Paul's Passing Thoughts

Sure, I Can Do That, But….

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on June 20, 2011

….I wasn’t born yesterday. The top part of your essay is the imperative. The bottom part is the indicative: “What we sinners fail to understand is that there is no true freedom apart from wearing the yoke of God’s anointed one. Jesus said, ‘Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light’ (Matthew 11:28-30).”

Ie., the imperative commands are grounded in the indicative event. The “true freedom” you are talking about is freedom from the law when we take upon ourselves the yoke of Jesus and enter into “His rest” from the law. The imperatives you describe in the first part are an effortless “mere natural flow (NCT guru Chad Bresson)”—flowing from the indicative event (Christ’s atonement).

Nice try, and here is what you sent me:

“I was just wondering if you thought the following might have been written by one of those pernicious NCT Antinomians.  Perhaps you would like to publish it as an example of how they try to turn people away from true righteousness.
Randy Seiver


Let us break their bonds asunder, and let us cast away their yokes from us (Psalm 2:3).

The scene portrayed in these verses is one of high treason against the LORD of heaven and earth. Those engaged against Him are recalcitrant rebels who refuse to be controlled any longer. They have set themselves in battle array against Jehovah and against His Anointed one. They refuse to wear the restraint of His law any longer. They desire to throw off the yoke of obedience to Him. The metaphor is taken from balky animals that break the cords that restrain them and throw off the yoke.

Israel is often guilty of refusing Jehovah’s yoke in this manner. In Hosea’s prophecy, Jehovah charges that His people are like a heifer that backs away from the yoke (Hosea 4:16). Such is the nature of sinful rebels. We imagine we will be happy if only we can free ourselves from God’s oppressive demands. Yet, we find when we are most free from His yoke that we are most shackled in the bonds of iniquity.

What we sinners fail to understand is that there is no true freedom apart from wearing the yoke of God’s anointed one. Jesus said, “Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).

Nevertheless, the struggle to be free continues from generation to generation. We continue to balk and bawl at the sight of the Christ’s yoke until God in sovereign grace makes us willing to be subdued”

Thank you for this example of classic New Calvinist deception,


27 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. R. Seiver said, on June 22, 2011 at 9:09 PM

    BTW, it is not your initial experience of salvation I am talking about. Returning to your initial experience will be of no profit. Your initial experience is of no value to you now. It is an ongoing faith in Christ’s redemptive work that the gospel calls for. It is Christ and his objective accomplishment of redemption that is to be our focus. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote, “Consider [literally, fix your minds on] the Apostle and High Priest of our confession (Heb. 3:1). If you fix your mind on anything else, you need to change your focus.



  2. paulspassingthoughts said, on June 23, 2011 at 6:38 AM

    “If, on the other hand, you mean you have outgrown your need for the good news that Christ has redeemed us poor sinners from the eternal wrath of God with all its concomitant doctrines, then I have a huge problem with it.”

    Notice how you twist it: Evangelicals see the gospel as the precious / awesome foundation that we build on–not something *we don’t need anymore* 2Peter 1 makes it clear that we build other things upon our faith.

    Furthermore, in regard to all of your Pauline quotes: how do those quotes = “We are sanctified by the same gospel that saved us” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday”?

    Secondly, “gospel” means “good news.” The sermon on the mount was “the good news of the kingdom” and did not include atonement, but practical application of God’s word. The NT is also replete with all of the theology/doctrine that grafted the Gentiles into the kingdom which was also referred to generically as “the gospel.” It included necessary knowledge for Jews and Gentiles to dwell together in one body. The first part of Ephesians is a good example of that. Then, of course, there is the good news of the atonement and Jesus Christ, which by the way, is spoken of separately from the gospel of the kingdom throughout the book of Acts–often in the same sentence with the conjunction “and” between them. Hence, when Paul said he wanted to go to Rome and preach the gospel to the believers there, we really don’t know what gospel he was referring to. Certainly, it was not the good news that called on men “to be reconciled to God”–they were already reconciled.

    Thirdly, I delve into this whole *contemplative spirituality with the gospel* issue here:


  3. paulspassingthoughts said, on June 23, 2011 at 6:43 AM

    Fourthly, I think Jess, and her comments,as one who has boots on the ground, ends the argument–it is what it is. It’s a firsthand testimony of how this vile theology works itself out in real life.


  4. R. Seiver said, on June 23, 2011 at 10:14 AM


    Certainly you understand that the Greek conjunction translated “and” may also be translated “even,” equating the words or clauses that are joined by it. And, explain to me what you think I twisted

    It is true Paul explicated the manner in which Jews and Gentiles could exist equally and in harmony in the same body, namely, because Jesus in his sacrificial work had broken down the middle wall of partition between them.

    What Paul means by “gospel” in Romans 1 should be clear from the doctrines he goes on to expound in the body of that Epistle.
    It is true I no longer need to be exhorted to “be reconciled to God” since that has already occurred. But should I not continue to glory in and be grateful for that fountain that was opened for sin and uncleanness by which God reconciled me to himself. I suspect you continue to sin just as I do. Do we not flee to that same fountain for the restoration of our communion with God when we have sinned (1 John 1:9)? John didn’t write “He was the propitiation for our sins,” but He IS the propitiation for our sins.” On what other basis is God “faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness?” Does he forgive us because we have implemented yet another practical admonition, or does the gospel fountain forgive us and cleanse us from our sins?

    Do you think A.M Toplady was a New Calvinist or believed in NCT?

    He wrote in “Rock of Ages”:

    Let the water and the blood,
    From Thy riven side which flowed,
    Be of sin THE DOUBLE CURE,
    [or alternately “save me from its guilt and power”]
    Is sounds as if he believed we are made pure [sanctified] by the same fountain that justifies us.

    How can you not see from Paul’s declaration that he boasts only in the cross and that the message of the cross is the power of God to believers, that we dare not move away from the gospel in all its many ramifications? The NT Scriptures contain many practical exhortations to godly living, but all of them are based on Christ’s redemptive accomplishments.

    Paul, we are not discussing that vile theology [The doctrine Jess was talking about]; we are discussing my “vile theology.” I want to know what I have written that gives the slightest hint that NC believers may live anyway we wish contrary to God’s revealed will. Just one real citation taken in context will suffice.



    • pauldohse said, on June 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM

      I understand God’s goodness through living in a way that pleases him. In endeavoring to love my wife in a way that pleases God, our love grows and I understand what an undeserving gift she is from God. We don’t know more of God by contemplating the gospel that saved us, we know more of him through obedience: John 7:17 If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.

      Why did Christ not take this opportunity to end the argument and use “gospel” instead of “truth”?

      John17:17 “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”

      > —–Original Message—– >


  5. R. Seiver said, on June 23, 2011 at 10:20 AM

    Re: your comments on the “Sermon on the Mount,” of course it was good news of the kingdom. The question is, was that kingdom established by social reform or by the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ? Jesus didn’t just give a new list of rules; he established his kingdom in his people’s hearts by his redemptive work.


    • pauldohse said, on June 23, 2011 at 12:15 PM

      “Rules” is just a cheap way of devaluing God’s wisdom. “Rules” protect us, warn us, and instruct us, especially when they are from God. More “rules”? Or more WISDOM? Rules are either good or bad–if they are good–more of good is better.

      > —–Original Message—– >


  6. paulspassingthoughts said, on June 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM

    Certainly, “truth” implies more than the gospel. There are just too many places where other words are used instead of “gospel” that could make the argument for GS–but it just ain’t there.


  7. R. Seiver said, on June 23, 2011 at 3:17 PM


    All I asked for was a single citation to demonstrate that I believe or have ever encouraged anyone to believe that as believers we may do whatever we please contrary to the will of God. You have completely ignored that request.

    Additionally, I placed no value judgment on rules. My only point was that Jesus’ new covenant community does not differ from the old only in the addition of or changing of the rules. Call them laws or whatever you wish to call them. That isn’t the issue and you know it isn’t.

    I asked you a number of questions; you ignored all of them. I think you don’t know the answers but don’t want your followers to know you don’t know the answers. I really think you are quite pathetic.

    Well Paul, I have really been trying to see things from your point of view, but I find I just can’t get my head far enough up my rectum. You seem determined to persist in your misrepresentation of everything I say, just as you seem to want to do with most everyone in the Christian church who actually wants to accomplish something. I am sure you and your tiny following will be very happy believing that “you alone are the people and wisdom will die with you.” Frankly, I don’t want to waste any more time discoursing with someone who doesn’t have the “huevos” actually to engage in honest discussion.

    Just always remember the 9th commandment. That is probably where you should concentrate your efforts at sanctification.



  8. R. Seiver said, on June 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM

    Since you won’t have me here to misrepresent any longer, I thought you might like to try your hand at twisting the remarks of J.C. Ryle who wrote about the likenesses and differences between Justification and Sanctification. BTW, he was not a New Calvinist, did not belong to the modern GS group, nor did he subscribe to NCT. In the section re: their likenesses he wrote,”

    (b) Both are part of that great work of salvation which Christ, in the eternal covenant, has undertaken on behalf of His people. Christ is the fountain of life, from which pardon and holiness both flow. The root of each is Christ.

    (c) Both are to be found in the same persons. Those who are justified are always sanctified, and those who are sanctified are always justified. God has joined them together, and they cannot be put asunder.


    • pauldohse said, on June 23, 2011 at 9:28 PM

      Where is the reference Randy. I would like to look it up myself and read it in context since I am very familiar with the writings of Ryle.

      > —–Original Message—– >


  9. R. Seiver said, on June 23, 2011 at 10:52 PM

    Holiness. In my version P 39. Also see bottom of page 27 top of 28


    • pauldohse said, on June 24, 2011 at 6:47 AM

      So, your saying that Ryle is advocating a synthesis between justification and sanctification–is that what your saying?

      > —–Original Message—– >


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: