My Detractor Stated it Well: Why John Calvin and His Followers are Heretics
I have a detractor who has stated one of my positions against the Reformed false gospel very well. I want to capture his assessment in this post, and it will be used in two of my upcoming books; TTANC 2, and The Reformation Myth. Here is the statement:
“Paul Dohse takes exception with Calvinism not because its evil, not because of predestination, not because of its easy believism that rejects morality. Nope. He takes exception with it because it thinks that the Law is the standard of justification, and Paul (the so-called apostle, not Dohse) says that it’s impossible that any law could ever GIVE life. Here is Dohse quoting himself from the article at the top of the article:
‘Moreover, the Apostle Paul states with all certainty that there is NO law that can give life. If Christ kept/fulfilled/keeps the law for us in order to keep us justified, that is saying that there is a law that can give life.’
So Dohse’s problem with Calvinism is that he thinks it contradicts Paul’s heresy in Galatians 3:21
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. (Galatians 3:21 KJV)
The problem here is that Dohse has accepted Paul’s FALSE premise that we need to be GIVEN life” (James Jordan: Descriptive Grace blog; Paul Dohse’s pointless struggle against Calvinism while continuing to accept Paul’s Galatian heresy, Sept. 7, 2013).
Right he is, I have accepted that premise, and he states my position on NO law in justification very well. If the law has to be upheld perfectly to maintain our justification, as taught by the Reformers, the law is giving life. Who keeps it is beside the point.
That’s one reason among many why Calvinism is a false gospel.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Argo,
Is he of Jewish Orthodoxy?
LikeLike
From what I gather picking up from here and there…James was Church of Christ and from a family of preachers and started preaching himself, very young.
I could be wrong but that is what I have picked up on from some of his comments.
I am very sorry he became so insulting as I think he has had some very good insights into the OT. But there was no reason to do that you as you offered him a place to dialogue even though he rejected Christ.
I sometimes think the institutions are churning out more people who end up rejecting Christ than accepting Him.
LikeLike
BTW: Where is Ryan when you need him? A while back he recommended Leonard Verduin’s Anatomy of a Hybrid.
I am not even on the second chapter and love it. He is such a deep thinker. I am not sure I will ever read the OT the same way again as he brings such a depth to it I have never really seen before. I know I won’t read about John the Baptist the same way ever again, either. There is a depth there few go into that Verduin takes on completely as the bridge from old to new which was never really as far apart as some teach. (You gotta read the book to get it but warning….it is NOT an easy read. get your highlighter out)
He is tracking the thinking of sacral societies vs composite societies in both the OT and NT times. The “thinking” is what is so interesting.
But this quote on “repentance” really blew me away and explains a lot of what we see in historical Christendom.
Of course, I am starting the quote below from a much larger context within the narrative. But he is making a point about repentance that I think is worthy of study:
“Proselytes were converted people, and it is little wonder that John the Baptist—who had manifestly fallen in love with their type—preached repentance, which is substantially the same as conversion. The keynote of John’s preaching was “repent ye”, that is, “be converted”. The Greek original has the word metanoia, a word that has been abused more regularly by translators and theologians than any other word in the catalogue. We must take a fresh look at it, especially because of the important role it played in the development we are tracing. The first part of the word is the Greek preposition meta, which in the Greek of the common man had come to mean “from….to”. The second part metanoia is related to the Greek nous, a word signifying the core of one’s being. The combination of meta and nous, therefore indicates a “from…..to” movement in the inner man, a metamorphosis that takes place in one’s “heart” or “soul”. In John’s theology such a term “from….to” movement was an absolute prerequisite of discipleship; one could not qualify without it. For that reason John went over all applicants for a place in his following with a fine toothed comb. If an applicant gave evidence of metanoia, John baptized him; if he did not, John sent him back—like a student who fails an entrance exam.”
“…..This mistranslation of metanoia has served to accentuate the pardon aspect of salvation and to suppress the renewal aspect, thus creating an imbalance between pardon and the adoption of a new lifestyle. This in turn has had much to do with the humbling failure of Christianity to make much of a difference, certainly not enough of a difference, in the lifestyle of its adherents. “
Ryan, thanks so much for the recommendation. I never bothered with this book (I loved Stepchildren!) because I thought it was only a historical review of church state. Oh my, it is much deeper than that.
LikeLike
LydiaSOP –
Are you the one who recommended “The Principles of the Westminster [Confession of Faith] Standards Persecuting” by William Marshall? I’m about halfway through it. I find it quite interesting. It falls in line with my personal belief of not forcing “Confessions” upon anyone. How can something that was meant for the purpose of conformity, force, and persecuting, now be hailed as a wonderful and helpful tool (in certain circles anyway)?
I do wish there was more information about William Marshall in the book though. I can’t even tell when he wrote it.
LikeLike
Bridget,
There is very little historical information on him–per the normal for those who were that objective.
LikeLike
I found a little bio on Wikipedia. He actually wrote 5 or so books. He appeared to be known as a rebel, including being in favor for the emancipation of slaves.
LikeLike
Lydia I am reading Reformers and their Stepchildren now and I think you are the one who recommended it or was it Ryan? Anyway, what a book!! Thanks if it was you who mentioned it here.
I thought I could not gain anymore knowledge on the Reformers and their fallacies- all thanks to Paul; but I was wrong.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I can’t find where you recommended (the comment stream) that other book as well that you were talking about. Can you post a list here?
LikeLike
“James Jordan is a demagogue and refuses any attempts at reasonable dialog.” Coming from you, Argo, that’s pretty funny. Your demagogery that all truth is found in the self (Nietchian existentialism) is outright atheism, yet you somehow try to base the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice on it, until you find you can’t and then appeal to the Law which you normally hate against. I certainly don’t hate Christ and Christians. I hate faith alonism, and I hate atheism especially when it disguises itself as Christianity. And Pauline Christianity much like Argo’s Nietchianism is nothing but atheism disguising itself as Christianity. There is a big distinction between a religion that is ABOUT Jesus as a mythical sacrifice that allows you to boink your neighbor’s wife (or your neighbor himself) with impunity because Jesus purportedly died as a perfect sacrifice for your sins, and the religion OF Jesus himself. The one says “There is none righteous, not not one” (twisting a phrase from Psalm 14 out of context and making it demonic in meaning) and the other “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness FOR THEY SHALL BE FILLED.” Yes, I was raised Church of Christ, and yes I now reject the notion of Jesus’ deity and of the idea of any sacrifice for sins, because I dare believe what Jesus himself taught in the parable of the Net (Matthew 13:47-50) rather than Paul’s heresy. You can certainly summarize Matthew 13:47-50 as “I think he accepts Jewish moral law as the benchmark of human morality and truth” for that is exactly what JESUS is doing there. Here we have a parable where the angels “gather the GOOD into vessels, but cast the BAD away.” Jesus is speaking in categories of the good and the bad, not the believer and the unbeliever like Paul. So, yes, Jesus teaches that morality is the standard. Not perfect obedience of the Law, of course. Only an idiot would think God’s standard is perfect; who is so stupid as to think that God doesn’t know he made us imperfect? Only Paul and his gnostic followers.
LikeLike
obviously a typo at the end there “…standard is perfect; who is…” should be “… standard is perfectION; who is…”
LikeLike
James Jordan continues to show himself incapable of articulating my position accurately. This is because he only bothers to read himself. He defines your argument for you and then tells you how stupid you are for believing it.
It’s a convenient tactic. It is also purely self serving.
I do not appeal to the Law as a source of morality. I appeal to the Law as God’s provision of a truth outside mans self which man demanded in the garden. The good news is that this inexorably must lead to a restoration of man as the plumb line of morality, which Jesus accomplishes. Praise be to God.
My root presumption is that all truth and subsequently morality, whether we admit it or not, can only be revealed in the context of individual man’s life. This makes mans SELF the only real and rational standard which man can follow in his quest for value (truth with moral good)…for all value MUST be contextual value. To the individual. This as Nietchian philosophy is James’ attempt at ad hominem. If Nietzsche agrees, I don’t care. I know nothing about him…never read him. However I do not accept that consciousness can exist apart from God and I have a rational physic and metaphysic to defend my point which I submit is irrefutable if reason is our guide. This means I cannot possibly be an atheist.
James resorts to demagoguery and insults because he can offer no reasonable counter-argument. Anyone who puts truth outside of mans individual context cannot win any debate of ideas in the end. For they have only one frame of reference to speak from: themselves. Which contradicts their entire premise before the discussion starts.
Which makes James the false teacher, not Paul the Apostle .
LikeLike