Paul's Passing Thoughts

A Blog for TANC Ministries

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on February 19, 2016

Comments Off on A Blog for TANC Ministries

Dr. Lopez Was Fired For Being Wrong About The Protestant New Birth

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on December 6, 2019

ppt-jpeg4This post concerns the latest trending drama in the Southern Baptist Convention. A Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor was fired for his position on LGBTQ. By the way, the cultural debate/discussion is underway that argues for the “P” to be added to that as well. That would be pedophilia, and I assume zoophilia (Z, [bestiality] since there is already a “B” in there) will also be forthcoming in the near future. Hey, a sexual preference is a sexual preference; who’s to judge, right?

The SWBTS official statement says that Dr. Lopez was laid off because of curriculum changes but no one is buying it. Apparently, Albert Moher, President of Southern Seminary, the flagship seminary of the SBC, has been trying to sensor Lopez on issues of LGBTQPZ for some time. 

So, when are those trying to save the SBC going to talk about the elephant in the room? And what is the elephant in the room? Answer: a concise biblical definition of the new birth. Lopez got fired because he is a confused Protestant, which is a good thing; church was a good place to be when Baptists were confused.

Albert Mohler et al are part of a movement that returned the SBC to authentic Protestant orthodoxy. Founders Ministry is an organization that was founded by Earnest Reisinger for the sole purpose of doing such. Reisinger was a Presbyterian who became an ordained Southern Baptist minister for the express purpose of infiltrating the SBC with “The Centrality of the Objective Gospel Outside of Us.” Thomas Ascol is a disciple of Reisinger who died in 2004.

I get it; those who want to save the SBC don’t want to admit that while debating Calvinistic predeterminism for all of these years, they didn’t really understand what Calvin and Luther believed about the very gospel itself and the new birth in particular. Nevertheless, EVERY woe taking place in the SBC right now boils down to what one group believes the new birth is, and the assumption of the other half that everyone believes the same thing about it despite overt public statements by Mohler’s clan.

The good guys are not paying attention. Words mean things. When John Piper states openly that Christians still need to be saved; you really ought to stop for awhile and think about what that means exactly.

Full stop: Lopez got fired because he believes in a biblical new birth as applied to the LGBTQPZ issue. Mohler et al do not believe in a biblical new birth; they believe in the Luther/ Calvin new birth. What is that?

It denies that the new birth is a transformation of a person’s actual state of being. Instead of the new creature being righteous as a state of being, or being holy as God our Father is holy, we are only “declared righteous.” Hello, please pay attention; they say it all of the time. Also, according to Luther and Calvin, the new birth does not change the believer’s relationship to the law. In other words, the “believer” remains “under the righteous demands of the law.” Hello, the Bible calls that being “under law” and that is the biblical definition of a lost person. Now you know why John Piper states that Christians still need salvation; please start paying attention. Also be advised: being under grace does not abrogate the law, but being under grace does remove the condemnation of the law and makes it our counsel for loving God and others with all of our heart, mind, and soul.

In the gospel of Luther and Calvin; in fact, its cardinal point, is that “believers” remain under the condemnation of the law and this is the very crux of double imputation soteriology. Since the “believer” remains totally depraved, Christ’s fulfillment of the law must also be imputed to our lives. The legendary RC Sproul even stated that Christ obtained His righteousness through perfect law-keeping and clarified the statement by saying Christ would not have been righteous without it. Regardless of the fact that such a statement is outright blasphemy, no one even blinked.

Please start paying attention.

So, what is the Luther/Calvin definition of the new birth? It’s merely a perception, or ability to see righteousness, but not perform it. ALL of our (who is the “our”?) works are like filthy rags, right? Hence, we must merely preach the gospel, but we cannot perform the gospel. “Sanctification is done TO us, not BY us as the progression of justification [salvation].” “Sanctification is justification in motion” because there is no real transformation in the person other than their ability to see “our sin as set against God’s holiness.” Faith is merely a perception, not an actual change in state of being.

Therefore, as they say, “our gospel is confessional” Get it? We cannot actually practice what we preach, we can only confess it. “It is our mission to preach the gospel, not be the gospel.” Get it? In the SWBTS statement denying accusations concerning Lopez, they affirm their stance that homosexuality is sin and not biblical, while also adding that they are “confessional.” They probably think it’s cute that they can say what they mean without most SBC parishioners knowing what they are really saying by saying that. In essence, they are saying:

“We deny that we don’t think homosexuality is sin; of course it is sin! But on the other hand, if you have that orientation, you are enslaved to it, and the church is a hospital for the sick. If you deny slavery to sin, you are saying you have no need for a doctor! The gospel is for those who need a doctor, not those who have no need for a doctor (Luther).”

And after all, “We are all just sinners saved by grace,” right? If a lie is sin, and you are afforded the full rights of church, why wouldn’t LGBTQPZ be afforded the full rights of church as well? If you break the law at any point as James 2:10 says, you are guilty of breaking all of it, no?

Yes, if the biblical new birth doesn’t change your relationship to the law and completely transform your state of being from sinner to saint. You, in contrast to what Luther stated, are not both saint and sinner simultaneously, you are one or the other: you are either under law or under grace; under grace is NOT a covering for remaining under law. Sinning as a true born again believer is NOT the same as sinning as an unbeliever. One is a failure to love and is a family issue between you and your Father while the other is sin that remains under the condemnation of the law. Fact: Calvin and Luther’s soteriology maintains that ALL people lost or saved remain under the condemnation of the law.

I am still the only one to date able to keep Dr. James White from running his pie hole a split second after someone says something. During a conversation about justification on a UK radio program,  White was doing the usual Protestant word shell game with everything I was saying until I asked this question: “Is justification an actual change of being from unrighteousness to righteousness and not merely a declaration? In other words, are we merely declared righteous, or are we righteous as a state of being?” Ironically, they even state that justification is a “legal declaration.” How is that a righteousness manifested apart from the law?

The real problem is not Lopez’s position on LGBTQPZ per se, but what his position states about the new birth.

Dr. Lopez’s testimony of deliverance from homosexuality and full restoration to heterosexual norms is counter to Albert Mohler’s ownership of the myth of “unchanging homosexual orientation ” which he embraced in 2014 at the ERLC conference on “The Gospel. Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage”.

Right, because Lopez believes that believers are no longer enslaved to sin, but rather enslaved to righteousness. Being under the “law of Christ” is a totally different reality than remaining under the “law of sin and death.” The law of the Spirit of life has set us free from that law (both are “nomos” in Roman’s 8:2).

Look, let me help here. For you good men of God being driven crazy by this stuff, I have a story you can use to save face. It might go something like this:

“Now fellow Baptists, there is a reason we are all not attending the Lutheran church down the street, right? [Those who have not yet broken their necks from nodding yes so much will do so]. And as you know, I have always had a problem with Calvin, and even though I have always known he had the new birth wrong [it’s alright to lie because you are no longer under law], it is high time we start talking about that.”

You then begin to broadcast the fact that the problem with church is Calvin’s false gospel, not the election debate. NOTHING well change until the elephant in the room is discussed. Personally, I believe the problem with church is church, but if you are going to save church, you might want to start with its false gospel.

paul

Galatians Conclusion

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on December 1, 2019

6 Biblical Indictments Against Protestantism

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on November 30, 2019

ppt-jpeg4As anyone remotely familiar with the Bible knows, Christ made use of parables and illustrations to teach about life and the gospel. This post will point out 5 of His illustrations that contradict Protestant soteriology and will end with Peter’s last exhortation to God’s called-out assembly.

The first is the woman at the well in John chapter 4. Christ explained to the woman that anyone who drinks of salvation will not be thirsty again, and the life of salvation is a well that springs up inside of the saved person. That is not Protestant soteriology. The Protestant Reformation was sparked by the issue of infused grace, which it rejects. Furthermore, clearly, Protestantism isn’t about the gospel fully satisfying the soul without a need to return to the gospel. Hence, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”

The second is Christ’s statement that we cannot serve 2 masters in Matthew chapter 6. Though the example of money is used, how much more would this be applied to serving God and not the sin master? Though Protestant scholars play word games with the definition of being enslaved to sin, Protestant soteriology rejects the idea that salvation changes the “believer’s” state of being. This is because perfect law-keeping is the standard for justification according to Protestant soteriology—not the new birth. Hence, if the law cannot be kept perfectly, one is not justified as a state of being and necessarily remains enslaved to sin.

Next we have Christ’s illustration of whitewashed tombs in regard to religious hypocrisy in Matthew chapter 23. Actually, Protestantism is the perfect example of whitewashed tomb soteriology. The so-called “believer” remains full of dead bones inside while the outside whitewash is the substituted righteousness of Christ in the double imputation schema of Protestantism.  As the Steve Camp song states, “He covers me.”

In John chapter 13, we have the foot washing episode that took place between Christ and Peter. Christ made it clear to Peter that he didn’t need a complete washing as salvation does that in the same way that salvation only requires one drink that results in an inner well of life. Not so with Protestantism; a perpetual return to the cross is needed for continued washing. John Calvin and Martin Luther refered to this as a return to our original baptism.

In the parable of the talents (Matthew chapter 25), Christ speaks of rightous servants using their gifts to produce fruit. The wicked lazy servant hides his talent in the ground and gives the master back what was originally given. Apparently, the servant was afraid that he would fail somehow and lose the original amount he was left in charge of. But this is exactly what Protestant orthodoxy promotes; anything that can be added to any gift given by God is a works salvation.

Lastly, in 2Peter chapter 1ff, Peter is writing about what he thinks is most important for the saints to remember because his departure is near. Preaching the gospel to yourself every day, right? Not moving on from the cross to something else, right? No, the exact opposite. Peter reminds them to add 8 virtues to the foundation of their faith.

paul

 

Paul Dohse Sessions for TANC 2020

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on November 29, 2019

Yearly Speakers: Paul Dohse, Susan Dohse, Andrew Young, John Immel. 

Link for 2020 Conference Current Information 

TANC 2020

Why does the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC) continue to misrepresent what it really believes about personal change and the gospel?

Paul Dohse has written extensively on the biblical counseling movement since 2009 and was formerly involved in the movement as a pastor and counselor. Paul also witnessed the internal struggles over the movement’s definition of the gospel and beliefs about how people change. Does the ACBC really believe people change for the better, and if they do, how? And which gospel finally won the internal civil war which now serves as the basis for their counseling?

Paul Dohse will unravel the nuance and redefinitions of words and terms in his explaination.

Why ACBC Christian Counseling Cannot Help People: Bad Soteriology; Revised and Edited

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on November 29, 2019

ppt-jpeg4“The ending of sin is the good news, not a perpetual cover-up. The true gospel is the ending of sin, not a cover-up perpetrated by Christ—Christ recreates; He doesn’t whitewash tombs full of dead bones while legally declaring the dead bones to be holy.”

Note: ACBC; Association of Certified Biblical Counselors

Predominate in Christian circles is the idea that Christ’s death on the cross “covers” the sins that we commit as Christians. This not only sounds logical, but is something I bought into most of my Christian life. One of my favorite Christian songs, formally, states the following:

I know someday I will be free
The weight of sin shall be released
But for now He covers me

In a lesson taught by counseling guru Martha Peace (ACBC advocate and speaker), she states the following:

The Bible teaches us that when God saves someone, he cleanses them from their sin – past sin, present sin, and future sin as the Lord Jesus Christ “bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Peter 2:24).

Let’s think about this for a moment. If Christ died for our future sins, does this not necessitate the reapplication of His death to sins committed by Christians? Whether your answer is “yes,” or “no,” that is the assertion and logical conclusion of the soteriology that dominates the American church in our day: Calvinism. Furthermore, it is the soteriology that dominates the present-day Christian counseling culture.

The result is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on Christianity since a counseling session between Eve and the serpent. Christians en masse go to “Christian” counseling centers for personal change, but most often, they are being counseled by those who believe most Christians are not ready for the hard truth of the Protestant Reformation gospel: people don’t change; people can’t change; they can only glorify the works of Christ in the gospel while experiencing joy in the midst of circumstances no matter what they are. It’s reversed self-esteem: feeling good about ourselves because we are doing good is sin, but feeling good because we are totally depraved is God’s glory. We see a hint of this in the aforementioned lesson by counseling queen Martha Peace:

This aspect of Sanctification begins at the moment God saves you and “progresses” throughout the rest of your life. It is a life-long process of being transformed into more of Christ’s image.

Notice that we don’t really change, but are “transformed” into an “image” of “Christ.” Do we change personally as new creatures in Christ, or are we merely transformed into an “image”? Though Peace’s lesson is peppered throughout with lingo suggesting a co-laboring with God in sanctification, her deception, whether deliberate or unwitting, is revealed in her citations of the Protestant Mystic Walter Marshall:

True holiness understands that we are by nature totally powerless and unable to live a holy and righteous life that God requires [viz, perfect law-keeping].

Notice that “true holiness” is NOT something we DO, but something that we “understand.” In a myriad of Protestant contemporary writings, sanctification is framed as an “experience” and a “knowing.” The DOING aspect is continually fustigated in clever ways that suggest well-doing in sanctification necessarily equals an attempt to earn our justification (because a requirement of perfect law-keeping remains as the standard for justification; not the new birth and God’s indwelling seed). As one pastor puts it, “sanctification is done to us NOT by us.” And this, my friends, is the crux of the soteriological issue. If Christ’s death must be applied to Christian sins, the logical conclusion is that justification is not a finished work and further atonement is needed for future sins. This makes the “means” of holiness in sanctification critical. And what are those means? Peace continues:

True holiness understands that God will not help you live a holy life unless you use the means God has given you to pursue this holy life – salvation and sanctification that will give Him all the glory.

Notice that “salvation” is the “means.” Hence, the same salvation that justified you also sanctifies you. Does that sound familiar? And that’s Calvin as well. I wish not to belabor the point as I cite the Calvin Institutes extensively to establish this fact, especially in It’s Not About Election and The Reformation Myth. If you wish, you can read 3.14.11 in the Calvin Institutes for a primer. It is basically preaching the gospel to yourself daily in order to keep future sins “covered” by Christ’s death on the cross.

So, what makes this sanctification covering biblically illogical? Primarily, a proper understanding of biblical law and gospel. Again, I have written extensively on this and do not wish to belabor the point, but will summarize it.

Christ died for sins committed “under the law.” “Where there is no law, there is no sin.” Unbelievers are “under the law” and “enslaved to sin.” Believers are “under grace” and “enslaved to righteousness.” Along with the contrary slaveries, there is also a freedom to do the contrary. No unbeliever sins perfectly, and no believer obeys perfectly. Even though Christians sin because they are free to succumb to the desires of the flesh, Christ is the “end of the law,” and therefore there is “no condemnation.” Clearly, again, CLEARLY, in Protestantism, the so-called “believer” remains under the law and its condemnation.

Furthermore, the old self that was under the law was crucified with Christ and no longer lives; so, see Romans 7, the new us is no longer married to the old us that was under the law. But unbelievers are still under the law, and will be judged by that written law and the law of conscience—that will not go well.

Believers are righteous even as they are righteous—they have God’s seed abiding within them (see 1John 3). Regardless of being clothed in humanity, believers are truly righteous beings who are able to please God by their obedience (see Romans 8). Sin resides in our mortality and weakness, but no longer enslaves us. However, all in all, our new direction is indicative of our righteousness while we are NOT judged by a perfect keeping of the law for we are under grace. “Under grace” is NOT being under the “righteous demands of the law” as the often heard buzz-phrase goes among Protestant pastors and elders.

Therefore, with proper biblical guidance, we are able to change in order to please God. We do not merely contemplate God’s grace and watch for a “transformation” of an “image.” Rather than depending on a finished work for a glory manifestation, we “move on to maturity” by learning how to “control our own bodies in holiness.” Contrary to Peace’s Reformed idea that the finished work of justification must continue to cover future sins by “revisiting the gospel afresh” (Michael Horton via Calvin), we apply God’s truth to our lives, and when we see the results, it makes us more and more sure of our “calling and election” because it indicates that we are no longer enslaved to sin and its desires. On the flip side, disobedience can cause a believer to doubt his/her salvation because they continually violate their consciences. Also remember that unbelievers are not concerned with assurance issues.

In contrast, Peace asserts in the same lesson, as Jerry Bridges and many others, that assurance comes from the belief that we can do nothing to please God in sanctification:
True holiness is produced in someone who is assured that they are forgiven and reconciled to God apart from any human merits in sanctification and justification both.

In other words, effort in sanctification supposedly shows that we are not resting in the continued salvific work of Christ. This is Calvin’s Sabbath rest salvation that I discuss in detail in chapter 4 of It’s Not About Election. In chapter 5, I discuss why this doctrine robs Christians of assurance. Biblical assurance comes from knowing that justification is a finished work that ended sin and its condemnation, not the idea that our sin is merely covered via “returning to the gospel afresh.” The ending of sin is the good news, not a perpetual cover-up. The true gospel is the ending of sin, not a cover-up perpetrated by Christ—Christ recreates; He doesn’t whitewash tombs full of dead bones while legally declaring the dead bones to be holy.

In fact, many like Kevin DeYoung testify to the difficulty of assurance because, supposedly, the closer we get to God, the more we see how far we are from His holiness resulting in the need to be proclaimed saved by elders.

“But Paul, what about sins that we commit in our Christian life?” Well, we hate it, and therefore long to be saved from these mortal bodies of death, but we are not enslaved by it, nor can it condemn us. Assurance comes from the fact that justification and sanctification are totally separate; one is a finished work that ended condemnation, and the other increases our joy by an increased ability to please God by what we DO in kingdom living. We love God—He doesn’t love Himself by transforming us into an image of Himself IF we continue to live by faith alone in sanctification. James condemned that doctrine in his letter to the 12 tribes of the dispersion. Neither should we feel good about our supposed total depravity. Total depravity is not the source of joyful assurance because it increases our gratitude for our original salvation through a deeper and deeper understanding of how evil we are.

This, and many other reasons is why contemporary biblical counseling will not help Christians, but will rather destroy them.

paul

%d bloggers like this: