Paul's Passing Thoughts

Line in the Sand

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on June 12, 2015

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Clockwork Angel said, on June 16, 2015 at 11:54 AM

    FYI, infused righteousness is a Catholic doctrine. That doesn’t mean it is necessarily wrong. (We believe the Trinity, and so do they; not everything they teach is automatically wrong.) I just thought you might want to know, for curiosity’s sake. Here’s a Youtube video by a sedevacantist Catholic who dissects Piper, White, etc. on imputed righteousness, and then proceeds to embarrass them. Where he deviates from you on infused righteousness is when he starts going on about having to see a priest for confession if one sins after regeneration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8

    I only dropped by to see if maybe you had answered some of my questions regarding your take on the Gospel in a new post. I do look forward to it, if you are willing. A compare and contrast against what the sedevacantist said would be nice as well. The common attack launched by Reformed people against Catholics is that infused righteousness leads to still being under judgment for sin should one sin after regeneration. I’d like to see your take on how you would deal with a Catholic on this, while still maintaining infused righteousness. 🙂

    Clockwork Orange, er, um Angel

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on June 16, 2015 at 2:03 PM

      CA,

      Protestantism and Catholicism both are based on progressive justification. I evaluate this in detail in the booklet, “The Reformation Myth.” If you email Pearl at mail@ttanc.com, she will make sure that you get a copy from me. As we are discussing in our Heidelberg Disputation series, the issue that sparked the Reformation was Thomism, per Luther himself. The Catholic Church was predominately Augustinian until St. Thomas Aquinas came along in the 13th century. The Augustinian doctrine was progressive justification with a Neo-Platonist application. The Church was drifting towards the integration of Aristotelian philosophy integrated into theology, and this was Luther’s specific bone of contention. The moral issues were of secondary concern to Luther. The question of “infused righteousness” is metaphysical quibbling dressed in theological lingo.

      Like

  2. Clockwork Angel said, on June 17, 2015 at 4:39 PM

    Thank you both for the generous offer of getting your book. I’ll be sure to catch that podcast. However, I suppose what I’m really driving at, bottom line, is the old question: What must I do to be saved?

    I ask this, because it just isn’t very obvious, bottom line, from this blog, and by the way you say nearly all other Christians throughout history have been believing a false gospel that doesn’t save due to too much overlap with Plato, or any underlying belief of progressive justification. (Yes, that’s been around prior to Augustine. Let’s face it. The Bible is tough to read and has so much tension in it. It’s no wonder that people get confused. Irenaeus will say in one passage that we have eternal life, then he’ll scare the snot out of you in the next passage when he warns his readers to continue in the faith and not to sin. I haven’t read one patristic writing that hasn’t both comforted me and then scared the snot out of me at the same time.)

    What groups in history do you consider as having been saved? Can you name one that doesn’t turn out to be a total unbiblical cult, like the Albigenses? How about individuals from history? If you’re having difficulty naming any, or believe that true Christianity was wiped off the face of the earth for most of history, then how does that compare with Christ saying the gates of hell would not prevail?

    For that matter, back when you were a cafeteria Calvinist before the neo-Calvinists did their hatchet job on your personal life, do you consider yourself as having been saved at that time? Or do you consider yourself merely as having been merely confused doctrinally, but still saved? If you weren’t saved at the time, when were you then saved? Did you get rebaptized, or do you believe that heretical baptisms from a cult will grant you the Holy Spirit, as the Catholics do? (I doubt you’d believe that. Neither would I.) I feel that your answers to these things will help clarify your gospel presentation both to me, and to the others you’ve come across and whom you have told aren’t saved.

    If you do believe you were saved while being a cafeteria Calvinist, then why do you go around telling others, some of whom aren’t even Calvinists at all but still come from the Protestant wing, that they aren’t saved, when you yourself once held to the same beliefs? Wouldn’t it be better to be more merciful and patient, knowing you were once in the same boat?

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on June 17, 2015 at 10:17 PM

      CA,

      I was a Calvinist that believed in the separation of justification and sanctification, and believed that the new birth was not merely a positional righteousness. As a new believer, I was full of peace and joy and knew the basics about salvation intuitively. However, I was very confused about my struggle with sin, and that was never explained to me biblically. Going to church and seminary made me a struggling, doubtful Christian because a proper view of law/gospel was nowhere to be found. I later became a Calvinist. I only came to the right knowledge of law/gospel and its application to sanctification after I married Susan and we embarked on our own personal study of Romans. I was always saved, but was a weak, confused, and a struggling Christian.

      This baloney about our gospel being ambiguous is an annoying accusation that I hear often. So here it is, and it shouldn’t need clarification:

      Salvation is a decision to follow Christ in Spirit baptism. One believes that Christ died on the cross to end the law, paving the way for the believer to die with Christ, and to be resurrected with Christ by the Spirit unto new life, and freedom to serve Christ through the law of liberty and love. The law (the Bible) of the Spirit no longer condemns you, but the Spirit now uses it to sanctify you (John 17:17). One, “must be born again.” Salvation is not a mere mental ascent to the facts of the death, burial and resurrection, but the belief that the receiving of the Spirit by faith alone results in a literal new birth. “Behold, ALL things are new.”

      That’s the gospel; don’t confuse the issue with what I supposedly believe about historical statistics. A gospel is true or it isn’t true.

      Like

  3. lydia00 said, on June 22, 2015 at 1:01 AM

    Thanks, I will take the ability to be righteous over “positionally” righteous. The peeps who are “positionally” righteous scare me. They can sin against me all they want cos they are “Positional” only so get plenty of sin passes. Then I have to immediately forgive them for sinning against me or I am not a real Christian. It is a cycle of death and destruction.

    Like

  4. lydia00 said, on June 22, 2015 at 1:11 AM

    CA, I think one problem with what passes for the Gospel today is related to leaving out the Jewishness of Jesus. Our Savior became a blonde European or a Greek Pagan Philosopher along with way. Take your pick.

    John Immel summed it up:

    The gospel has always been the blessing of Abraham and the Covenants of Promise (often referred to as the Commonwealth of Israel) coming to all men (Jew and Gentile) to end the hostility between Man and God (called the Ministry of Reconciliation) such that man is no longer subject to death (the defeat of Death was the purpose of the cross). This is the “Gospel” but this message has almost never been taught and the dirth of theology has so infused original sin and the crucifixion as altruistic ideal for so long that Christians can hear nothing else when people say the word “gospel.”

    You know, go reread Peter’s Pentecost talk. It was mostly about “resurrection” and little about the cross. But today, what passes for the Gospel is mostly the cross and perpetual sinning…which is death. Very little about what the resurrection means for us.

    Like


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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