Paul's Passing Thoughts

As TANC ministries launches into a focus on alternatives to the church this year, a major one was brought to the forefront this week. Andy Young, our contributing author, gave permission to address the attached letter sent to him recently. Andy himself will have much more to say about this letter in the coming days.

Before I address the letter, let’s review some developing distinctives. First, the fact that we meet in homes is a statement of our gospel. It says we are a literal “household of God,” and not an institution. We are a literal family; that is important.

Meeting in homes with an intentional avoidance of institutional religion proclaims the new birth. Institutions function by law and top-down authority. Home fellowships proclaim justification by new birth and not perfect law-keeping. We deny the supposed double atonement of Christ which is not an atonement to begin with; Christ came to end sin, not merely cover it up. The true gospel is not a cover-up.

Hence, home fellowships function as a cooperative body and not a top down authority. In contrast, those who meet in purpose build sanctuaries deny that individual members of Christ’s body are God’s temple in and of themselves.

Furthermore, the denial of individual bodies as God’s temple also denies the ability of the true saints to use their bodies to offer living sacrifices to God in all matters of life.

We deny, with extreme prejudice, that men appointed by virtue of buying seminary degrees have authority over our salvation. This is another home fellowship distinctive; the authority of Christ alone as the head of His one body. One authority, and one body.

In the attached letter, it is clear that these men believe they have authority over Andy’s salvation. This is a Protestant distinctive whether Baptist, Methodist, Charismatic, or any other stripe that came out of the Protestant Reformation.

In home fellowships, body members do not wait for permission to use their holy temples to offer living sacrifices to God in all matters of life, and the love we perform is from our own temples and not a substitution.

Keep in mind, by virtue of stated orthodoxy, a love performed by the “saints” themselves would deny the Protestant doctrine of double imputation.

paul

“…being happy requires courage and risk.”

I said I was going to stop it altogether and I have been good until now; that is, playing the Protestant error Whack-A-Mole game. A key to Protestant survival thus far in history is keeping people busy arguing about “issues that scholars have debated for hundreds of years.”
Therefore, all is well because the religious experts are in the process of ironing out the wrinkles in the Reformation that turned the world right-side-up after being in darkness for thousands of years. Supposedly.

Hence, it is assumed that Protestant “essentials” are unarguable and the church is the undisputed moral compass of society that married reason and logic to religion; “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” (St. Augustine). This is why the bulk of Protestant activity is debate, if anyone would care to pay attention: Protestantism is the epitome of contradiction and doublespeak.

There is only one thing worse than being a Protestant; spending your whole life exposing the low-hanging poisonous fruit in its gargantuan forest. Nevertheless, I will take another bite at the apple after reading an article by Matt Walsh about Joel Osteen. After succumbing to temptation and eating from a forbidden tree one more time, I will tell you what we need to start dong instead.

Since Protestantism is supposedly the beacon of truth and goodness in Western culture, it must invest heavily in warning Churchianity against imposters. And seemingly, Joel Osteen is the chief of all imposters; the consummate “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

And why is that? Because he preaches the worst false gospel of all, yes, the dreaded, “prosperity gospel.” This is so indicative of Protestantism; a prosperity gospel scorning those who propagate a prosperity gospel. A works salvation scorning works salvation. A Jesus plus something else gospel scorning Jesus plus something else gospels. A…, well, you get the point, and there is no room here to name the hundreds of other examples.

In its endeavor to keep followers busy looking at the church’s enemies lest someone would have time to stumble upon the simple theological math that makes Protestantism a house of cards, they focus on “heretics” that are soft theological targets and affect the church’s bottom financial line which makes Osteen a prime and favorite target. His following constitutes a significant GNP GCP (gross church product). In other words, Osteen is competition that affects the church’s bottom line, and his theology is easily refuted.

Joseph Prince, a close friend of Osteen who would normally fall into the high GCP category and a strong advocate of the prosperity gospel is barely addressed by church stalwarts and the reason is instructive for making the point of this article. Other than his prosperity gospel, Prince is also known as “the prince of grace.” Nobody, but nobody, preaches a more articulate version of the Reformation’s “justification by faith.” The only close second was Tullian Tchividjian who was disposed of for not using nuance enough. Tchividjian was easy to dispose of because his personal moral failures were known among powerful evangelicals. Apparently, Prince is not vulnerable in this regard so they stay clear of him; criticism would bring attention to him which would also reveal that he preaches the exact same gospel as Protestant darlings like John MacArthur Jr. et al. There is irony here that will be addressed later, but unlike Osteen, Prince emphasizes authentic Protestant law/gospel which would make his prosperity message a “non-essential.” By the way, Osteen believes the same gospel as well, but does not articulate it as well as Prince and not nearly as much. So, is accusing Osteen of teaching a “prosperity gospel” a distortion of truth and a false accusation? Absolutely. The issue is really a question of how Christianity is experienced, not how people get saved. But this is but a small whiff of what Protestants do.

Let’s sum up the thesis of this article so far and finish the defining of it: Protestantism, which is truly a prosperity gospel, accuses Osteen of preaching a prosperity gospel which is not true; it is truer to say he preaches an exaggerated prosperity sanctification. Moreover, Osteen is more righteous than his evangelical accusers. Lastly, all parties are guilty of teaching a false gospel. This is an epic example of the pot calling the kettle black on steroids with the kettle being much less worthy of damnation.

Now let’s put feet on the thesis.

We are using Walsh’s article, so let us begin; the subject of his article focuses on criticism that Osteen didn’t open his church building to victims of Hurricane Harvey:

I’m more eager to know why the good pastor hasn’t opened his 10 million dollar, 17,000 square foot mansion to the public. Actually I’d like to know how he justifies ever having bought it in the first place. Well, I know how he justifies it. He and his wife “positioned themselves for a blessing,” as they like to say. Those of us who don’t live in opulent estates just haven’t put ourselves in the right place to receive such rewards.

Um, this assumes that mainline evangelicals do not partake in the same “opulent” lifestyles. Seriously, the press on this is so vast we shouldn’t even have to go there, but we will partake in a short indulgence. James MacDonald, and the Chuck Swindoll 2-million-dollar vacation home controversy to name two among hundreds. Does Walsh wish to ask the same of them? Cognitive dissonance much?

This is the essence of the Prosperity Gospel preached by Osteen and his ilk. It’s insidious and heretical, but crowd pleasing. A Gospel that tells us to embrace suffering and poverty will not pack a 17,000 seat arena. It won’t sell books. It cannot be monetized. It won’t buy you mansions and private planes. It won’t make you famous. People don’t want to hear it. They want to hear something else. They want to hear that fortune and luxury are just around the corner — God wants us to have these things, as Osteen constantly insists — and all we need to do is be a little more positive and probably buy one or two more Joel Osteen books.

This is the Gospel of the World. The Gospel of Osteen. A Gospel specifically tailored to challenge no one, offend no one, and make everyone happy. And it fails miserably on every count.

Huh? Where to begin? A gospel that tells us to embrace suffering doesn’t sell? Is Walsh oblivious to the reality we are swimming in, viz, the massive Neo-Protestant movement of our day? John Piper doesn’t have money? Al Mohler doesn’t have money? They don’t have conferences in Palm Springs? John MacArthur doesn’t have Bible studies on lavish cruises? James MacDonald doesn’t live in a mansion? And they don’t sell a gospel that embraces suffering and the total depravity/inability of mankind?

What is Walsh smoking?

Now let’s talk about the real prosperity gospel of Protestantism and how it compares morally to Osteen’s. Osteen doesn’t sell salvation for a 10% temple tax, he sells “your best life now.” In contrast, Protestantism claims to be God’s authority on earth in regard to the “process of salvation” found only in the institutional church. The “means of grace (salvation)” can only be found in the institutional church, and one of the “means of grace” is none other than the good ole fashioned 10% tithe along with anything extra for good measure. Mainline evangelicals like John MacArthur Jr. routinely teach that there is no salvation apart from putting yourself under the authority of the local church, and tithing less than 10% is robbing God.

Furthermore, they advocate John Calvin’s “power of the keys” which gives the church authority over individual salvation; whatever the church binds on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever the church will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. If the church likes you—you are in, and the church likes nothing more than a “cheerful giver.”

Joel Osteen sells no such thing. He simply requests donations based on perceived benefits received from his ministry and claims no authority over salvation. He sells a positive message as opposed to the fear of eternal damnation for those who would dare disagree with him which makes him the better of the two.

And there is another major difference between the two. Seemingly all but absent from the health and wealth venue is the Protestant child rape culture that evangelicals refuse to openly confront. Evangelicals who constantly berate Osteen remain silent against organizations like ABWE that partook in a criminal 20-year cover-up of rampant pedophilia amongst its missionaries. John MacArthur Jr., who routinely targets Osteen with his disdain, still endorses CJ Mahaney who covered up child molestation in his church for years and is on tape attempting to blackmail a former ministry associate. It is unclear how Osteen would respond to such scandals in his church because the opportunity has never presented itself, but is this telling if one wants to judge between the two?

The Protestant prosperity gospel is one of negative reward; it’s like a child who demands a reward for doing good and is told the reward is the absence of a spanking. If you obey the Protestant church, your reward is heaven and not hell. It’s the peddling of eternal wellbeing which is many times more valuable than present cash. It is the paramount prosperity gospel. It whispers its vile sins in the ears of goats like Osteen and sends them into the wilderness of social media.

But why does suffering sell? In contrast to Walsh’s cognitive dissonance treatise, why has nihilism, zero sum life, fear, and total depravity always been a dominant ideology of the world and religionists? Because it’s easy and requires less thinking, and doesn’t take courage. You see, being happy requires courage and risk. Like the person who avoids deep relationships for fear of getting hurt, the gospel of suffering and total depravity wishes to stand outside of life and look upon it as one emotionally detached while labeling such indifference “peace that passeth all understanding.” After all, life sucks and ALL people possess “hearts full of darkness.” And don’t you know, you need to get over it because you are no less a sinner saved by grace than the elder who raped your child.

As aforementioned, Osteen is not pushing a gospel to begin with, but more along the lines of a lifestyle that actually requires some effort in embracing life as something positive, albeit errant. And while Osteen receives riches from the freewill of others, evangelicals extract their wealth through tyranny and fear.

What should we do about this? Answer: not what I am doing here. Attempting to fully unravel the depths of Protestant folly is a fool’s errand. Our time needs to be spent reinstating the laity movement known in the first century as the “assembly of Christ.” We need to invest our time in proclaiming a justification by new birth, not a “legal declaration” which is not a righteousness “apart from the law” (obviously) and is a mere declaration—not a state of being. We need Christians to function as a cooperative body in a literal family fellowship, not according to the authority of a manmade institution that usurps the rightful place of Christ as the head of his body.

And this we will do if Christ wills, and He does.

paul

@ToddFriel So brilliant U R misunderstanding what APART means. Justification by law ok if Jesus keeps it 4 us. Better hope Rob B. is right.

— Paul M. Dohse (@PaulMDohse) August 29, 2017

At this year’s conference my talks will focus on the meaning of key words. One of the key problems with church is its singular definition of many key words. Primarily in the case of Protestantism, these singular definitions cause massive confusion and debate rather than ministry.

This warm-up to the conference is about the word, “judgment.” Due to the church’s Dualism philosophy, definitions of words will be greatly restricted; singular definitions of words is a hallmark of Dualism.

So the debate rages in the church; what’s the balance between judging someone and practicing discernment? Per the usual, the argument will never end because there is no true definition of judgment available to underpin the discussion. The following is only one of many ways the confusion manifests itself: Yes, if you realize Deacon Dan is a rapist, you are discerning, but if you make an issue of it, you’re judging. And so it goes.

What is the biblical definition of “judgment”? You first have to understand the biblical definition of “condemnation.” To condemn someone strips them of hope in obtaining eternal life. That’s what condemnation is. According to the Bible, only God has the authority to condemn based on what people believe.

When Christ said something like, “do not judge lest you be judged,” He was referring to condemnation; He was referring to someone usurping God’s authority in the eternal condemnation of others. Throughout the scriptures, this kind of condemnation of others is defined as explicitly satanic. In contrast, when we judge someone in regard to discernment and the application of wise actions accordingly, this is judgment according to discernment (and even love), and not judgment in regard to condemnation.

This is why the church, whether Protestant or Catholic and the stripes thereof stand judged (condemned) already; because they judge (they condemn). In other words, they claim God’s authority to condemn others eternally, and they are therefore judged accordingly. Only God Himself has that authority.

With Catholicism, this is common knowledge while Protestants will usually protest the assertion this way: “Our church doesn’t believe we have that authority!” Hmmmmm, really? Full stop: in case you are unaware, a Baptist is a Protestant. That’s the first point. Second point: pray tell, when did it ever happen that a Buddhist was allowed to join a Baptist church because said Buddhist “doesn’t believe everything Buddha believed”?

Third point: the authority supposedly granted to the Protestant church to proclaim someone saved or unsaved is documented orthodoxy with historical precedent etched in stone. And according to the clear dictates of Scripture, patently satanic.

When we call someone out and hold them accountable, we are not judging them in a condemning way; we are probably loving them, and love can be hard at times. Understanding the true definition of judgment in light of discernment AND condemnation makes the issue crystal clear, and…

…the ability to do more ministry with more afforded time and wisdom according to truth.

Because only truth sanctifies (John 17:17),

Paul M. Dohse

2017.ttanc.com

The TANC yearly conference is an online event streaming from the Potter’s House in Xenia, Ohio. However, we also encourage onsite participation to support the speakers, fellowship, and discuss topics. In regard to our out of town friends, there are still rooms left at the Potter’s House on a first come, first serve basis. If you are interested, email us at mail@ttanc.com. Please let us know by August 21st.

As the only known ministry pointing out the elementary error that makes Protestant evangelicalism a house of cards, we believe it is extremely important to have this conference yearly to show our dedication to this truth. Simply stated, the foundation of the Protestant tradition and its brick and mortar churches is predicated on justification by the law while proclaiming “justification by faith.”

But faith in what? Jesus alone, or Jesus’ ability to obey the law perfectly instead of establishing the real foundation of justification, the new birth? The Protestant evangelical tradition represents everything the apostle Paul stood against; justification by the law. Who keeps it is irrelevant; there is no law that can give life even if someone did keep it perfectly. Jesus kept the law perfectly by virtue of who He is, not for the purpose of gaining righteousness to impute to others. Righteousness is obtained by imputation of the new birth, not perfect law keeping.

If perfect law keeping is the standard for righteousness, no one can be righteous, and hence, righteousness is not a state of being obtained by the new birth, but only a “legal declaration.” Moreover, by virtue of stated orthodoxy, no so-called Christian can really love others in a way that pleases God because such love would fall short of perfect law keeping. Therefore, by virtue of stated orthodoxy, there can be no real love in the church, and we think that is entirely evident.

This conference is about an exodus to real love. Evangelical scholars think their efforts to dumb down Protestants and intimidate them with expertism has worked, and therefore, all they need to do is wait for us to fade away into time. These yearly conferences remind everyone that we are not going away. If we stay the course, this simple theological math that is presently gaining understanding will continue to grow; we are made just by the new birth, not perfect law keeping.

Certainly, we are not the first ones who have recognized this truth, that is, justification by new birth APART from the law, but we believe that Protestantism has been able to overcome those who proclaim this truth by simply ignoring them as those truthbearers would not have had the media resources to keep their message alive. But this is the information age, and along with it, the folly of expertism has been exposed. The laity is beginning to take back its assembly of those who fellowship together with the Trinity as a literal family and body.

What have I learned in ten years of researching the Protestant Reformation? It is a plenary lie, and its scholars have redefined every biblical word and term. Even phrases and terms factually true on their face are defined differently in every case by Protestant orthodoxy. Protestantism stands as the paramount propagator of contradiction, anti-reason, and cognitive dissonance in all of human history. While claiming to be the voice of reason and logic among all religions, no religion claims to be the opposite of what it is more. This gives Protestantism the dubious distinction of being the epic religion of doublespeak for the ages.

This brings me to the main thrust of my 2017 presentation. I will first explain how Protestantism continued the Dark Age with a different twist, and what needs to be done about it. I will then discuss 35 words/terms that Protestantism has redefined. When Protestant orthodoxy makes use of the term, “new birth,” how is that term really defined by its doctrine?

See you at TANC 2017, the 6th annual conference discussing gospel discernment and spiritual tyranny.

Because only truth sanctifies (John 17:17),
Paul M. Dohse
2017.ttanc.com