Paul's Passing Thoughts


Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on July 21, 2017


Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on July 21, 2017

The Biblical Definition of “Friend” Versus Protestantism

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on July 16, 2017

In light of the new birth gospel, referring to the saved as “friends of God” seems to fall way short of what you would call a literal family member. So, as ones here at PPT who strive to think biblically by properly defining Bible words, let’s take a look at what the Bible means by the word, “friend.”

For the most part, “friend” is set against a major gospel theme in the Bible; a call to be reconciled with God because the unsaved are His enemies. A “friend of God” speaks to one who has been reconciled with God. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a friend is defined as, “one that is not hostile | Is he a friend or an enemy?”

“You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God” (James 4:4 NIV).

Merriam-Webster also notes that this word has multiple levels of relationship that happen to fit with the Bible definition as well: “one attached to another by affection or esteem” and “one that is of the same nation, party, or group” and “one that favors or promotes something” and “a favored companion.”

All biblical ideas.

Actually, in many instances, the biblical idea of “friend” is a deeper relationship than family: “One who has unreliable friends soon comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (Proverbs 18:24 NIV). In life, you may have friends who are closer to you than family members in every way. Hence, blood is not always thicker than water.

We may also want to ponder, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13 NIV).

The biblical idea of “friend,” in some respects, is a deeper relationship than family because it covers all levels of relationships. However, our family relationship with God through the new birth makes us righteous while our friendship displays our changed nature.

But Houston we have a huuuuge problem. As the present-day Protestant resurgence reveals true orthodoxy more and more, we find that authentic Protestant orthodoxy actually declares so-called believers…”enemies of God.” Truly, the core problem with church is too simple and on display in broad daylight.

The whole Protestant God hates believers and believers hate God and Jesus therefore covers us and saves us from God can be pondered here, and here.


The Problem with Particular Atonement is the How and Not the Who, and Why Protestants Do What They Do

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on July 15, 2017

ppt-handlePresently, I am supposed to be completely out of the loop regarding TANC Ministries because I am preparing to take a state exam for medication certification. However, when perusing what Andy is up to while I am gone, I was made privy to this article by Kevin DeYoung.

I am 60 years old, and in my mind, of all the people I have been made aware of in my life to varying degrees, DeYoung is the epitome of the consummate lackey. While shockingly apt at thinking the thoughts of others, he is more likely to be hit by space junk in the pulpit than having an original thought in his own cranium case. DeYoung makes everyone a mind reader; just read Protestant orthodoxy and you are reading everything that is in his mind.

Anyway, the article is particularly rife with opportunity to further demonstrate why the Protestant Reformation was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. One may marvel at the audacity of elementary error being dressed up in such scholarly splendor.

DeYoung begins by writing, “The doctrine of limited atonement–the L in TULIP–teaches that Christ effectively redeems from every people “only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation” (Canons of Dort, II.8). As Ursinus explains in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Christ’s death was for everyone “as it respects the sufficiency of satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof.” In other words, the death of Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but it was God’s will that it should effectively redeem those and only those who were chosen from eternity and given to Christ by the Father.”

First of all, salvation is neither atonement or redemption. In the absolutely insane month of August coming up, I am actually going to add another project that Andy is going to participate in although he doesn’t know it yet. We are going to put together a video series to challenge a group of pastors who are meeting in August with the following: for crying out loud; you are pastors, please start using biblically correct words when talking about salvation.

However, though not New Covenant salvation according to the Bible, atonement is the basis of the Protestant false gospel; Jesus is a cloak (covering) for unrighteousness that denies the new birth.

And, salvation is not redemption either. Redemption is the saving of the weak/mortal body from eternal death in the resurrection, not the saving of the soul. Making salvation and redemption the same thing enables Protestantism to endorse progressive justification or “final justification.” While constantly feigning belief in present assurance, they constantly refer to “final justification” being future because, you know, that’s when it is final. Why is salvation on the installment plan so important to them? Well, if you are signed, sealed, and delivered, what do you need them for?

DeYoung continues: “The good shepherd lays his life down, not for the goats, but for the sheep (John 10:11). This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him, and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people, and John 15:13 says for his friends, and Acts 20:28 says for the church, and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride, and Ephesians 1:4 says for those chosen in Christ Jesus.”

Look, I could post on every sentence in this article, but I only have time to hit the highlights and I really don’t even have time for that. We let the likes of DeYoung assume “those” means “individuals.” Nope, in fitting with the rest of new birth justification and biblical election, more than likely, biblical election refers to groups of people and not individuals; particularly, Jews and Gentiles.

Moreover, another prime example of how Protestant scholars believe that “good grammar makes bad theology” follows here: “This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him…and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people… and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride.”

Read Ephesians 5:25. Where in the world therein does it say that the church is the bride of Christ? So, He loves the church like a bride, that doesn’t make the church His bride. When we say, “Let’s be like a tree and leave” to convey a desire to leave a certain place, does that make us a tree?

Like all Protestant ventriloquist puppets of whom DeYoung is chief, he uses presuppositions to deceive; “those” always means “individuals,” and the main point of election is the WHO and not the HOW. It’s all about who God decided to save, and not how He saved them. He saved them by sending His only Son to the cross to end the law. The Bible states that the righteous demands of the law were “nailed to the cross.”

So, who did Christ die for? Everyone born under the law. Who was born under the law? Everyone. End of discussion…and the end of so-called “limited atonement.”

But WHY are Protestants hellbent on this version of election/predestination? Because the church is a sanctuary city from the doctrine itself. It’s the paramount good cop/bad cop approach. You ever heard of John Calvin’s “power of the keys”? Whatever the Protestant elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven, or something like that. Bottom line? If the elders like you, you’re in. This ministry has documented DeYoung and other Protestants saying this in no uncertain terms. And they say it because its formal Protestant orthodoxy.

So, what is the why?

The essence of sin itself, a desire to control others.


It’s Funny How Baptists Admit They’re Lost

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on July 13, 2017
%d bloggers like this: