Paul's Passing Thoughts

Link to study notes, outlines, and illustrations.

Link to videos and audio file downloads.

NOTICE: PPT or TANC Ministries does not profit from or endorse ANY advertisements posted by Blog Talk Radio or WordPress.com

Acts Lessons

The etymology of “traumaunction” begins on 4/12/2018; uh, in fact, yesterday. A word is necessary to describe the over-dramatized sermons of Protestants designed to inflict mental trauma on the listeners. The purpose is to inflict fear of condemnation in order to drive one back to the cross daily for more Jesus.

So, in true Protestant tradition, all sermons, if you are preaching correctly, seek two objectives; to aide one in “preaching the gospel to ourselves every day,” and maintaining control of people through condemnation. People who are under condemnation are “humbled” and are passive putty in the hands of Protestant despots.

Though a contemporary word, its consummate example is “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards. Many assume that Edwards used the traumaunction to wake up a Laodicea-like church, but such is not the case; the sermon and its results are the stated goals of every Protestant sermon according to orthodoxy. In our day, many seek to mimic Edwards’ iconic folklore, particularly, John Piper.

Hence, church is a place where you go to be traumatized in order to keep yourself close to Jesus. Pastors go to seminary for as long as eight years to learn traumaunction. Rather than being encouraged unto good works, the goal is to be brought low so the “saving works (note the plural form) of Jesus” are made manifest. This is the Protestant doctrine of Mortification and Vivification as well as the Vital Union doctrine. Praise bands are for the purpose of facilitating M and V leading to the Vital Union.

I will give every Protestant on the face of the earth a nickel if they know what these Protestant doctrines are. I have a coin jar behind my desk, that will cover it. But at any rate, it’s kinda cool knowing why I did what I did as a pastor for 20-plus years though after the fact.

So then, let’s nail down an official definition:

Traumaunction, (trauma/and an over-dramatized expression of speech, “unction”), is a Protestant sermon designed to inflict mental trauma for purposes of ongoing repentance leading to Mortification and Vivification resulting in the Vital Union…until the next time you preach the gospel to yourself.

paul

“Yes indeed, the lovely church would never execute people who disagree with them, God is now doing that for them, that is, the god they are supposed to imitate.”

More controversy in church land filled with plenary pandemonium. I pretty much stay away from surfing the Protestant internet because I don’t have as much time to write as I used to, and Protestant news is rife with opportunities to partake in musings of morbid curiosity like a fatal car wreck that we have to look at while we pass.

However, I have received several emails concerning a recent sermon by Francis Chan that apparently hit a nerve with churchians at large. So, I went to You Tube and observed the traumaunction. And as I suspected beforehand, it was Chan just being a good Protestant.

First, according to authentic Protestant orthodoxy, all sermons are to be traumaunctions. These are emotional expressions that create trauma in the mind. Francis Chan and John Piper stand out in regard to being particularly apt in traumaunction. This is because the founding fathers of Protestantism, the big three, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, believed that true sanctification is driven by fear; that is, fear of condemnation that drives us back to the cross for re-justification. That’s Protestantism in a nutshell…it is a religion of fear and condemnation. For detailed documentation on this point, get my book, “It’s Not About Election; Why Calvinism is ‘Another Gospel'” which can be read for free here or purchased here.

If you watch the video, said sermon is all about the fear. Someplace, the big three were smiling, wherever that might be, God knows. Protestantism is clearly a false gospel that defines the saints as yet under law (the biblical definition of a lost person), but many are thankfully confused enough to be saved. John MacArthur is probably an example of that.

Secondly, in said sermon, and true to Protestant orthodoxy, Chan claims that God will strike people dead who criticize the Protestant philosopher kings. That is absolutely necessary after Americanism took away the ability for the Protestant church to execute their detractors. Since we are supposedly a civilized society now, God has taken over executions for the church. Not; there is only ONE reason the church is no longer executing detractors…AMERICA…period. Why do you think we see an ever-increasing anti-American sentiment and leaning toward Socialism in the church? America took away the church’s power over the masses. Yes indeed, the lovely church would never execute people who disagree with them, God is now doing that for them, that is, the god they are supposed to imitate.

Hence, confused Protestants refer to Chan’s traumaunction as cultic behavior. Sigh, once again, let’s define cultism. The word enters into history after the American Revolution. Why? Because when the sword was taken away from the church, it had to resort to mind control manipulation in order to exert control over the masses. Cultism is defined by ANY religion that integrates authority with faith. At any time any church leader declares that said church has authority…that’s a cult…period. And let’s be clear, “The Bible is our authority” really means, “What we say the Bible says is the authority.”

Nevertheless, the mindlessness of Protestants never ceases to amaze; Chan, in said sermon, answers the question one might ask in regard to God not striking people dead right and left. Well, supposedly, he received a special word from the Lord on that; God’s people have not been sufficiently warned, so, Chan has begun fulfilling that duty which will apparently lead to a string of deaths. And, this didn’t lead to half the place heading for the exits. And so it is in our day.

Thirdly, in the traumaunction, Chan perfectly defines the definition of unity according to Protestant orthodoxy; it’s obedience to whatever the Protestant philosopher kings say. That’s because Protestantism in predicated on authority as truth. I have said it before and will keep saying it: this is salvation by obeying the church which is also black and white Protestant orthodoxy. This is the good news of church authority. This is the good news of Mark Driscoll’s “Keep your damn mouth shut and obey!” This is the good news of Albert Mohler’s “Pastors are God’s appointed men to save His people from ignorance.”

Do you realize why many Protestants are “converting” to the Catholic Church? Let me state it straight from the horse’s mouth: “If everyone would just obey the Catholic Church which has been around since the beginning we wouldn’t have all these denominations.” Right, the Protestant Reformation did spawn a total misunderstanding about religious freedom in the minds of many. This resulted in the Protestant church killing many of them, and in some cases, groups where hunted down and murdered by both churches.

If church is all about authority as truth, and it is, doesn’t it make sense to find salvation in what is clearly the first historical church? And besides, Saint Augustine is the Doctor of Grace for both churches. But does anybody give that a second thought? Nope.

Go easy on Francis Chan, he’s just being a good Protestant. Meanwhile, come out from among them and be separate.

paul

The Protestant gospel is predicated on the total depravity of the saints and everything good about said “believer” only being a “legal declaration.” In Protestant orthodoxy, that is, if you know what it really is, all good remains outside of the “believer.” Faith is defined, again, according to orthodoxy, as a perception (illumination) that enables one to see the depths of their depravity as set against God’s holiness. So, saving faith is only an ability to see, but not do. Any ability to do good would be a “righteousness of your own.”

In other words, Protestantism calls for a strict dichotomy between good and evil with all good being from above. Martin Luther defined the Reformation’s philosophy on this in his Heidelberg Disputation which we had a lengthy series on and it will not be revisited here.

Hence, the real reason for the Reformation: Rome began to adopt the idea that righteousness was infused into the believer. Griping about  indulgences and the such was all pretense and a reason that peasants could relate to, but was far from being the real reason for the falling out with Rome. If you are paying attention, evangelicals promote this idea routinely…because it is factual.

Here at TANC, we are confident that we have the New Covenant relationship between law and gospel nailed down pat, but are still searching for how it fits together with the Old Covenant, which in fact, was an atonement, or mere covering for sin. But does that mean the OT saints were not really righteous as a state of being? And does it matter?

Yes it matters because if Abraham’s righteousness was only a, “reckoning” (a legal declaration), we find contradiction in many New Testament statements and a segue for the Reformed position which denies the new birth. More than likely, a more complete understanding of the new birth is needed. TANC is all about a collective effort of the laity to reclaim true biblical truth from the Protestant dark age. A basic understanding of true biblical justification is a good start, but much more work needs to be done. Let the discussion/debate commence.

One of the key ideas promoted in our day as to why Rome drifted away from dualism follows: they misinterpreted the words used to describe the justification of mankind as a state of being rather than an accounting term, or a mere legal declaration. However, even if righteousness is framed as something deposited into our account, that means we own the money. According to Protestant logic, righteousness is only recorded in the bank ledger but the money really isn’t in there. In a court context, God judges us righteous based on what Christ did, but it’s not really true. To Rome’s credit, they had a problem with this and still do; to their discredit, the new birth only qualifies the “believer” to get progressive salvation from the Church. But I must say, their belief in infused righteousness is closer to the truth than Protestantism, so if you must stay in the institutional church, at least go Catholic who at least believe in the new birth but misapply it. In both cases, it is clearly institutional progressive salvation.

The gospel is both simple and complex. Simple as an introduction to the way of salvation, but also complex so that study of how its complexities fit together confirm its truthfulness. Also, the Bible is primarily for sanctification, and life isn’t all that simple. In our seeking for truth, and that journey to increase our knowledge of life and godliness, we shouldn’t be overly concerned with what we don’t understand. We set aside that of which we are sure of, and build the rest on those principles that are concrete. When we know something is true definitively, future understanding will build on top off that. So, when we come across a piece of the puzzle we don’t understand, we can know that it will eventually fit in somewhere. Secondly, biblical statements that seem contradictory must bow to the definitive building blocks that we know are true until the right equation is figured out. Thirdly, when understanding is stalled, it is important to reexamine, or better said, double-check  presuppositions. Fourthly, learn to use interpretive questions such as…”Does the existence of sin under the Old Covenant for both saved and unsaved necessarily mean that righteousness was only a declaration, and how does that relate to what the new birth is?”

1. Collect objective truths and build on that foundation.
2. Future truths must submit to what is more objective.
3. Review presuppositions from time to time.
4. Ask interpretive questions.

And a final word on word study. The Greek this, the Greek that; the Hebrew this, the Hebrew that. Here is a great help with the word study tools we have in our day. Let’s use this “reckoning” (Abraham was “reckoned” or only declared/considered righteous) issue as an example. Using tools like E-Sword to ascertain the raw definition of the word is a good starting point, but what you can also do with E-Sword is right click on the word and it will show you how the word is used in the rest of the Bible. That’s huge. That will tell you what was really meant by the word’s use in context.

Here is what I found in the final analysis, especially in regard to how the word is used in other New Testament passages, and working from Paul’s quotation from Genesis in Galatians. The word is most often used in regard to a true assessment, or an assessment that is assumed to be true.

I contend that using the Protestant concept of imputation to assert the following is very problematic: “OJ Simpson may be guilty of murder, but that is totally irrelevant because he was declared innocent in a court of law. But our declaration is better because it is based on someone else’s righteousness that is imputed to us.”

This ministry has pontificated extensively on how that turns the true biblical gospel completely upside down.

At some point in this ministry, I knew definitively that righteousness was not based on perfect law-keeping. During that time, I was asked, “What then, defines righteousness?” I had to say I didn’t know, at that point, I simply knew it wasn’t the law. Later, the obvious in broad daylight was discovered, “we cannot sin because His seed remains in us.” The basis for righteousness is the new birth; we are God’s literal offspring. Being His literal child, regardless of anything, makes us righteous as a state of being.

Interpretive question: Could an OT believer be righteous as a state of being, but not yet a family member? Are particular relationship status’ particular to dispensations? Was an OT saint God’s “friend,” but not yet a family member? Was the adoption yet future upon Christ’s death?

Eventually, the answer to this question will be discovered as well, as the Spirit leads us in all truth. And by the way, the Spirit leads us, not John Piper, or any other notable one of the Protestant personality cult.

paul

via Depression: My Testimony