfortunately, this includes the Greek word-study helps. Here is something I read in one:

Every encounter with a command to obey, is our opportunity to jettison self-reliance and to yield to the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. Supernatural commands from the supernatural God can only be carried out with reliance on His supernatural power! The Spirit is called the Helper, but don’t let His Name mislead you. To say that we need His help is to imply we have some ability of our own to obey and are in need of a little “push” so to speak.

See the problem? You can know the Greek backwards and forwards, but what good does it do if “help” doesn’t mean “help”? Look, what good have all of the Protestant Greek scholars done for us? I came to realize the problem of progressive justification by my own independent study in Romans. The basic concept easily understood regardless of the language, “where there is no law there is no sin.” That statement astounded me, but was the key to unraveling the whole mystery. Once you understand that fundamental, the rest of the Bible, when taken in context, fits together perfectly in every way. How much did any knowledge of Greek aid me in this understanding? Nada. Goose egg. Zilch. Loco zippo.

Greek can be confirming, and helpful, but the Bible is written in definitive structures that mean the same thing in all languages and that is no accident. You can translate the fact that Christ died on the cross to end the law, and where there is no law there is no sin, any way you want to—it’s going to mean the same thing in any language. Then you start seeing where the concept fits together with everything else in the Bible which enables you to nail down what the anomalies are. And a lot of the anomalies are bias towards a certain worldview.

Notice in the example I gave there is no room given for an authentic colaboring between us and the Holy Spirit. It is either all us or all of the Holy Spirit. My friends, that is the Protestant redemptive-historical worldview to a T and it is fundamentally Gnostic in its premise. Hence, when you use Greek word-study helps, you are often dealing with the same bias. This is why I eventually threw away my Kenneth Wuest expanded New Testament translation. I started seeing clear bias in how he processed the Greek verbs and I was totally done with him at that point.

I spent the better part of yesterday researching 1John 1:7 and the word “cleanses” therein. We know from biblical context that this verse cannot be saying that the one sacrifice of Christ continues to rewash us IF we continue to walk in the light; ie., Protestantism. And let me give you the thumbnail: if you remain faithful to the institutional church and its sacraments/ordinances, that keeps you saved. Even if the Greek usage indicates a present continual action there is no way to distinguish that from the simple reality of being washed once and remaining clean thereafter. In other words, there is no way to definitively distinguish between two intents: a required reapplication to reinstate a status or an unchanged status that continues in the same state without any further action.

Though “cleanses” appears to be some kind of continuing action in the ESV version of 1John 1:7 as well as many other versions, we know that this same cleansing of regeneration is clearly stated as a onetime final act in many, many other Bible passages. For example,

1 Corinthians 6:11- “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Ok, you have “were” in there four times with sinful lifestyles being in the past tense, and sanctified, justified, and “washed” being in the present tense. It is one event that happens one time and transforms us into an immutable state. Period. This is irrefutable. And by the way, if you do a New Testament word search on the exact form of the Greek word “cleanses” (other translations “cleanseth”) in 1John 1:7, it is almost always used as a onetime ceremonial cleansing.

Matthew 8:2 – “And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, ” Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” 3 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.” [Here in Mathew 8:2, the same exact form of the Greek word is used for past, present, and future tense. “Ed” is added to the English word “cleansed” to indicate past tense].

Note how Young’s Literal Translation has 1John 1:7.

“and if in the light we may walk, as He is in the light — we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son doth cleanse us from every sin;”

Now, not only does this simply state the fact that the blood of Christ cleanses us from every sin with a much less conditional translation, it’s interesting that the YLT picks up on something that Andy related to me yesterday in regard to the word “may”:

What is interesting is that all of the examples that John uses where he says “if” are all 3rd class conditions.  All the key verbs are in the subjunctive mood.

Here is an excerpt regarding 3rd class conditions…

“The third class condition often presents the condition as uncertain of fulfillment, but still likely.  There are, however, many exceptions to this…The third class condition encompasses a broad range of potentialities in Koine Greek. It depicts what is likely to occur in the future, what could possibly occur, or even what is only hypothetical and will not occur” (Wallace, p. 696).

So John is really posing a series of future hypothetical situations. Any place where it says “if” you should read it as “if ever in the future…” or “if at any time in the future…”

It would appear that this seems to be an exercise in reason using hypothetical examples to refute the gnostics that were among them in those assemblies. Notice that the present tense verbs are present tense because they are in the conclusion (apodosis) to the proposed hypothetical conditional premise (protasis). But the verbs in the premise (protasis) are in the subjunctive mood.

Also, you cannot read verse 7 without verse 6.  Verse 7 is an antithetical conclusion of verse 6. In other words, you can’t properly interpret vs 7 without vs 6. In fact, notice how 7 contrasts 6, AND vs 9 contrasts vs 8 also!  They are parallel arguments, and then vs 10 kind of sums it up.

This bolsters my contention that John is addressing people in general regarding the ramifications of their beliefs about sin in contrast to Gnosticism. That’s the crux here: the backdrop is the Gnosticism John is addressing. If you say that you have no sin, for whatever reason, you are making God out to be a liar. But if you confess your sin, God will cleanse you from all unrightousness. And, that will have an effect on your life because you have been cleansed. John does not hone-in on the new birth right here, but does so in chapter 3 bigtime. Really, chapter 3 clarifies exactly what is being stated in the first two chapters.

In addition, John is saying that even though those who confess their sin are cleansed of all sin, that is not a different kind of license to sin without ramifications. Hence, “…I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.” But if you do recognize that you have sin, we have an advocate with the Father that is a propitiation for all sin, those who confess that they have sin, and those who may in the future confess that they have sin—this is what is going on in this passage. And by the way, this is another refutation of limited atonement as well.

Let me give another example that might help clarify all of this. One Reformed fellow (a disciple of Paul David Tripp) arguing against me in regard to all of this stated the following:

In John 4, we are to drink once, but that one drink becomes a reserve that refreshes continually. The substance that refreshes is the same (Christ’s salvation, in an ongoing manner)…For Calvin, the cleaning is ongoing, because there WILL be new sins, and 1 John tells us there are new sins. WERE IT NOT FOR the ongoing cleaning and forgiveness, we would exit the family of God, but the faithful know of a certainty that this cleansing is ongoing and present.

See the problem with not interpreting this passage in its historical context? John isn’t talking about “new sins,” he is talking about SIN period. Where is there anything stated in this passage in regard to “new sins”? What relevance does “new sins” have with the unsaved world that is one of the subjects of this passage? The unsaved have “new sins”?

Also, Christians do not have “new sins” because Christ ended the law and where there is no law there is no sin. This is exactly why the Protestant gospel keeps people under law—the whole concept of “new sin.”

In addition, notice what he states about John 4 that is a common Reformed position:

“In John 4, we are to drink once, but that one drink becomes a reserve that refreshes continually.”

This statement is a common smoking gun that damns Protestantism. In that passage, Jesus said that those who drink of the water will never… (what?) again? Right, they will NEVER “thirst” again. Christians may need refreshment against the weakness of the flesh, but we never need our justification to be refreshed—that’s just a blatant false gospel.

Moreover, note, “WERE IT NOT FOR the ongoing cleaning and forgiveness, we would exit the family of God, but the faithful know of a certainty that this cleansing is ongoing and present.” This is where the “if(s)” of 1John totally shoot Protestantism in its gospel foot. If you take this approach, the if(s) of 1John 1:7-2:2 are conditional upon confessing “new sins.” This clearly makes the cleansing of sin that makes us part of God’s family conditional. It makes the new birth conditional. “If” we don’t confess, we can be unborn.

Doesn’t it make much more sense if John is saying that we (people in general) have to recognize that men have sin in order to receive a cleansing from it? Sure it does. John is pushing back against a philosophy that taught the following: man is spirit and therefore without sin; only the material world has sin. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what people do in the body, it’s all just part of the material world that is passing away. This also rejects the new birth and its righteous lifestyle that walks in the light as Christ is in the light and there is no darkness in Him. Those who walk in the light are born of the light and they are of the light because they recognized the need to confess their sin in order to be cleansed. Hence…

John 3:2 – “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.”

Next week, we are going to look at how the rest of the book of 1John fits into this Pauline soteriological schema perfectly. Why does John follow our passage at hand with a discussion of love and then the new birth? How do we get from the gospel anomaly of “new sins” to “love,” and what does that have to do with the new birth? How does all of this make walking in the light synonymous with the new birth?

See you next, and now let’s go to the phones.

The Heidelberg Disputation Series Part 12, Theses 22 and 23: The Vital Union, Ritual, and Law

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 11, 2015

Blog Radio LogoLive Link to Program Tonight @7pm 

If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback over your cellphone. If you choose to use Skype to listen to the show, my advice is to just dial direct from your Skype account without using any of the Blogtalk links. 347-855-8317.

Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.

Remember, you may remain anonymous. When I say, “This is your host; you are on the air, what’s your comment or question”—just start talking.

If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at That’s Paul @ Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat .com. I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in. You can post a question as well.

Tonight, we continue in our sentence by sentence evaluation of the HD with thesis 22. This is where we get into the true heart of the Protestant Reformation which concerned philosophy, or state of being.

The Protestant Twisting of 1John: A Clarification, Part 1

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on September 11, 2015

Blog Radio LogoOriginally published March 22, 2015

Listen to audio or download audio file.

Link to audio with visuals

Welcome to Blogtalk Radio False Reformation this is your host Paul M. Dohse Sr. Tonight, we are going to attack and unravel interpretive abuses of 1John, particularly 1John 1:9 and 2:1. There is only one other text twisted for ill use more than these two verses, and that would be Galatians 2:20 and 3:1-3. Later, In part 2, I will toss in an exegesis of those verses as a bonus.

There may be a lot of different religions and even more denominations, but for all practical purposes they all have one thing in common: this whole idea that salvation is a process with a beginning and an end. This makes salvation a process that includes our present life.

So, the argumentation between religions and denominations involves the correct way of getting from point A to point B. But there is no point A and point B. When you believe God unto salvation, you get the complete package and the salvation part of your life is finished. It is an instantaneous quickening of the Spirit that transports you from one kingdom to another, from one master to another, from being under law to being under grace, from the old person to the new person, and from darkness to light. You don’t become a servant of righteousness on the installment plan, and you don’t become a kingdom citizen on an installment plan.

How is 1John used to argue for a progressive salvation, and what is John really saying in his epistle? That’s what we are discussing tonight. If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. We will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective. If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at That’s Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat, I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the show.

Way back at the beginning of this ministry, I had this nailed down. If salvation is a process, and eternal life as opposed to eternal punishment is at stake, the Christian life is really a minefield. The focus isn’t being the best kingdom citizen; the focus is making sure you don’t mess up your salvation. The focus is salvation, not discipleship. The focus is fear of judgement, not love.

I realize many Christians hold to OSAS, once saved always saved, but the problem is how they are led by pastors trained in seminaries deeply grounded in Protestant tradition. That tradition looks to the institutional church as the primary way of getting God’s people from point A to point B in regard to their salvation. Whether OSAS or not, they are led to do the same things week in and week out. Be here at this time or that time; stand up; sing; sit down; listen to announcements; stand up; sing; sit down; listen to the special music presentation; put your tithe in the plate; listen to the sermon (always about the gospel just in case there are lost people present, wink, wink); stand up; sing “Just As I Am” until someone walks the isle so you can stop singing “Just As I Am”; pray; be dismissed; be cordial to people and tell them how much you love them; go home, and come back next week and do it again.

Why? Because all of that ritualism “imparts grace” and enables us to “grow in grace.” It enables us to “grow up in our salvation.” After all, discipleship is the “growing part of our salvation.” We have all said it, but salvation doesn’t grow. While believing in OSAS, most parishioners are led by pastors who believe in progressive salvation/justification which was clearly the foundational premise of Protestantism with the progression being overseen by the Protestant institutional church.

Moreover, let’s face it; while believing in OSAS, there is only one reason people put up with all of the nonsense and drama of the institutional church—OSAS means that if someone leaves the institutional church, they were never saved to begin with. Right? In other words, they function according to the idea that they are led by. It’s OSAS as long as you are “faithful” to the institution. Then each church has its own little “faithfulness” caste system. Those who show up for all of the services are the “core members” that run the church. Those “less faithful” that only come on Sunday mornings are a lower class of member in the caste system.

You have the pastors, staff and deacons, then the “faithful” that attend all of the services and tithe at least 10%, the “casual” attenders that tithe, and then the bottom of the caste strata, even lower than the serfs, the putrid “nonmembers.”

Whether Calvin or Luther, the two icons of Protestantism, these beliefs follow after the doctrine they established for the Protestant institutional church. Access to the institutional church was through water baptism, and the critical need according to the Reformers for formal church membership follows: as Christians, forgiveness for present and future sins can only be found in the institutional church, and those sins condemn us. Forgiveness for all sins does not occur at salvation, but only for past sins. Water baptism initiates us into church membership where forgiveness for present and future sins can be obtained through the sacraments; ie., “gospel preaching,” the Lord’s Table, and anything else deemed as acts of faithfulness to the institutional church not to exclude tithing by any means. Calvin states this explicitly in his institutes, 4.15.1.

All in all, you can say that in Protestantism, the status of sin does not change for the believer—it still condemns requiring perpetual resalvation for every sin committed.

Therefore, 1John 1:9 and 2:1 is interpreted in this light: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:9). “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (2:1).

These verses seem to bolster the authentic Protestant position on justification. Confession of sin in our Christian lives keeps us saved. And if we confess our sins, Jesus is up in heaven as our advocate with the Father continuing His work as a propitiation for our sins.

The problem is that this interpretation stands in stark contrast to what other Scriptures state about justification. Biblically, sin has a different classification after salvation—it can’t condemn; it can bring chastisement and present consequences, but it can’t condemn—its ability to condemn has been taken away. Hence, there is no need to have some institution that prevents future condemnation.

Nevertheless, it is easy to understand why the institutional church not only gets a pass on outrageous behavior, but the money keeps pouring in. What will people pay for their salvation and décor that glorifies the institution that saves them? Apparently, no price or compromise is too large. One can also appreciate the fear of so-called excommunication because the institutional church is the only place where one can receive continued forgiveness for present and future sins.

Before I move on, I will solidify my present point. Romans 8:1 states that there is presently NO condemnation for those who are in Christ. In Contrast, Calvin stated that “even saints cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation” (CI 3.14.9, last sentence). Obviously, the focus is going to be avoiding condemnation, not our freedom to pursue aggressive love in discipleship.

So what are these verses in 1John really saying? Let’s begin to unpack that using the historical grammatical approach to interpretation as opposed to the traditional Protestant means of interpretation, the historical redemptive method. Since Protestantism sees salvation as a process, “redemptive” means that the Bible must be approached with a redemptive prism; ie., the Bible is about salvation. Clearly, this is eisegesis; going to the Bible with a presupposition.

In regard to the history part, this is the belief that history is an unfolding drama about salvation. Hence, all of reality is interpreted through salvation. All of history and the Bible continually reveals the one two-fold redemptive truth/reality: the sinfulness of man and the holiness of God. Salvation begins when we see or understand this reality, and the experience of that reality increases until final salvation.

In contrast, the historical grammatical method uses historical facts to bring more meaning to the text, and all truth is determined by what can be concluded by the grammar—this is known as exegesis. All meaning and truth comes out of the text without anything being read into the text except conclusions from other texts.

In fact, Protestant tradition holds to the idea that a historical grammatical approach to the Scriptures invariably leads to works salvation. Protestant tradition insists that the Scriptures must be interpreted through the prism of total depravity. In this year’s TANC conference, this is what I am going to be hitting on. Christians, save a few, have no idea that Protestant pastors that are leading them view reality in a totally different way than most parishioners. And this is why church looks like it does. And there is no salvaging it—it’s a completely broken system.

So, if you interpret said verses in 1John redemptively, it fits right into their narrative, right? You have to continue to repent for new sins in your Christian life in order to not be condemned and to keep your salvation. A good old fashioned Baptist lady who I am sure would hold OSAS stated this to my wife Susan in the grocery store a couple weeks ago. When Susan asked her why Christians need to go forward during alter calls, she answered, “they have sin that needs to be forgiven.” Well, why can’t they get that forgiveness by praying at home? You ought to see the reaction Susan and I get when we suggest her mother was saved even though not a member of a church.

Protestantism and all of its offshoots including the Baptists is nothing more or less than functioning Calvinism. Election isn’t the point, progressive salvation is the point. Protestants think salvation grows—salvation doesn’t grow—you are either forgiven once and for all time or you aren’t. Look, if you are going to stay in the institutional church, it makes absolutely no difference where you go. Please, stop driving 15 miles to the Baptist church when there is a Catholic Church right across the street—it’s a shameful waste of gas. It’s all progressive justification.

In contrast, we have to see 1John in its exegetical historical context. It must be interpreted according to what was going on during the time that prompted this letter. And what was that?

John was pushing back against the number-one nemesis of the assemblies during that time: Gnosticism. Now, there were many, many different veins of Gnosticism during that time, but like denominationalism, there are basics that are fundamentally the same. Denominationalism quibbles about how to get from point A to point B, but it is all progressive salvation.

When you understand the basics of Gnosticism, it is easy to see that John’s first epistle is a point by point rebuttal of Gnosticism, and NOT the proffering of progressive justification. Protestants can bicker with Catholics all they want to about how to get from point A to point B, but again, it’s all progressive justification. If it’s a religious institution, it’s selling final salvation, PERIOD.

If we follow John’s arguments in this epistle, it also apes the fundamental basics of Gnosticism, and that’s what we are going to do:

1John 1:1 – That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. [KJV].

The Gnostics taught that it really wasn’t the spiritual Christ that died on the cross. Gnosticism holds to the idea that material is evil and only the invisible spiritual world is good. Gnosticism rejected the idea that the spiritual realm, or godhood can be one with the material. You must understand: the biblical concept of Godman is a direct affront to the foundation of all false religions, or the knowledge of good and evil. It is the idea that true knowledge cannot be one with the material. Knowledge is good, material is evil and is only a shadow of true knowledge. Knowledge of the material is enslaved and dependent on the five senses.

Now, stop right there. Let me simplify this for you. All false religion flows from the religion of the knowledge of good and evil presented to Eve in the garden. This is also the first sentence of the Calvin Institutes and all of the Calvin Institutes flow from the foundation of 1.1.1., first sentence, viz, ALL wisdom is the knowledge of man and the knowledge of God; man is inherently evil and God is inherently good.

Also, the first sentence of the Calvin Institutes is the primary theses of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation which is the Magnum Opus of the Reformation. All fundamentals found in contemporary evangelicalism can be found in the Heidelberg Disputation and flow from it. Calvin’s Institutes further articulated the former. In contemporary evangelicalism, we hear constantly that true biblical knowledge is “the knowledge of our own sinfulness as set against God’s holiness.” This is also the pronounced fundamental foundation of the contemporary biblical counseling movement as constantly stated publically in no uncertain terms.

Why am I interjecting this? Because even though much of our knowledge concerning first century Gnosticism comes from the writings of the early church fathers and while they railed against Gnosticism, they themselves were also Gnostics. However, in the process of railing against Gnosticism, they confirm unequivocally that John’s letter addressed the Gnosticism of their day; it just wasn’t the Gnosticism that they preferred.

And by the way, according to some church fathers, John was addressing a Gnostic named Cerinthus who was a contemporary of John and a personal nemesis.

Cerinthus was a gnostic and to some, an early Christian, who was prominent as a heresiarch in the view of the early Church Fathers. Contrary to proto-orthodox Christianity, Cerinthus’s school followed the Jewish law, used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, denied that the Supreme God had made the physical world, and denied the divinity of Jesus. In Cerinthus’ interpretation, the Christ came to Jesus at baptism, guided him in his ministry, but left him at the crucifixion.

He taught that Jesus would establish a thousand-year reign of sensuous pleasure after the Second Coming but before the General Resurrection, a view that was declared heretical by the Council of Nicaea. Cerinthus used a version of the gospel of Matthew as scripture.

Cerinthus taught at a time when Christianity’s relation to Judaism and to Greek philosophy had not yet been clearly defined. In his association with the Jewish law and his modest assessment of Jesus, he was similar to the Ebionites and to other Jewish Christians. In defining the world’s creator as the demiurge, he emulated Platonic philosophy and anticipated the Gnostics.

Early Christian tradition describes Cerinthus as a contemporary to and opponent of John the Evangelist, who may have written the First Epistle of John and the Second Epistle of John to warn the less mature in faith and doctrine about the changes he was making to the original gospel. All that is known about Cerinthus comes from the writing of his theological opponents (Wikipedia).

At any rate, the teachings of Cerinthus follow the basic fundamentals of 1st century Gnosticism of which there were two schools of thought unchanged from the cradle of society: intuitive knowledge within versus knowledge outside of man. While both schools held to the strict dichotomy of material being evil and the invisible good, and true knowledge being beyond the five senses, they disagreed on where that knowledge is found and whether or not it is intuitive among all men, or a select few preordained by nature or some supreme being.

Cerinthus followed the philosophical school of Idealism which holds to the belief that the one cosmic mind has an intuitive connection within every individual. Finding that knowledge is often a complex mind-numbing epistemology, but curiously, Luther and Calvin had their own angle that built on the Neo-Platonic teachings of St. Augustine.

This Gnostic bent actually allowed for Christ to be human, or at least some form of humanity. Apparently, God became exasperated with man’s penchant for trying to gain knowledge through the material world, and said in essence, “Ok, since you like to think you can know something and try to gain knowledge through the things that are seen, I am going to send my Son to die on the physical cross, and now all knowledge will only be gained through suffering—there mankind, take that!” This is the essence of the Heidelberg Disputation which is a philosophical treatise, not a theological one by any stretch of the imagination. Luther states plainly in the document that ALL knowledge is hidden in the suffering of the cross. Anyone who thinks they can understand Protestantism without a good grasp of world philosophy is sadly misguided. It is one of the historical necessities of historical grammatical hermeneutics.

Hence, in the Gnostic Protestant construct, Christ and His gospel is the only true objective knowledge and is outside of man. Man is not to seek any knowledge within himself, but all knowledge must be sought outside of him in contemplation of the gospel. All of reality is interpreted by the suffering of the cross. The cross is the epistemology from the material to the invisible, or from the evil to the good.

In contrast, other schools believe the epistemology is intuitive within all men because all men have a spiritual being separate from their material being, and the spiritual part of man is nonmaterial and therefore SINLESS. The material body of man is evil because it is material, but his invisible being is good and has a connection to the cosmic spiritual world that must be cultivated by transcending the material. This was key to the drug culture of the 60’s as LSD trips enabled the individual to transcend the five senses and see into the invisible spiritual world. Supposedly.

Other schools of thought believed that even though all men have a material and spiritual aspect, the spiritual anthropology has classifications in regard to who is able to see true knowledge and who isn’t as determined by the cosmos or cosmic mind; ie., determinism. And consequently, if utopia is to ever be achieved, those with the ability to see knowledge must rule over those who have the inability to transcend the material and are enslaved to it.  How do you reason with people hopelessly enslaved to the material? They either understand that they can’t know reality and get with the program, or you kill them.

According to the Reformers, utopia is achieved by understanding that all reality is interpreted through the cross of redemption. This concept was established by Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation and is known as being a “theologian of the cross.” Theologians of the cross are able to know the “cross story,” or interpret reality through the cross, and all others are enslaved to the “glory story” or the story of man. This is the dichotomy of the knowledge of good and evil, or material versus spiritual.

Furthermore, the Reformers believed that the new birth entailed the gift of outward seeing only. All goodness remains outside of man. This is the pious distinction they claim over their fellow Gnostics. Unlike Cerinthus, who would be the modern equivalence of existentialism, no good can be in man, because that does not limit knowledge to suffering and the cross. Even though the early church fathers believed that material is evil and only the invisible is good like all ancient Gnostics, they labeled those heretics who believed that the invisible spirit within man was a connection to the good. That was heresy in their minds. And if you really understand what John Piper et al believe in our day, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

The true Christians of that day had a different metaphysical take: the material realm is NOT evil, it’s weak. Something that is weak can still be good. The born again Christian struggles with sin because he/she is weak, not because the material realm is inherently evil. Christ really did come adorned in humanity in every since of the meaning because the material is not evil. This understanding of being fits together with the true gospel.

But what Cerinthus et al was teaching speaks directly to what John wrote in his first epistle, and we have addressed some of it in John’s introduction. John, in essence, said the following: Christ was 100% humanity and 100% God. We saw Him, we heard Him, we touched Him, we saw Him die on the cross, there isn’t two Christs, there is only one.

What Cerinthus et al taught explains everything John wrote in this epistle and why he wrote it. It not only explains why John wrote what he wrote in 1:9 and 2:1, it sheds light on why John wrote what he wrote in the rest of the book as well.

And that is what we will look at next week. We will do a point by point fly over of 1John while interpreting it according to this historical context of Gnosticism. John will address the definition of sin in contrast, the definition of knowledge and truth in contrast, the definition of the true gospel in context, the definition of love and hate in contrast, and the definition of the new birth in contrast.

See you next week.

Inst Church Caste FinalThe Home Fellowship Caste System Finalgreek-graphic-prepositions_smallClip 4DEE (2)SlaveryThe Three GospelsGrace ChartGnosticism

Why the “Sinner’s Prayer” is NOT the Gospel

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 10, 2015

ppt-jpeg4Nowhere in the Bible are we instructed to lead someone into salvation by reciting the “sinner’s prayer,” and there is a reason for that; it’s not the gospel. The following is a typical rendition of said Prayer:

“Heavenly Father, I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of my sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my heart that Jesus is your Son, and that he died on the cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have eternal life in the kingdom of heaven. Father, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now to come into my life and be my personal lord and savior. I repent of my sins and will worship you all the days of my life. Because your word is truth, I confess with my mouth that I am born again and cleansed by the blood of Jesus. In Jesus’ name, Amen.”

The great danger of something like this becoming an orthodox canned ritual to obtain salvation is fully realized in our day. As a recovering baptaholic, I have witnessed the falling away of most people who are “saved” by this prayer or responding to an alter call at an institutional church. Also, I have witnessed the lack of alarm following in response to this reality.

Why the lack of alarm? It’s the “prayer of faith” that saves and not the realty of it. Let me repeat that: It’s the “prayer of faith” that saves and NOT the reality of it. “It” being the reality of salvation itself. Salvation is a reality and not a mere mental assent to the facts of the gospel. However, no evidence of a new life is acceptable in Protestant circles because its gospel is a “believing only” definition of faith rather than a decision. The difference is major.

Note the structure of the prayer; it’s a disaster. Why? First of all, on the one hand, it calls for belief only rather than a decision, coupled with a commitment: “[I] will worship you all the days of my life.” Totally confusing. Is salvation by faith alone or not? “Repentance” is NOT a commitment, it is a change of mind—it is a decision to go in a different direction; specifically, from death to life.

And that is the crux: the new birth. Though the new birth is in the prayer, it is framed as something that you believe mentally only rather than something that you decide to accept as a gift. Salvation is a decision to accept the gift of the Spirit and His baptism. It is a onetime decision to follow Christ in death and resurrection, and this is only possible through the gift of the Holy Spirit otherwise known as the new birth. Salvation is NOT, I repeat, not… “Asking Jesus into my heart” or “Asking Jesus to come into my life.” No, no, no, and in fact, where are we told in Scripture to “ask” for salvation? We are told to “believe” (mental assent to the facts of the gospel) AND repent – a decision to follow Christ in death and resurrection, or a passing from death to life made possible by the Spirit, and “you WILL” receive the GIFT of God’s PROMISE concerning the Spirit (Acts 2:37-39). I hope you see the major difference here.

The correct gospel has an expectation of new life built in. It is a decision to die to the old self and become new with Christ who also received the promise of the Spirit when He resurrected Christ from the grave (Galatians 3:16). Christ paid the penalty for our sins, but without the promise of the Spirit, there is NO salvation. An overemphasis on some “receiving of Christ” in lieu of the promise of the Spirit is an ill advised gospel presentation (Galatians 3:1,2).

Salvation is a decision to accept a promise to all people. It is a repentance, not an asking. When one decides to turn from their old self to a new self made anew by the promise of the Spirit, they WILL receive the promise. This is EXACTLY what Christ was talking about when he said “follow me.” This is EXACTLY what Christ was talking about in regard to losing one’s life in order to find it. He was talking about the promise. He was talking about passing from death to life. He was talking about the new birth. He was talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, the reality of Protestant professions that do not pan-out in large numbers is due to a canned orthodox gospel that exchanges a promise for an ambiguous “asking Jesus into my heart.” It redefines the promise of the Spirit and denies the reality of a literal passing from death to life.

This is why the “walk of the new man” is optional in regard to any great concern in the institutional church while the flippant truism “We are all just sinners saved by grace” plays in our minds like a bad song that we cannot get out of our heads.

By its fruit the tree is known.


It’s Not About Election: Why Calvinism is a False Gospel

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 9, 2015

Read PDF ebook by clicking on following link: It’s Not About Election ebook

TANC 2015 – Andy Young, Session 1: Challenging Presuppositions of the Believer’s Identity

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on September 9, 2015

So I had originally chosen a few other topics on which to speak.   And then several weeks ago Paul and I were chatting on Facebook, and I think it was following something he had just posted on the blog – I don’t remember the exact circumstances now – but I had been sitting there thinking about this, and the thought came to me, “Believers don’t really know who they are!” And I was overcome by the realization of this, how profound this was. Here we are, some 2000 years after, if you want to call it the “birth of Christianity”, some 500 years after the reformation.

What do we have?

  • Grand churches with their grand buildings and their programs
  • Christian schools
  • Christian universities
  • Seminaries turning out all these pastors
  • all these resources

And with all of this, people are sitting in churches Sunday after Sunday, and they still don’t even know who or what they are. They are not aware of the reality of their existence. And that is what it really boils down to is this philosophy of existence. Who are we? What are we? And I don’t want to delve into a fundamental discussion about what is man. That’s a really esoteric subject, and not that it’s not worthy of discussion or that it’s not relevant, but I’ve only got so much time here, and I want to focus on something more specific.

Specifically, what is a Christian? You remember that it was in Antioch of the province of Syria that the term “Christian” was first coined, but not in a good way. It was a pejorative. It was meant as an insult. In the Greek, the word literally translates, “Christ ones”. We can make it sound even more derogatory by saying “christers”. You’re one of those “christers”. One who goes around talking about Christ. It was meant to be an insult. In fact, every time you see the word “Christian” used in the NT, which isn’t often, it is generally used in a negative context.

Of course, the fact that is was meant as an insult is what caused the term to be adopted as badge of honor in later decades and centuries, in a sort of ironic fashion. And to this day the word “Christian” is very common and normal and doesn’t carry the stigma with it. People in churches gladly call themselves Christians. Now granted, in recent years there has been a growing intolerance of what passes for Christianity, but for many years that wasn’t the case. It was almost popular to be a “Christian”.

But we’ve seen, I’d say in the last 10 years or more, a growing animosity towards Christians once again, and that isn’t necessarily for the reasons that we think of immediately. You know the first thing that comes to mind is this conflict between government and religion and the whole separation of church and state issue. But more and more I see that being a secondary issue. What we really have is a growing hatred for those who call themselves “Christians” because of what they represent. And that is, on an institutional level, on a theological level, on a philosophical level, it has to do with this seeming indifference to abuse and suffering both inside and outside the institution. Christians are viewed as uncaring and insensitive. You have Hollywood actors referring to God as a sadistic monster. And I can’t necessarily blame them for that kind of assessment. You look at the way “Christians” behave, especially toward each other.

And if you don’t believe me, watch what happens when you try to ask a question in Sunday school that questions the orthodox position. Or you leave a church over doctrinal matters and see how many of those people who you thought were friends continue to have contact with you. Or you watch how downright vicious they get with you when you try to present a rational argument in a Facebook discussion. One has to ask themselves, if they treat a fellow brother like that, how do they treat a lost person? How do they treat someone they are trying to evangelize?

And you don’t think the world sees this? You don’t think the world looks at the behavior of Christians, and then we wonder why they don’t want to have anything to do with us. What did Jesus say?

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Does the world see us loving each other? How can they believe anything we have to say? Dear lost person, I want to share with you the gospel because I love you. Oh, like you love that other guy who calls himself a Christian? I see the way you treated him.

The blame for this rests squarely on Augustinian/Reformed/Protestant orthodoxy. Traditional orthodoxy has created a god in its own image that IS without a doubt a sadistic monster. And so as a result, you have followers of this god going around treating people the exact same way that they believe their god treats them. Why should we expect any different. And this is the reason then that the term “Christian” has become a pejorative once again. And it is for this reason why I no longer refer to myself as a “Christian”. I call myself a believer. Or follower of Christ. A disciple of Christ. I prefer believer.

So along those same lines then, this becomes the foundational premise for why those who call themselves “christians” don’t even know who they are. What is the primary defining term that traditional orthodoxy uses today and has used for centuries to determine our identity as believer? When you sit in that pew, or that stadium chair, or whatever kind of seats your church uses, and the pastor/elder/bishop/apostle or whatever he wants to call himself, stands in front of the plexiglass podium, and he’s standing up there, and he’s looking so hip with his goatee or soul patch, in his blue jeans and turtleneck and sports coat and brown suede shoes, and he starts to deliver his sermon, what is the one theme that is driven home to you over and over and over again? What does he want you to know about yourself? What are you?


This is the theme. This is what defines you. It’s in the songs we sing. Only a sinner saved by grace. Amazing grace…that saved a wretch like me. I need thee every hour! And I could go on. We see it in the pithy little memes on Facebook. Here’s one I saw recently….I’m not a christian because I am strong and have it all together…Of course the question we should immediately ask ourselves is, why do Christians need a savior? But we never ask those questions, do we?   Here’s another one. I’m not that perfect Christian, I’m the one who knows I need Jesus. Of course there’s a subtle snarkiness to this one. It’s almost a kind of holier-than-thou attitude. It almost seems to contradict the very humility it’s supposed to be trying to convey. I’m so humble that I know I’m not perfect, but at the same time, I know something you don’t know. I know I need Jesus and you don’t. And of course at first glance, no one is going to argue with that. How can you say you don’t need Jesus? But what they don’t realize is that, wait a second, believers already have Jesus. We’re already saved. Why do I need a savior over and over? But you will see this theme over and over all over the place. Don’t forget, Christian, you’re a sinner!

Now of course what do they mean by that? Well they say, well I still sin. Right. They like to ask that question. Did you sin today? Then you’re a sinner. And of course they think they trick you when they ask you that question. They think they’re being clever if you come to them with some notion of righteousness. And of course their mistake there is equating righteousness with obeying the law.

But the fundamental flaw in this assumption about being a sinner is this. If you make this your assumption that because you sin you are therefore a sinner, what you are doing is allowing your identity to be defined by a practice or a behavior. (let me say that again.) You are allowing your identity to be defined by a practice or a behavior.

Now on a certain level this is not necessarily incorrect. This is something we do all the time in our everyday life. We tend to categorize ourselves and others by what we do. We do this in our jobs. I have my own business. I earn my living by cooking food. So since that is a behavior in which I engage, I can legitimately say, I am a cook. Or Paul writes for a blog, therefore Paul is a blogger. Or Cam Newton plays football for the Carolina Panthers, therefore Cam Newton is a football player. (I threw that one in there for Zach). Ok, all of these are examples of behaviors or activities that we use to categorize each other and to compare ourselves with others to help organize our world, and so all of these things are true. But do those things define us as individuals? In other words, aren’t we more than just cook, or blogger, or football player?

There is a tendency to divide people up in to groups and call them “communities”. And these so-called “communities” are defined by the behaviors and actions of those who would identify with them. And so what ultimately ends up happening is you have those who say they are part of this “community” as if everything they are, who they are, is defined solely by the behaviors that are common to those in this community. The LGBT crowd is a great example of this. How do they refer to themselves? They say the LGBT “community”. Well what does that mean? Their whole identity is wrapped up in a specific behavior. Now I’m not going to get into, is this a choice or are they born this way, that’s irrelevant to this point. Even if you assume you are born this way, it is still a behavior, and you are choosing a behavior to be the basis of your identity.

Why don’t we do this with other behaviors? Why don’t we have a pedophile community? Why don’t we talk about the serial killer community? Or the alchoholic community? And I’ll stop there because I don’t want to go too far and have the analogy fall apart, but I think you should begin to see the point I’m trying to make here. We don’t define ourselves by our behavior. And this has tremendous ramifications.

So how do we define ourselves? I think a great place to start is asking how does God define himself? Is God defined by His attributes? We say God is love, God is just, God is holy, God is immutable. But again, is this how God is defined, or are these all abstract concepts that man has assigned to God to help organize the world around him, and so we create these aspects of God so that we can try to understand Him? How did God define Himself? How does God identify Himself?

Moses asked this very question at the burning bush. You remember that he was to be the leader of Israel, and he was concerned that they would not follow him, and he asked God, who should I tell them sent me? How will they know You sent me? And so in Exodus 3:14 God answers Moses, and He says:

Exodus 3:14 “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

God said, I exist! Do you realize what a profound declaration that is? God was not just being coy with Moses. In this simple three-word declaration in Hebrew, God was establishing the fundamental definition of self. I EXIST. Who am I? I am me. I am who I am. I exist! That is such a profound declaration. To declare your own existence is to acknowledge your right to self. But there is even more to this, as I was discussing this very point with Zach last week, as he pointed out, and I agree, that there is a corollary to this truth. That when God declared I EXIST, at the same time He declared, YOU EXIST. To recognize self also means to recognize the existence of other “selfs”. This is especially profound when we consider that God made man in His image. That God is “self” also means that man is self. So that man can also legitimately declare, I exist! I am! And because he can declare this, he must also recognize other “selfs”.

So if we truly understand this, we can see that man cannot be legitimately defined by actions or behaviors. He can only be defined as “self”. He is who he is. Who am I? I am me. You are you. That is who I am. That is the definition of my existence. You can categorize me anyway you want, but that is not who I am. And I’ll let you ponder all the ramifications of that.

But this is where we must start before we can even begin to discuss who we are as believers. What is means to be born again. Because first and foremost we are creatures made in God’s image whether we are born again or not. Everything I just said must be true of all mankind. We have to begin with the right assumption about man in general. Only then can we have a valid discussion and understanding about who we are as believers.

So that was a big long introduction. And now we’re finally ready to get into the meat of this whole topic. But that was some necessary ground work. So, as believers, who are we, really? If we are not defined as “sinners”, if we are not defined by behavior, who are we then?

Born again

I want to start off with this right here. This single statement by the apostle Paul is the single-most emphatic statement regarding the reality of the new birth.

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” ~ 2 Corinthians 5:17

In fact the structure of this verse in the Greek is rather interesting. I’m not going to get into a deep study of the grammatical structure of this verse, but there are a couple things I want to point out for starters. Most obvious in this verse is this contrast Paul uses between old and new. And I’m going to speak in depth on this contrast in the next session. But what I want you to see here are the words that Paul uses to express this contrast.

First of all, the “old things”. Now Paul uses a word here that is rarely used for “old”. In the NT there is another Greek word for “old”.

“Old” – παλαιος (pal-ay-OS) – antique, not recent, worn out. Paleontology.

This is the word used most frequently. In other words, when you are reading through the NT and you see the word “old”, most of the time it’s going to be this word “palaeos”. What is worth noting here about this word is that there is an age aspect involved. So this is old with respect to age. I might say, my grandfather is “old”. Or my car is “old”. I’m talking about it being old in years or months or whatever. And like I said I’ll talk more about this in the next session.

But Paul uses a different word here. And this is the word:

αρχαια (ar-KAY-ah) – original, that which was from the beginning, the former.

This is old not with respect to age but with respect to comparison. Someone might talk about his old school or his old job, or his old girlfriend. Now the old girlfriend might not like being referred to as “old”, but in this context we mean former or previous. This is the idea behind the word “archaiah”. So when Paul talks about the old things, he’s talking about the former things or the previous things. Now this is going to be important to understand later on when we talk about this again in the next session, because there is a time aspect involved in that we are referring to something that was in the past, but we are not specifically referencing the age of something. OK? So keep this in mind, we are differentiating between previous things and the age of something.

So Paul contrasts these old things, or these former things, or these previous things, with new things. He says all things are become new.

“New” – καινος (kay-NOS) – new with respect to freshness as opposed to age. Different. A replacement.

“He got a new job”. “My son just transferred to a new school.” “He has a new girlfriend”. You see the meaning here? We’re not talking about the age of something. When I say he got a new job I don’t mean a job that didn’t exist before. Although that could be the case, but fundamentally I’m referring to it being different. Different from the one he had before. This word presents the perfect inverse comparison with “archaiah”. It’s a comparison not of age but to indicate a difference or a distinction between the two. He left his old job; he started his new job. He left his old school; he’s going to a new school (Not one that was just built). He broke up with his old girlfriend; he’s dating a new girlfriend (not one that was just…what? can we say born? Let’s hope not. But you get the idea.)

It’s a profound distinctiveness. There is nothing that remains of the former. You don’t keep any of it around for sentimental reasons. It’s not like you took that which is former and restored it. Or rehabilitated it. No, you completely eliminated the former, the previous, in exchange for a different one. You have something now that is different from what you used to have. And this is a description of the new birth.

Jesus taught this very thing. In the middle of the night, a Pharisee named Nicodemus came to Jesus to ask him questions about His teaching. And he came at night because he didn’t want to be seen talking with Jesus. It would not have been good for him to be seen with Jesus. Because Nicodemus was genuinely interested in what Jesus had to say. And almost immediately Jesus responds to Nicodemus by teaching him about the new birth. He says In John 3:

John 3:3-7 “Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?’ 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.’ ”

This expression that Jesus uses is two words in the Greek.

γενναω ανοθεν (gen-AH-oh AN-oh-then) – to be born on high, from above

Now Peter takes this expression that Jesus uses, born from above, and he takes that idea with the proper understanding uses a different word altogether. He takes the word “genAHoh”, and combines that with the prefix “ana”, which if it’s used alone it means “up”. But when you combine it as the prefix of another word it adds a meaning of repetition or intensity. So in 1 Peter 1:23, Peter uses the word

αναγενναω (an-a-gen-AH-oh) – to be born again, to be reborn.

1 Peter 1:23 “Being born again, (αναγενναω) not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

These are the only two passages in the NT where you will see the expression “born again”.  It is important for believers to realize they are born again. Why? How is this significant regarding a believer’s identity? Well here it is. Being born again is the basis for righteousness. Let’s run through this again. Why did Jesus die? Did Jesus die to shed his blood to be a covering for our sin? No, Jesus died to end the law. Specifically the law of sin and death. Jesus didn’t cover our sin, He took it away, as far as the east is from the west. What did John the Baptizer say when he saw Jesus coming? “Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world!” This is the imagery of the scapegoat from Leviticus 16. You remember this? (See video below, mark 37:00, for summary of the scapegoat).

This is what Christ did for us. When he died he ended the law and took away all our sins. They aren’t covered, they are gone! Because what happens when we believe? When we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, the old man dies. That old man that was under law is dead. The law can’t touch him any more. He was crucified with Christ. And a new man is resurrected in his place. A new man is reborn. The old law of sin and death can’t touch him. And where there is no law there is no sin. Where there is no sin there is no condemnation. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ. There is no condemnation for the new man. There is no condemnation for the one who is born again because there is no sin because there is no law to condemn him. I know it sounds like I’m repeating myself, but I want this to be clear. I want you to get this.

Now if that wasn’t exciting enough, consider this. You tell this to any of your protestant/reformed friends, you tell them that you are righteous – not just positionally righteous, or forensically righteous, or declared righteous, but that you ARE righteous. That’s your identity. Righteous. Righteous because you are born again. What’s the first they will say to you? “Well did you sin today?” And they are so smug when they say that. They say it like they just gotcha. Ah ha! See! And if you say, no I didn’t sin, then they will immediately pull out 1 John 1:8

1 John 1:8 “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

Of course this is a proof text taken out of context, but they won’t hear you on that because it doesn’t fit in with their reality. Remember what is their reality? What is man? For that matter what are believers? SINNERS. To them, that is our identity. But let me show you something else John said in that same letter. And I tell you, I’ve read this passage in 1 John many times, and I’ve struggled with it, but then I was preparing this lesson, and I had one of those lightbulb moments, and my jaw hit the floor! And the reality of what I read just thrilled me! And I’m like, of course! That’s it! Let me show you this. Look at 1 John 3:8. Let’s start with that first.

1 John 3:8 “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”

Now the protestant/reformed crowd has a hard time with that verse because that would suggest that if believers still sin then we are still of the devil and not really saved. So they reinterpret it to better fit the orthodoxy. In fact the ESV translates that verse by saying “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning”. So the idea is that a believer sins, but he doesn’t make a practice of sinning. Which,if you think about it, is still an outright contradiction because according to them if it is our nature to sin then we can’t help it anyway, so calling it a practice means that somehow you can choose not to. So this is just one more example of the blatant hypocrisy in reformed doctrine. They play these word games with the text and try to get you to think they don’t really mean what they say.

But then we come to verse 9, and this is where the lightbulb went on. Remember we’re working with the conclusion where there is no law there is no sin. Did you sin today? You can state most emphatically, NO! Why?

1 John 3:9 “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”

Do you realize what this says? The reality of this is incredible! John says plainly, the born again believer does not sin. Not only that, he CANNOT sin! Is this talking about ability? One would think so, but think about what this has to do with the law? Where there is no law there is no sin. The believer CANNOT sin because there IS no sin! This is yet another contrast between the old and the new. Verse 8 and 9. Verse 8 is the old. Before you were born again you committed sin because you were under law. The law condemned you. Therefore you were of the devil. But that was then. The old passed away (the previous, the former). It was replaced with the new (something different). You were reborn and the law was ended and sin was taken away. Therefore you CAN no longer sin because there IS no sin. But it doesn’t end there. John goes on later in the letter and says the same thing again.

1 John 5:1 “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.”

Again, talking about the new birth. Who is the one that begat? That would be God, the Father. We are born of God. Not only do we love the one who begat us, ok, not only do we love the Father, but we also love others, we love everyone else who is also born again. We’ll talk about this some more later on in another session as well. So we have the reality of the new birth once again. But then he continues. Look at verse 18 same chapter.

1 John 5:18 “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.”

Do you see how all of this so wonderfully fits together with the rest of what scripture teaches! How wonderfully consistent this is when we understand it in context. There is no conflict here. We don’t have to twist the words around to make it fit. It is logically consistent. This is the reason why believers are righteous. This is why we can say without a doubt, nope, I didn’t sin today. I am not condemned today. See and that’s really what they are talking about when it comes right down to it.   Sin has to do with condemnation and judgment. Their reality says that when you sin, you need another covering to keep you from being condemned. But you see, this is what they don’t get about it.

So, what is our identity as believers? Are we sinners? No, we are born again. We are righteous. We cannot sin because there is no sin. The law was ended and our sins were taken away. We are truly righteous by virtue of our new birth.   Do you see how important this is to understand? This reality alone is so liberating. Once believers come to the realization of who they are because of the new birth and what that actually means. This has got to be such an encouragement. To get out from underneath this burden of being constantly reminded that you’re a sinner, you’re a sinner, you’re a sinner, and to suddenly realize that no, I cannot sin. Not just I do not sin, but I cannot sin. How tremendously freeing that has to be for someone who’s been told otherwise all his life. So that is where I’m going to stop for this session. We’ll look at some more examples of the believer’s identity in the next session.

Session 1, Blog TalkRadio Podcast (more…)

Practical Application: How to Lead Your Calvinist Husband to the Lord

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 6, 2015

ppt-jpeg4I really appreciate the clamoring I hear in regard to Biblicism; the comprehensive alternative to Protestant orthodoxy, “How can we apply this to our lives?” Well, that is new territory that must be mined by the laity since everything has been about justification for 500 years. All that we will receive from Protestant academia is some new version of progressive salvation, and there is no exception to this rule. And frankly, my sanctification, ie., faith working through love, will be hindered if I have to learn everything for myself. Let’s get busy and study the love book for ourselves and teach each other. Two Spirit born brains are better than one, but forget Protestant scholars – they are a complete waste of time.

By and large, the inquiries TANC ministries receives most about practical application comes from women married to Calvinists. While most of these women have been declared unbelievers because they reject Calvinism, and are yet married to one, they want to know how one proceeds with life in a way that pleases God. Even though I am, like all Biblicists, a rooky pioneer in the ways of sanctification as I claw my way out of the Protestant Dark Age, I can offer some basics to those married to Calvinists.

First, know this: your husband clearly believes a false gospel. The only saving grace in it all is that many Calvinists don’t really know what Calvin believed and may be confused enough to be saved. However, you must treat him as if he is an unbeliever because he proclaims a false gospel. As a Biblicist, you must be well informed on these theological issues in case he would question you about the true hope that you have in Christ.

But at this point, persuading him through theological debate is absolutely futile. He must be won over by your good behavior—albeit not compromising behavior.

The key follows: as a Calvinist, your husband is under the law of sin and death while you are under the law of the Spirit of life (Romans 8:2). He must focus on sin in order to keep himself saved. The Calvinist must consider himself condemned in order to have a shot at “final justification.” Basically, if he can pile up enough new birth experiences, the righteousness of Christ will cover his condemnation enough to earn heaven. This is the Calvinist definition of the new birth: you focus on your depravity leading to “despair of soul and death at hand” resulting in resurrection (some sort of joy experience). The “deep repentance” part is supposedly the “believer’s” work resulting in a new birth experience (God’s part in the process). Obviously, it’s works salvation via “deep repentance.” Let’s look at some evidence:

“. . . forgiveness of sins is not a matter of a passing work or action, but comes from baptism which is of perpetual duration, until we arise from the dead” (Luther’s Works: American ed.; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955, vol. 34, p. 163).

“Certain learned men, who lived long before the present days and were desirous to speak simply and sincerely according to the rule of Scripture, held that repentance consists of two parts, mortification and quickening. By mortification they mean, grief of soul and terror, produced by a conviction of sin and a sense of the divine judgment. For when a man is brought to a true knowledge of sin, he begins truly to hate and abominate sin… By quickening they mean, the comfort which is produced by faith, as when a man prostrated by a consciousness of sin, and smitten with the fear of God, afterwards beholding his goodness, and the mercy, grace, and salvation obtained through Christ, looks up, begins to breathe, takes courage, and passes, as it were, from death unto life. I admit that these terms, when rightly interpreted, aptly enough express the power of repentance; only I cannot assent to their using the term quickening, for the joy which the soul feels after being calmed from perturbation and fear. It more properly means, that desire of pious and holy living which springs from the new birth; as if it were said, that the man dies to himself that he may begin to live unto God (Calvin Institutes 3.33).”

“This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare…It is not denied that there is room for improvement; but what I maintain is, that the nearer any one approaches in resemblance to God, the more does the image of God appear in him. That believers may attain to it, God assigns repentance as the goal towards which they must keep running during the whole course of their lives (Calvin Institutes 3.3.9).”

“He, however, who has emptied himself (cf. Phil. 2:7) through suffering no longer does works but knows that God works and does all things in him. For this reason, whether God does works or not, it is all the same to him. He neither boasts if he does good works, nor is he disturbed if God does not do good works through him. He knows that it is sufficient if he suffers and is brought low by the cross in order to be annihilated all the more. It is this that Christ says in John 3:7, »You must be born anew.« To be born anew, one must consequently first die and then be raised up with the Son of Man. To die, I say, means to feel death at hand (Martin Luther: Heidelberg Disputation, theses 24).”

“In obedience to God’s word we should fight to walk in the paths where he has promised his blessings. But when and how they come is God’s to decide, not ours. If they delay, we trust the wisdom of our Father’s timing, and we wait. In this way joy remains a gift, while we work patiently in the field of obedience and fight against the weeds and the crows and the rodents. Here is where joy will come. Here is where Christ will reveal himself (John 14:21). But that revelation and that joy will come when and how Christ chooses. It will be a gift… Heaven hangs on having the taste of joy in God. Therefore, it might not be so strange after all to think of fighting for this joy. Our eternal lives depend on it (John Piper: When I Don’t Desire God; p.43, p.34).”

Here is what I am saying: the differences in worldview are radically different. Your gospel is a positive and radically different alternative; all you have to do is model that. Your gospel is a display of assurance, hope, love, and life while his propagates fear, condemnation, and death. Joy is experienced only as a rejoicing in evil which is the antithesis of love. Calvinism models death, your gospel models life. Merely strive to grow under the law of the Spirit of life.

“[Father,] sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).

Work on talking with your way of life lived out while excelling in the knowledge of justification AND sanctification. Refuse to talk about theology until he is begging you to share the hope you have in Christ rather than a theological debate. Such debates are futile because your perception of reality is radically different.

Also, love him and respect him for what he is apart from Calvinism. He’s NOT totally depraved and neither are you. Make a list of his positive attributes apart from the Calvinism. Calvin is dead, why should he be messing with your marriage? Let you husband know that you are not going to let some dead guy get in the way of you loving him. Your savior is alive—Calvin is dead.

And refuse to play the everything is about sin game. The Christian life is about love and hope, not fear and death. Listen to the apostle Paul on this wise:

“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.”

Can you have peace while living with a Calvinist? Looks that way to me. Can a Calvinist have peace by dwelling on sin and death as a way of earning salvation? No way in hell. Show forth your peace in God, and let the chips fall where they may. You are God’s literal child and nobody can steal your joy…

…least of all a dead heretic.


TANC 2015 – Paul Dohse, Session 3: What is the Gospel?

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 5, 2015

We don’t hear much about one of the primary biblical terms used for “gospel.” The gospel is also known throughout Scripture as “the promise.” A promise made by God; think about that. But who is the promise to?

Acts 2:36 – Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

This is an extraordinary text. Clearly, the gospel is a promise to all men contingent on believing in the promise, and resulting in the “gift” of the Holy Spirt. This is a fundamental principle of Biblicism: when a particular text is absolutely clear, and barring all assumptions, everything else must align logically with the concepts that are clearly stated.

Hence, the Protestant definitions of “election,” “called,” and “chosen” must be completely reevaluated. The gospel is a promise and a gift offered to all men.

…and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

And who does the Lord call to himself? Everyone.

Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other (Isa 45:22).

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself (Jn 12:32).

Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’(Eze 33:11).

Biblicism does not reject mystery, or paradox, but always approaches the latter with extreme skepticism. Biblicists consider paradox guilty until proven innocent. God is not a God of confusion, but be sure of this: the paradox card is more times than not a license for a mystery that only the spiritual elite understand—those who have the rule over you.

If the promise and the gift are verbally offered to all people, but the offer is not legitimate for all, that makes the use of these words completely illogical. Though the issue of election will not be explored in this series, the basic wrongness of Protestants who propagate so-called “sovereign grace” must call their deterministic gospel into question. Those who have the basic gospel completely wrong cannot be trusted with the rest of the story.

However, the fact that salvation is a promise and a gift will be key to exposing the false gospel of Protestantism in simple terms. The Bible defines the gospel with these specific words for good reason – words mean things.

What is the Gospel?

1Corinthians 15:3 – For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

These are the facts of the gospel, but in Paul’s statement much more is assumed rightly because of other texts that further define what is being stated here in 1Cor 15:3-6. Obviously, no one is saved by a mere believing of the facts concerning the gospel. As James wrote, the devils believe also and do tremble in regard to their future condemnation. The facts do need to be believed, but what saves is the following of Christ in these facts. In other words, it’s not a mere believing of the facts, but also the belief of what the results of believing are, and a desire to want that for yourself.

You believe the promise, and the gift, and you want the gift for yourself. The gift is the baptism of the Spirit, and believing in the transaction that takes place. It’s believing the promise and “receiving” the gift.

Romans 6:1 – What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self[a] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

It’s amazing that the unsaved understand this in their own way. It’s just a fact that the unsaved understand the gospel intuitively better than the vast majority of Protestants. Most unsaved people know that salvation involves the loss of who they presently are in exchange for a new life that is in the wind so to speak. This is what Christ was telling Nicodemus as recorded in John 3 and why Nicodemus came to Him under cover of darkness—Christ was a threat to the present life he knew. The fact that Christ told him that he must be born again which would result in a new, and completely unpredictable life correlates with the fact that Nicodemus came to Him under cover of darkness. Nicodemus was afraid of losing his present life, and therefore, Christ addressed the issue forthwith.

“Just believe” and “faith alone” minus the new birth is a Protestant hallmark. It boils down to a mere glorified assent to the facts of the gospel. It is not the losing of present life in order to find the new one. It is not repentance, i.e., a turning from the old life and following Christ in literal death and resurrection. Water baptism is a public confession that you understand this. Now many will protest that we are doing something to be saved other than believe; we are “following” Christ. But it is a decision, not some work of following. The Spirit does the baptizing, not us. We are saved by wanting that for our life and accepting the gift that is offered.

But likewise with any gift, once it is given, the receiver owns it. It is now up to us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12,13). Here, “salvation” refers to redemption (the saving of the body, Rom 7:24, 8:23), not the saving of the soul, and work/fear refers to the new Christian person and life, not our onetime new birth. The Christian life is a process; the new birth is a onetime event.  Before we were saved, our fear regarded condemnation.  Now our fear regards chastisement and sin that leads to unnecessary deaths (consequences for sin). There is no work FOR salvation, but there is a work IN the Christian life, specifically, a work of love (Gal 5:6).

On the flipside, even though there is not a work FOR salvation (justification), there is a work IN being unsaved that has a specific wage paid by a specific master. We met him in the previous session, the sin master. This is how the Bible frames this: there are two masters who pay two different wages: one pays wages for death, and the other pays wages for life. ALL people in the world are earning one or the other in varying degrees. Either group can do bad or good works (Rom 6:20), but one can only be credited for death, and the other can only be credited for life. These are two different wages paid by two different masters.

These two groups, lost and saved, are under two different laws that determine their wages. The lost who belong to the sin master are “under law” and its condemnation, the law of sin and death. Those under this law can only bear fruits of death. In contrast, those purchased by Christ (“you have been bought with a price” 1Cor 6:20, 7:23) can only bear fruits for life. They are identified as “under grace,” or under the law of the Spirit of life (Rom 6:14, 8:20).

Romans 6:15 – What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is why Christ came to end the law (Rom 10:4). The law that He ended is the law of sin and death. EVERYONE born into the world is under the law of sin and death and condemnation. This is how we know Christ died for everyone ever born into the world. He also purchased mankind from the sin master; eternal life is the promise, new birth is the gift (if received by faith) resulting in freedom from condemnation and the fruits of death. The believer now “upholds” the law he/she is free to serve: the law of the Spirit of life also known as the “law of Christ” and the “law of liberty.” Salvation is a free gift, but the Christian life is a work that can earn rewards.

Hebrews 6:10 – For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do.

God would be unjust to forget you labor of love in sanctification because you are earning rewards, and there is no fear in regard to condemnation because that concerns judgement:

1John 4:18 -There is no fear in love, but perfect [mature] love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. [Because they fear condemnation].

This is what is critical about the new birth, or the baptism of the Spirit. The old man that was under the law of sin and death died with Christ, and is now free to “serve another” through being resurrected with Christ:

Romans 7:1 – Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

Here is a good place to speak of God’s calling to mankind. This is a good place to talk about how God pushes man to the brink of salvation—to the gates of the kingdom. God, in His calling of man, does everything but make the decision for him.

First, God creates every human being with the works of God’s law written on their hearts, and a conscience that either excuses or accuses them. Those without the word of God will be judged by this internal law, while the religious will be judged by both (Rom 2:12-16). Until a human being develops a conscience, they are not under any law and therefore without sin (Rom 4:15). Man has intuitive knowledge of God’s gospel (Rom 1:18-21).

Secondly, the Holy Spirit uses the law of sin and death to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come (Jn 16:8).

Thirdly, believers use the law of sin and death to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come.

Fourthly, believers testify about God to the world with their lives (Matt 5:14-16).

Fifthly, Christ has purchased all men with His death on the cross. Their sin debt is prepaid. They have already been purchased from the sin master. They themselves choose to remain under the control of their present master, but their contract has been bought out, they are free to choose Christ as their new master.

Sixthly, even the law that condemns unbelievers holds their sin captive. Even the law of sin and death is a “ministry” (2Cor 3:7-11). The first covenant which is passing away (Heb 8:13) held sin captive in the law of sin and death until Christ came (Gal 3:19-27). Christ ended the law for righteousness to those who believe in Him. Our sins are not merely covered—they are ENDED along with the law of sin and death. ALL sin was held captive in the law of sin and death that the old us was under, but upon believing, that man died and is now under the law of the Spirit of life (Rom 8:2). We are now fee to work through love as guided by the Scriptures (Gal 5:6,7). Our obedient love fulfills the law (Gal 5:14, Rom 8:4, Rom 13:8-10, Matt 22:34-40).

Seventh, God increased the law through the first covenant to drive man towards him (Rom 5:20).

Eighth, God made man a living being, but after the fall he made mankind His very family (Gal 3:29, Heb 2:11).

Ninth, in the end, God will vacate heaven and dwell with His family on earth. God Himself comes DOWN to earth to dwell with man (Rev 21:3).

This is some of the good news of God’s love for mankind.

TANC 2015, Andy Young – Session 3: The Believer’s Identity

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 3, 2015

This is session 3.  We’ve been challenging presuppositions regarding a believer’s identity, especially this notion that believers are sinners.  That’s what we hear most often in just about every Christian circle, in just about every church you go to around the world.  The emphasis that we are sinners.  That because we are sinners we still need a savior.  And of course this particular emphasis flows right out of the reformation.  This was taught by Calvin and Luther, this idea that believers don’t change, that they are still under law, that they are still in need of daily salvation.  We have a term for that, it’s called progressive justification.  And whether people want to admit it or not, anyone who echoes these kinds of sentiments – and this is just one indication of the kind of theological ignorance that exists among believers, they are actually espousing a progressive justification viewpoint with these kinds of statements.

So we’re trying to reverse the damage that has been done to the spiritual psyche of the believer as a result of years and years of having this mantra constantly pounded into our heads.  You are a sinner, you are a sinner, you are not perfect, you are totally depraved, your righteousness is filthy rags.  We need to stop telling ourselves these things, and we need to change the narrative and look at what the Bible actually has to say in this regard.

Session 1 was devoted to our identity with respect to the new birth.  What that actually means to be born again, and why that is important.  And then in session 2 we explored the contrast between the old and the new, and we saw how that the “New Man” is actually a reference to the one spiritual body that was made up of people from every nation and status in the world.  How we are no longer identified as either Jew or Greek, etc…and we become part of this New Man, the Body of Christ.

So now in this last session on the believer’s identity, I want to take a look at a few more ways that the scriptures refer to believers.  And these won’t spend as long as we did on the first two, so we should be able to run through these rather quickly, but that doesn’t make them any less important.  Each one of these is a critical part of our identity as believers.

So the Bible says the believer is born again, he is a new creature, he is part of the New Man, the Body of Christ.  What else is he?

A saint

How is that for a title?  Did you know you’re a saint?  Now here is a word that couldn’t be any farther opposite from sinner!  Do you know how many times believers are referred to as sinners?  I could probably point to no more than maybe 5 at most.  And even in those instances it is always in the past tense. Do you realize the frequency that believers are referred to as saints?  62 times in the NT, believers are referred to as saints.  62 times!  I’m not going to show you all of them, but here are a few select.  You’ll see that in just about every epistle the believers are addressed as saints in the salutation.

Romans 1:7  “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

1Corinthians 1:2  “Unto the assembly of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:”

Ephesians 1:1  “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:”

Romans 15:25-26  “But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.  26  For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.”

Ephesians 4:12  “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:”

And we could go on and on and on.  Believers are saints.  Now, as if that wasn’t exciting enough, take a look at this word in the Greek.  Do you know what the word saint is in the Greek?

αγιος (hag-ee-oss) – “Holy”

Look at that.  Holy.  In each of the 62 instances it is this word for holy.  That means you could go through each instance, 62 times in the NT, and replace the word saint with holy, or holy ones.  The Bible calls believers “holy ones”.  You are holy.  Did you know that?  You are not a sinner, you are holy!  You are a holy one.

Now if any of you watching online now or maybe later on when this is archived, if you tuned in last year for the conference you will remember I talked about Sanctification.  And in my first session last year I walked us through scripture and we were able to derive a truly biblical, meaningful definition of this word holy?  Does anyone remember what we came up with?  If you don’t remember or if you didn’t tune in for that session, here is the definition we came up with for holy.

Holy – a place or thing which is distinct from that which is common, ordinary, or just like everything else.  (profane)

And as we worked through our understanding of this word we discovered that the opposite of holiness was not sinfulness, but profane.  And profane in the Biblical sense has to do with this idea of being common, or ordinary, or just like everything else.  So, while it is true that believers are not sinners – we’ve already established that through the new birth – we have a special status.  We are holy.  We are distinct from that which is profane.  We are not common, we are not just like everybody else.  Some people like to use the term “set apart” as a means of understanding our sanctification, and that’s a good way to look at it because it encompasses this notion of being distinct.  Setting something apart makes it distinct.

So this takes us back to the sanctification issue that I talked about last year.  And I think it begs the question, if we are saints, if we are holy, if we are distinct, ought we to not act like it?  And I don’t mean we go around casting judgment on others and act like we are better than everyone else.  But if we are in fact holy, don’t you think our behavior should reflect that holiness?  See, we don’t let our behavior define who we are, but rather I think it’s the other way around, who we are should manifest itself in our behavior.  And you can think back to our last session on the New Man, were we had this contrast between behaviors that characterized the old man, like lying and arguing and licentiousness, and behaviors that characterize the New Man, loving each other, caring for each other, and so on.   And you see the motivation for this is love.  This has to do with love for the law and keeping the law.  Not for justification, but because we love our Father and we love others, so we use the law in this way, we keep the law out of a motivation of love.  And this is the reality of what it means to be a saint; to be a holy one.

So believer’s are saints.  What else are we?  How does the Bible refer to believers?

Oh I love this one.

A child of God

I know I have a lot of references here, but can we just take the time to read through these.  It’s such a good reminder, and it’s such a blessing!

Romans 8:14  “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

Romans 8:16-17  “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:  17  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”

Romans 9:26  “And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

2 Corinthians 6:18  “And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

Galatians 3:26  “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 4:6  “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” (daddy reference)

Ephesians 1:5  “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will”

Ephesians 5:1  “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

1 Thessalonians 5:5  “Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.”

1 John 3:1-2  “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God…  2  Beloved, now are we the sons of God…”

And of course this goes right back to all the things we talked about in session 1.  How is it that we are children of God?  We are children by virtue of the new birth.  Do you see how significant the new birth is?

Being born again, being born of the spirit is being born of God.  Where God is your Father, and you are His child.  If you deny the new birth, you deny your identity as a child of God and you forfeit all the rights that go with that as being sons.

Now there’s a lot more that can be said about the significance of being a child of God.  You saw the reference about being an adopted child.  Now an adopted child is what, one who was not born to the parents who have legal custody of him, right?  So I don’t want us to misunderstand when Paul uses this terms referring to adopted children.  The new birth is a reality.  We are born of God in every sense of that word.  The new birth is an actual birth.  It is not something that we have already that God then accepts as His own and reforms it.

What Paul is referring to here to the Ephesians has to do with the relationship to Israel.  There was always this distinction between promises made to Israel that will be fulfilled with Israel, and how Israel would always have a claim to the promises and covenants that God made to her children.  And since the Gentiles were not part of Israel, what happens when a Gentile believes is that he is then made part of Israel, adopted in that sense, and so he then has access to those same promises by rights as an adopted child.  He said this also in Galatians that those who come to faith in Christ are considered the children of Abraham, adopted into the promises made to Israel.   And he elaborates on this even further in Romans.  So I want you to understand that this notion of adoption is a reference to being included with Israel in the promises and does not contradict the reality of the new birth.

There is another significance to being a child of God.  Let me ask you something.  Those of you who have children, when your children disobey you, do they stop being your children?  When your child fails somehow, does he stop being your child?  Or when your child grows up and starts his own family, even though he is no longer under your roof, does he stop being your child?  Does your child ever stop being your child?  No, and so from this we begin to understand this doctrine of eternal security.  You want to know why you can never lose your salvation?  Because you are a child of God.  God never disowns you.  You can’t be unborn into His family.

Now of course we know of instances where our children may not want to be a part of our family.  They may run off and not act like our child.  But they are still our child.  There is some aspect of this to be found in the parable of the prodigal son.   Now I understand that the main purpose of that parable was to draw a contrast between the Pharisees and the other religious leaders and the remainder of Israel, and that Israel was like a lost son who had run away from his Father.  Jesus said he came to save the lost children of Israel.  And so there is this picture of God calling out to his lost children to come home to him.  But if you notice something else in that story, the prodigal son never stopped being a son.  The Father looked for him every day to come home.  He was ready to bestow upon him the riches that were there for him.  And so in that sense there are sometimes believers who wander away and don’t act like sons, but they never stop being sons.

And I kind of touched on another point there; this thing about being a child has other significance too that I will get to in a moment.  But before we get to that, along with being a child of God is this next point.

A brother of Christ

This one might be a little controversial because it’s not something that you here brought up much if at all.  But I think it is a reality that is taught in scripture.  Scripture doesn’t say much about Christ being our brother, but there are a few passages that reference it.  Let’s start with this.

Matthew 12:46-50

“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.  47  Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.  48  But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?  49  And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!  50  For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

Alright, so what exactly is Jesus saying here?  Let’s first understand that when we read the word “disciples” in any of the synoptic gospels that it’s not just a reference to the 12 disciples.  It is clear if you read the gospels that Jesus had a lot more disciples or learners that just Peter, Andrew, James, John, and the rest.  Whenever the writer wants to make this distinction he usually refers to them as “the twelve”.   But whenever we see the generic reference “disciples” that’s a reference to all of them.  And this was a number that reached into the hundreds at times.

So among these disciples following Jesus, are any of them his mother?  No.  So it’s easy to assume that when Jesus makes this statement in verse 49 that it is not a literal reference to his physical earthly family.   Not only that, but Jesus Himself states very plainly what he means by his statement.  He explains it.  Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.  We all have people in our lives that we regard as family who are not literally a part of our family.  I have a very good relationship with my wife’s parents, and I regard them as my mother and father ever though they did not give birth to me.  I even call them Mom and Dad.  That’s the kind of relationship we have.  That is how close we are.  You may have a best friend who you think of more as a brother or sister than simply a friend.  And of course this has to do with the nature of your relationship with them.

So the point Jesus is making in this statement has to do with how He views His relationship with those who do the will of the Father.  He views them as family.  Now by extension, we can take this one step further.  When we consider the reality of the new birth, that those who do the will of the Father are those who are born again, then in reality, we are then literally part of God’s family, including the Son, Jesus.  So as far as God’s family is concerned, we are all brothers and sisters, and that would include Jesus.  We can be considered as brothers and sisters of Christ.  And I believe in this passage here in Matthew, that is exactly what Jesus is talking about.  But what else does scripture have to say about this family relationship we have with Jesus?

Romans 8:29

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

I’ve underlined the key phrase in that verse.  If you study the grammatical structure of that verse, “firstborn among many brethren” is speaking of the Son.  And the preposition “among” is inclusive.  It indicates inclusiveness.  If you are among something you are part of it.  If you are among the crowd you are included in the crowd.  What Paul says here is that there are many brethren, and Jesus is one of them, more than that, he’s the oldest.  He is the firstborn.  And if we think back to our study of the Body of Christ, the New Man, His right as firstborn makes Him the Head.  How is it that Jesus is firstborn?  He was the first resurrected following the ending of the law.  And as such, each believer, by virtue of the new birth is resurrected just like Christ, we are born anew, as new creature that is not under law.  A new creature that is also a child of God.  And if we are a child of God, and Jesus is the Son of God, that makes Jesus our brother.  Our oldest brother, our firstborn brother.  We see this same idea expressed here as well.

Colossians 1:18

“And he is the head of the body, the assembly: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence”

Here again is that reference to Jesus being the firstborn, and His right as firstborn to be the Head of the Body.  If any of you out there are an only child and have always wanted a brother or a sister, think about what a wonderful reality it is to know that you are now part of a family full of brothers and sisters, and the God of Heaven is your Father.  And because of that, Jesus, the King of Kings, is your brother!

Now we’re talking about brothers and sisters and families, and I want to jump back to another point I alluded to earlier when we were talking about being a child of God.  I mentioned how that being a child of God has another significance to it.  As the Son of God, Jesus was entitled to certain privileges.  As the firstborn, He is made Head of the Body.  We have certain privileges as well, since we are also children of God because of the new birth.

Because of the new birth, the believer is an heir to the Kingdom of God.

An heir to the Kingdom

And this is the last point I have about a believer’s identity.  An heir to the Kingdom!  Take a look at some of these passages

Romans 8:17

“And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”  Here’s another reference that alludes to Jesus being our brother.  We are joint heirs with Christ.

Galatians 3:29

“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Being born again makes us part of Abraham’s children and eligible to participate in the promises and covenants made to Israel.

Titus 3:7

“That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

James 2:5

“Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?”

Of course when you talk about being an heir to something that means that there is an inheritance waiting for you.


Ephesians 1:14

“Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.”

This is talking about the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is an earnest payment.  Like a down payment.  A good faith payment that there will be a full payment coming at a later time.  The Holy Spirit is a part of our inheritance given to us now as an indication of a promise of more that is to come later.

Ephesians 1:18

“The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,”

Colossians 1:12

“Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:”

Colossians 3:24

“Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.”

1 Peter 1:3-4

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,”

And there are several things that are in view here with regard to inheritance, eternal life not the least of them.  An incorruptible body, eternal fellowship with the Father.  We don’t really know what we will be doing for eternity, but we know for certain that there is a Kingdom that awaits us.  This is what Jesus came to earth to offer.  You may have heard pastors say, what did Jesus preach?  What was His message?  And they’ll say He preached the gospel.  We need to preach the gospel.  Well what gospel?  The word for gospel simply means a good message.  Any good message is the gospel.  The word for evangelist is literally “good messager”  To evangelize means to “good message” someone.  To deliver a good message.  To deliver the gospel.  But what gospel?

When you go back and read through the NT, if you study carefully, what you will notice consistently is that when a reference is made to the gospel, it is consistently referred to as the gospel of the Kingdom.  When Jesus is introduced in the gospels, when His ministry first starts, it says he was preaching the gospel of the Kingdom.  The apostles preached the gospel of the Kingdom.  This is what we have to offer people when we tell them about Christ.  He came to offer a Kingdom.  And your ticket into the Kingdom is the new birth through faith in Christ.  The new birth makes you a child of God.  As His child you have an inheritance waiting for you.  You have the right to everything that the Father owns.  He bestows it upon you.

One day, this old heaven and earth are going to melt away with a fervent heat.  And in their place will be a new heaven and a new earth.  And the City of God, the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven and come down upon this new earth.  And God will make His tabernacle with man.  God will dwell with man forever and ever.  This is the city that Abraham looked for.  A city not made with hands, whose builder and maker is God.  And we will dwell there with the Father.  This is what we have to look forward to!  This is our inheritance as believers.

I hope that at the end of this study you have a better understanding of just who we are.  We are not sinners.  We are not totally depraved, unrighteous, wretched people.  We are new creatures.  We are born again.  We are part of the New Man with Christ as the Head.  We are God’s children.  Son’s and Daughters of the heavenly Father.  We a part of God’s family with Jesus as our brother, joint heirs with Him in a heavenly inheritance that awaits us.  This is the blessed hope that Paul spoke of.  Not hope as in a wishful thinking.  This is a hope that is a joyful anticipation of something that is assured.  As believers, this is the way we need to be thinking.  We need to be aware of just who we are.  This is knowledge that empowers us and affects everything we do in life.  We go into the world armed with this knowledge, think of how much more effective our witness and our testimony is to those we’re trying to reach with the gospel.  Think of how much better our own lives will be.  We focus on the good instead of evil.  We don’t rejoice in iniquity.

And I could go on and on here, but I hope you get the point. And I think that might be a good way to wrap up this session, by opening things up to you out there, and let me ask you, how do you apply this to your life?  What does this mean for you personally?  How does this affect you?  What ways does this make you think differently?  I leave you with these questions, so please feel free to answer and share with us any thoughts you might have.

Podcast link: listen or download audio file. 

Slide1 Slide2 Slide3 Slide4 Slide5 Slide6 Slide7 Slide8 Slide9 Slide10 Slide11 Slide12 Slide13 Slide14 Slide15 Slide16


TANC 2015 Conference Recap and Looking Forward to TANC 2016

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 3, 2015

What’s Really Behind “White Guilt”?

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 2, 2015

ppt-jpeg4While watching The O’Reilly Factor last night, I heard journalist Bernard Goldberg state, “There are no limits to white liberal guilt.” He also said that if you understand that sentence—you understand everything happening in our mainstream media culture right now.

If you watched Dinesh D’Souza’s America you know that slavery is far from being a black thing only, yet one gets the idea that slavery is synonymous with black victimization only. When we think, “slavery,” we think, “black.” This is not reality by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, “slave master” being synonymous with “white” is also a steroidal misnomer. In fact, to cite proof on this point is to state the obvious.

Yet, how and why have we arrived at this perception of reality? Contrary to the belief that the Bible is a mysterious book difficult to understand, the simplicity of its answers often escapes us. Often, biblical answers to seemingly complex social issues are shockingly simplistic, and this issue is no exception.

A particular problem mankind has dominates biblical subject matter: the need to control others. This need originates with sin. According to the Bible, sin is characterized by a desire to have mastery over others:

Genesis 4:6 – Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why are you looking down? 7 Will not your face be happy if you do well? If you do not do well, sin is waiting to destroy you. Its desire is to rule over you, but you must rule over it” (NLV).

Sin has a desire to rule over others. And note what it uses to destroy people and gain control over them: failure or not doing well (good). Sin gains control over others through condemnation. The major tactic for controlling others is the destruction of self-esteem. By self-esteem, I mean an honest assessment of one’s personhood; in other words, self-esteem is earned. A bank robber has no right to think well of himself. My grandmother, like many wise grandmothers, set the bar at doing one’s best in every endeavor.

Why do some people want to control others? It’s simply what sin does, and according to the Bible, it makes its appeal through “sinful desires.” Those desires are often lustful and selfish. The Bible also states that the fulfillment of sinful desires increases the intensity of the desires otherwise known as “addiction.”

In addition, according to the Bible, the following of these sinful desires leads to all kinds of temporary and eternal deaths. This isn’t very complicated; an example would be a desire to smoke cigarettes and the consequences following. This is why Christ died on a cross: to pay the penalty of sin defined as law-breaking and thereby ending condemnation. Without condemnation, sin is stripped of its power to enslave through condemnation:

Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

1Corinthians 15: 56 – The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

My wife Susan and I have opportunity to do counseling from time to time, and we see this concept on every level of human existence, especially marriage. Most bad marriages are the result of two people trying to control each other using condemnation. In almost every case, both spouses come to counseling with lengthy condemnation lists, but the Bible says “love does not keep a record of wrong.” In marriage counseling we often hear: “He/she will NEVER change!” Of course not, that’s the ammo one needs to beat the other spouse down in order to control them. Change is not acknowledged, and improvement is met with new accusations/faults that rain down condemnation for purposes of control.

This is why most formal religion is predicated on sin, especially Protestantism. The whole idea of the total depravity of man is a naked control ploy. But let us now apply the same principle to the politics of “white guilt,” and its kissing cousin, “white privilege.”

It’s the politics of control, and many think it got President Obama elected, and I think there is some merit to the charge. If you will notice, America is given little or no credit for its core ideals that overcame slavery. It’s little different from the spouse who will give no credit to the other spouse for change because that takes away one’s ability to control through condemnation. No matter what the other spouse does, it’s NEVER good enough. Why? Because control and domination is the goal—not love. Likewise, you can always tell what the agenda of an administration is when the House or the Senate cannot agree on anything. Partisan politics equals us against them and the artillery is condemnation.

The effectiveness of this strategy is at times astounding. Many will compromise and alter their good behavior to avoid being condemned or slandered. Has there been anyone who has employed this tactic more than Hillary Clinton? Her incessant drumbeat in regard to the “war on women” and her recent comparison of Republicans to terrorists and Nazis belongs in this category of control tactics.

White guilt is indicative of sin’s successful work. It’s a misrepresentation of true character in order to condemn and control. Obama’s apology tour was designed to break the will of the American public accordingly. It’s literally the oldest trick in the book that started with the serpent convincing Eve that she lacked understanding. She bought into a false assessment of her ability and how she esteemed herself.

And America would be ill-advised to follow her example.


TANC 2015: Paul Dohse Session 1 – Introduction to Biblicism

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 2, 2015

Session 1: Introduction to Biblicism

Who do we think we are? Why would Western culture be immune from populous deception? In fact, history, even recent history reveals the dangers of collective logic whether by tradition or some sort of neo-movement. Moreover, examples of bad fruit coming from collective logic can be taken from the best of what Western culture has to offer.

There is one constant that shapes culture; change occurs as a result of bad fruit. The collective pain threshold begins to surpass the threshold of life value. Society then becomes split into two types of people: those with new ideas and those willing to listen.

Tyranny has always been a foolish endeavor by virtue of God’s design of things. The reason is simple: the people always outnumber the rulers, and the rulers need people to have a government, and you can only kill so many people. This is why controlling the way people think is so important; this taps into the human resource without killing the donor.

From the cradle of society, caste was the norm. Unfortunately, the consensus had always been that bad fruit had nothing to do with the system, but only those running it. The American experiment was the first successful challenge to collectivism. The definition of the words and the understanding of them are a matter of life and death on a massive scale. For example, “individualism” does not exclude cooperation and organization for the common good, but rather, asks who will determine what the common good is and how one reaches that conclusion. The assumption that individualism leads to societal chaos has in fact produced chaos in incomprehensible proportions.

Once again, history is repeating itself in many ways, but the particular aspect that TANC focuses on is Protestantism. Once again, fruit demands reevaluation because of the threshold of pain. But this time of historical reevaluation is utterly unique because it is post American Revolution. For the first time in over 500 years, Protestantism faces a reevaluation without the force of state at its disposal.

Nevertheless, Protestantism has done its job well. It yet has no fear of replacement because those who have given up on it believe there is no alternative. Hence, its utter failure has produced no competitors. The Nones and the Dones are just that, none and done. Yet, lest Protestantism would break from protocol and show mercy to its detractors, the Nones and the Dones are declared damned to hell on their way out to the wilderness of hopelessness because being a member in good standing in the institutional church is synonymous with loving Christ and being a legitimate part of His body.

We at TANC reject such an arrogant notion with extreme prejudice, and believe we understand a legitimate alternative—a return to the assembly of Christ and its priesthood of believers. A return to individual gifts, not spiritual collectivism; fellowship, not membership; leadership, not dictatorship; organization, not institutionalization; not many masters, but only one; a body, not a corporation, and finally, freedom of conscience. Individual saints with one word, one Lord, and one body. It’s a body, not a spiritual caste system, and we have but one mediator—the Lord Jesus Christ.


The alternative to Protestant orthodoxy is Biblicism. What is it? Let’s begin with a definition from Wikipedia. This is by far the best definition of Biblicism that I have ever found, and unfortunately listed under an alternative name for Biblicism, “Biblical Literalism.” And, as rightfully noted by Wikipedia, often used as a pejorative. Don’t you know, any Biblicist that has read Matthew 5:30 has cut off his right hand or feels guilty that he hasn’t. Let’s examine the definition:

Alternatively, the term can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).

Let me add that Biblicism starts with literalism and the plain sense of the text first, and then utilizes the elements of the historical-grammatical methods as needed to make the rendering consistent with the rest of Scripture. As one person has said, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Let me also add that Biblicists would normally be impressed with a method of interpretation known as Occam’s razor. Again, we are indebted to Wiki for a definition:

…a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

In context of the lay person, learning is a jigsaw puzzle. I want to use this example of a jigsaw puzzle that is a map of Xenia, Ohio. Let’s say the map, to the degree that it is fitted together, represents knowledge of Xenia. Until the puzzle is completely fitted together with all of the pieces, what do we do with the pieces that we can’t get to fit into the map presently? Answer: we lay those pieces aside for the time being. Dear layman, you don’t need the scholars. In fact, please remember that we live in the Information Age. Study to show yourself approved as a “workman.”

As a parenthesis regarding interpretation, let me offer all the proof you need to know that every verse of Scripture must be interpreted in context of justification or sanctification; Christians, throughout the New Testament, are referred to as “workman.” If justification is not a finished work, the fact that we are participants in it is unavoidable, either by direct participation or intentional non-participation. Intentional non-participation is doing something. If justification is not a finished work, invariably, religious formulas for work works and faith alone works emerge. The problem here is evident: if you can lose your salvation, what do you have to do, or not do, in order to keep it?

The Dirty Little Secret

What we are talking about here is deductive/inductive study of the Bible that begins with the presupposition that man is able to reason. Here is where we must stop and state a huge historical fact in this matter that is irrefutable. Historically, there have only been two schools of thought on Bible interpretation: the historical-grammatical method, and the historical-redemptive method.

But please, if you don’t take anything else away from this first session, please know the dirty little secret in all of this: these are ALSO two different ways of interpreting reality itself. Listen: the Protestant Reformers started first with their interpretation of reality, and then extrapolated that method onto the Bible as well.

If you have been following our TANC series on the first and foundational doctrinal statement of the Reformation, the Heidelberg Disputation, you know that Martin Luther laid the foundations in that document for the historical-redemptive method of interpreting reality and consequently the Bible as well. Luther believed that all of reality is a redemptive metaphysical narrative written by God. Look out the window right now. See that car driving down the street? The only reason that just happened is because God wrote it into the script of the metaphysical narrative, what many of the Reformed call the “divine drama.” Reality is nothing but a story written by God.

Hence, salvation is only an ability to perceive or “see” the story. The unregenerate are defined by those who think they have ANY measure of freewill. To have freewill is the ability to write your own reality. Luther’s assessment of freewill is therefore called “the glory story of man.” Either one confesses that God wrote the story of history and reality, or man is foolishly trying to write his own reality.

Luther received this idea primarily from Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory, established the Protestant Reformation with its premise, and John Calvin later articulated its supposed life application in the Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion. It called for a repeat of our spiritual baptism throughout the Christian life by progressively seeing/perceiving two things: the depravity of man and the holiness of God. Plunging the depths of our sinfulness supposedly brings about humbleness and self-death resulting in a resurrection of joy regarding our original salvation. Therefore, the joy of our salvation is progressively increased throughout our Christian lives regardless of circumstance. In fact, tragedy only facilitates our ability to see our depravity and the judgement that we deserve. Tragedy is merely a part of God’s prewritten gospel narrative.

Consequently, Spirit baptism is not a onetime event, but is repeated throughout our Christian life. The Bible has one purpose and one purpose only: to aid the “believer” in continually revisiting salvation and the perpetual revisiting of Spirit baptism. This is an official Protestant doctrine called mortification and vivification. Several Protestant organizations use the chart below to illustrate this doctrine and the historical-redemptive use of the Bible:


Therefore, God uses circumstances and the Bible to help us in the downward trajectory illustrated by this chart. A contrary perspective on reality is illustrated by another chart widely published by Protestant organizations:


What is behind the popularity of this worldview? Simply, an ability to live a carefree life without fear of unknown circumstances (with the only exception being your eternal destiny). We all know that investing in life can set us up for enhanced disappointments and suffering. This is a worldview that completely separates us from the responsibilities of life and its suffering. Don’t worry, be happy, it’s a just a divine video tape anyway, and what will be, will be. If one of your loved ones dies tragically, don’t sweat it, it’s just part of God’s divine drama prewritten before the foundation of the earth. Besides, God is using this to make the gospel bigger and you smaller. Listen, even Protestants who don’t get this function according to the same worldview: “It’s God’s will.” “I didn’t do it! God did it!” “We are all just sinners saved by grace.” All of these Protestant truisms fit the downward trajectory of the above cross chart.

As far as Biblicism, there is a huge pushback against it. A focal point of the pushback is a book written by Protestant turned Catholic Prof. Christian Smith titled, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. I must credit the Christian Research Institute with the following review of the book which is endorsed by many evangelical heavyweights such as Rachel Held Evans, and will help us further define Biblicism:

Smith asserts that biblicism is the constellation of ten different assumptions or beliefs: (1) The words of the Bible are identical with God’s words written inerrantly in human language. (2) The Bible represents the totality of God’s will for humanity. (3) The divine will for all issues relevant to Christian life is contained in the Bible. (4) Any reasonable person can correctly understand the plain meaning of the text. (5) The way to understand the Bible is to look at the obvious, literal sense. (6) The Bible can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, or historic church traditions. (7) The Bible possesses internal harmony and consistency. (8) The Bible is universally applicable for all Christians. (9) All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned through inductive Bible study. (10) The Bible is a kind of handbook or textbook for Christian faith and practice.

While some evangelicals may downplay or deny some of these points, Smith suggests as long as you hold to some of these points, you are still a biblicist (pp. 4–5).

Before we address these points for a clearer understanding of what Biblicism is, it shouldn’t surprise us that the only alternative in the book is the Christocentric hermeneutic which is the same thing as the historical-redemptive hermeneutic. It sees the gospel or Jesus in every verse of the Bible as a result of interpreting reality itself through the suffering of the cross. It should be noted that this hermeneutic is crossing over into Catholicism as well.

(1) The words of the Bible are identical with God’s words written inerrantly in human language.

A Biblicist believes no such thing. God used fallible humans to write the Bible over 1600 years in many different languages. Because Christ warned that there would be serious consequences for tampering with God’s word, we can assume many have in fact tampered with it.

The key follows: the Bible is God’s statement on being including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. The Bible is not without error in the transmission of these truths, but none of the truths are lost due to God’s oversight and assistance. Included is the way that the Bible was written, or its overall structure of checks and balances. As the “workman” studies to show himself approved, God’s principles become more and more apparent.

(2) The Bible represents the totality of God’s will for humanity.

This point is vague, but one assumes it speaks to the accusation that Biblicists believe the Bible speaks to every detail of life like how to fix our cars etc. While the notion is absurd, the Bible does tell us what kind of car-fixer we should be—not the details of a how-to-manual. The Bible is a manual for how we should love God and others, so while it does not give specific instructions on how to fix our wife’s Toyota, it does convey a principle of love that would prevent us from taking shortcuts on safety issues in order to save money. If it’s our wife’s car, we don’t repair the brake lines with duct tape, etc.

(3) The divine will for all issues relevant to Christian life is contained in the Bible.

This is true, and the reason for the contention is evident: the sole purpose of the Bible should be to show us how wicked we are, not instruction on loving God and others.

(4) Any reasonable person can correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.

True, with the exclusion of the straw man argument that the meaning in every text is always “plain.” The Bible states that individual study is required, and acknowledges that obtaining understanding can be difficult work.

(5) The way to understand the Bible is to look at the obvious, literal sense.

This is true as the primary organizing principle, but gain, the straw man is the assertion that Biblicists believe this is true of every verse.

(6) The Bible can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, or historic church traditions.

This is absolutely true because Biblicism rejects spiritual caste systems of all kinds. Teachers are a help, they are a gift to the church for purposes of equipping, NOT an office. But when it gets right down to it, in context of the apostle John addressing the Gnosticism that was wreaking havoc on the 1st century church, he stated, “You have no need for anyone to teach you.” Biblicism is predicated on collective individualism, not group-think overseen by an elite class of those who supposedly possess the “gnosis.”

(7) The Bible possesses internal harmony and consistency.

Absolutely. Again, the complexities of the Bible are used to argue against human reason as a valid epistemology for reasons of selling a redemptive interpretation of all reality.

(8) The Bible is universally applicable for all Christians.

Sure it is. Loving God and others pertains to principles that are universal.

(9) All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned through inductive Bible study.

In regard to loving God and others, absolutely.

Note the continual distinction being made between love and law. There is a specific reason for that which we will see more of later.

(10) The Bible is a kind of handbook or textbook for Christian faith and practice.

The word “practice” factors in huge here. As previously noted, Protestantism defines salvation as an ability to see/perceive/experience APART from practice. Therefore, the Christocentric approach to interpretation of reality, and consequently the Bible as well, will reject any practice by man to be of any value to God. Therefore, the sole purpose of the Bible is to aid mankind is seeing that all righteousness is an alien righteousness completely outside of man.

So, this is an introduction to Biblicism. In the next session, we will look at the Biblicist gospel, its evaluation of law/gospel, the nature of God, the nature of man, evangelism, and the nature of sin. In the fourth session, we will examine Protestantism and the extreme contrast that it presents. I will conclude this first session with a few more principles of interpretation:

Deuteronomy 29:29 – The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Deuteronomy 30:11 – For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

Two basic interpretative principles can be drawn from these verses. First, some things we cannot know, but what we can know we are responsible for. Second, we have no need for interpretive mediators between us and God. There is only ONE mediator between God and man—Christ.

Podcast link: includes before and after discussion. 

God is Willing

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 1, 2015

Thread 2

This Week’s Sinner Saved by Grace Sinning and in the News: RC Sproul Jr.

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 1, 2015 week’s Reformed leader who got caught is RC Sproul Jr. The scandals are now commonplace and beginning to lose their news worthiness. Commonness doesn’t excite; it’s uncommonness that gets people’s attention. This is why the Super Bowl only takes place once a year; it’s an uncommon event.

Sproul will be suspended for eleven months (without pay?) for…well…being who he is…a “sinner.” And if the Protestant leaders are dropping like flies, what’s going on among those they are leading? I can answer that. Lots of totally depraved stuff. Don’t let the resurgence of church discipline fool you. Church discipline, a concept NOT found in the Bible, is only for those who ask questions and do things that could involve the outside world in “family matters.”

You might want to understand the following: making RW Glenn, Mark Driscoll, Doug Phillips, Josh Duggar, Tullian Tchividjian, Bill Gothard, etc., resign from ministry for being who they are and being scandalous while preaching the “scandalous gospel” is not inconsistent if you really understand Protestant doctrine more than Protestants do. Their fall is merely a manifestation of God’s will. The Lord is “sovereign,” and the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.

Let me just boil everything down and make it real simple. Protestantism was founded on the idea that all of reality is a salvific metaphysical narrative written by God who created the narrative and all of the characters to complete himself. For the sake of his own glory and self-love which apparently was lacking, God wrote history as a metaphysical redemptive narrative. Stop right where you are now and consider: what you are presently experiencing is part of the prewritten narrative which is all about redemption. The story, and everything about it, brings glory to God.

Consequently, yes, God is supposedly the creator of evil, predetermines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and well-being comes from rejoicing in what gives God glory for the sake of his self-love; whatever is in the narrative that he pre-wrote might even include your own damnation. Of course, this makes the most excellent piety an expression of hyper altruism. It is the practical application of John Calvin’s Worm theology.

So, since everything is predetermined for God’s glory, and God is glorified by damnation and salvation alike which are eternal, every verse in the Bible is about salvation, or what we call “justification.” In the final analysis, in accordance with the least common denominator, you MIGHT be saved in the end by living by faith alone in the gospel of sovereignty. To at least have a chance, you must enter the “race of faith” in which the reward is salvation. When you hear folks talk about “sovereign grace,” and the “sovereign gospel,” and the “gospel of sovereignty,” this is what it boils down to. When good Protestants say, “God is in control,” they are not kidding—God is in TOTAL control.

This is why institutional Christians have always lacked wisdom in regard to everyday wisdom and solving the more difficult questions of life (what we call sanctification), because every verse in the Bible is about justification, ie., “what Jesus has done, not anything we do.” As one pastor told me, “I am not going to be distracted from the gospel by counseling people.” Good Protestant pastors farm out counseling to the ACBC where the counseling is “gospel-centered.” And this counseling will give people peace; after all, there is nothing you can do about anything, so stop fighting what God has predetermined. Relax, be happy, everything is predetermined for God’s glory. Got tragedy? Praise the Lord for his glory. Rejoice and be happy for this is the day he has made.

Let’s apply this to what we see on the Christian hillsides littered with dead bodies. According to what I was told by Clearcreek Chapel elder Greg Cook some time ago, counseling guru Stuart Scott is no longer an elder at John MacArthur’s church because Scott’s children were sinners saved by grace acting like sinners. This is the crux: obedience, like every other reality, is determined and delivered by God, not us. So yes, we are in fact sinners, but anything that we do that is good is performed by God, not us. Couple this with what I have heard MacArthur say on the radio: (paraphrase) “Saved obedient children are God’s mark on a man confirming his calling to the ministry.”  See how this works?

Now let’s apply this to Sproul et al. Their punishment is not inconsistent with the idea that they are punished for being what they preach because their fallenness or unfallenness is determined by God. What they did is who they are, and God did not prevent what they did, but regardless, they deserve the punishment. Why? Because God is the potter and we are the clay, and all clay pots are made for his glory whether pots of wrath or pots of glory. Look, read Sproul’s statement about what he did and his suspension, this is written all over it if you know what to look for.

Yes, yes, yes, I know, I can hear the screaming Protestant denials like alley cats in the night while in heat. But what they say reveals the foundations of their Protestant mindset: “It’s God’s will,” or “Lord willing,“ “I didn’t do it, it was the Holy Spirit,” “God is in control,” etc., etc., etc. These statements are NEVER qualified. What’s God’s will? Everything, or just certain categories? If we didn’t do it and the Holy Spirit did it, what do we do, if anything as opposed to what the Spirit does? If we drive somewhere to do a good work, does the Spirit drive the car, or do we drive the car? And if we drive the car, does that qualify as participation in the good work? To what extent is God in control? Not only that, an orientation towards solutions is hardly ever observed, but rather, “we will pray for you.” This is because solutions are irreverent in regard to what God has supposedly predetermined. Our prayers serve to display our “perplexity” as set against God’s omniscience which also gives him glory. Regardless of the circumstance, we don’t pray for a good ending, but for God’s glory, ie., whatever happens.

The hard determinism of Protestantism’s gospel of sovereignty is deluded over the years leaving behind anemic sanctification which causes people to look for a solution. This results in, “Eureka! Here is the problem: we have strayed away from our original gospel!” Hence, enter the New Calvinist movement.

Common sense tells us that this doctrine will lead to, at least, a relaxation of the law, or better stated, a relaxation of love (“If you love me, keep my commandments”), but there is no contradiction in these leaders paying consequences for living out the gospel that they preach…

…whether they obey/love or not is God’s doing which confirms God’s mantle upon them. If anyone loves, it is really God loving himself through the individual. As the Christian song states, “We are empty vessels waiting to be filled.” Wellbeing is defined as seeing yourself as a mere character in God’s prewritten metaphysical narrative and plying whatever predetermined role that gives him glory. If you believe that anything you do is your own choice, you are playing god and writing your own reality.

Now, apply this construct to Sproul’s post and see if it makes any sense. Will any of these guys return to ministry? Only the future reading of God’s narrative will tell…the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.


Southern Baptist “Financial Crisis” May Not Be Good News

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 31, 2015

The President of the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), Gnostic heretic David Platt, has announced a financial crisis and the inevitable dismissal of between 600 and 800 missionaries accordingly. I was initially rejoicing at this good news before I came to my senses.

While it may be good news that there will be 600-800 fewer people spreading the false gospel of progressive justification all over the globe while being paid for it by dumbed down professing Christians, in reality, something else may be afoot.

In the minds of the Neo-Calvinists who have taken over the SBC, there is only one thing that is preventing them from taking over the whole world with their historical-redemptive worldview; those in the church hopelessly bound, albeit anemically, to a historical-grammatical view of reality.

Now look, in the past, I have owned several businesses and know as well as anyone else that you can make company accounting books say anything you want them to say; is the IMB really in the red, or is this a ploy to purge missionaries who don’t get it?

I know at least this much: if missionaries really need to be cut, and the SBC is comprised of Biblicists and Christocentric Gnostics, and it is, and the latter is running the show, and they are, who gets laid-off is going to be selective. Do you really think Platt is going to lay-off any YRR (Young, Restless, Reformed) Brownshirts?  No way. Note this from the news account:

The first of the cuts will come from voluntary retirements, followed by a restructuring.

That would be the earthy old fogies more inclined to a historical-grammatical view of reality. That would be the old guard who are getting what they deserve. They let the foxes into the henhouse, so let them take their medicine.

David Platt has something else to gain in this for the Neo-Calvinist movement. He can blame the old guard for getting the SBC into this mess, and hark! it took a YRR to see the problem. And this is typical: Calvinism is obviously going to have a relaxed view of evangelism; so, while the Neo-Calvinists are the cause of the decline, they can claim to be the solution.

Destructive social movements always supply their own demand. They create the problem, and then claim to be the solution. In the same way, the viral Reformed biblical counseling movement is inundating the SBC as a result of the SBC faithful getting a consistent dose of messages based on condemnation from Neo-Calvinist pulpits. Who would not seek counseling after being told that they are totally depraved week in, week out? However, and likewise, this is a purging process. The counseling construct is “redemptive church discipline.” The primary goal of this counseling is to determine what gospel individuals hold to. The counselee presentation problems are not the issue though that’s the pretense; the real issue is the worldview of the counselees. This is why the present-day “biblical counseling” movement that presently saturates the SBC is producing church discipline and marital divorce at epidemic proportions.

Am I suggesting that this latest SBC drama could be more of a purge than a real and present financial crisis? Pretty much.


TANC 2015: The Institutional Gospel in 7 minutes

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 31, 2015

John Immel LIVE, Session 5: Examining the Historical Perspectives and Evolution of Determinism

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on August 30, 2015

Live – John Immel, Session 4: Examining the Historical Perspectives and Evolution of Determinism

Posted in Uncategorized by Pearl, PPT Moderator on August 30, 2015

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers

%d bloggers like this: