Paul's Passing Thoughts

A Postworthy Email on Easter Day

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

A friend of PPT sent me the following redacted email last night and the content pretty much speaks for itself. Enjoy. However, do remember that BOTH Catholics and Protestants claim Augustine as their doctrinal father.

Begin correspondence:

Good Evening Paul,
The reason I’m writing you is that I have recently purchased a reprint of a book written in 1887 by Alexander V. G. Allen a professor at Cambridge University. Professor Allen was no fan of Augustine (and therefore no fan of Calvin) and he writes a most interesting analysis of Augustine’s work. I have reproduced a couple pages of it below for you thinking you will find it of interest. A link is provided at the bottom of the quote in case you ever want to purchase the book for yourself.
Merry Easter (or Resurrection Day if you prefer)!
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
To this church it was that Augustine had been converted, although the full significance of his conversion was not at once apparent, and for years his thought was in confusion in consequence of the lingering influence of a higher theology. But from the time when he became Bishop of Hippo, the ecclesiastical leaven began to work most powerfully, and truth, as such, was no longer the object of his life. Before the Pelagian controversy began, he was seeking for some dogmatic basis by which to justify the claims of the church as a mediator between God and man, without whose intervention salvation was impossible. In so doing he was laying the cornerstone of Latin theology. When the Pelagian controversy was over, the Latin church was for the first time in possession of a theology of its own, differing at every point from the earlier Greek theology, starting from different premises and actuated throughout by another motive.[i]
 
The foundation of that theology was the Augustinian dogma of original sin. That doctrine was alone adequate to explain the existence and mediatorship of the church, or to justify its claim to teach and to rule with supreme authority. The dogma of original sin was unknown to Greek theology as well as an innovation also in Latin thought, though it had vaguely broached by Tertullian and Cyprian, and intimations looking toward it are to be found in the writings of Ambrose. According to this dogma, humanity is absolutely separated from God in consequence of Adam’s sin. In the guilt of that sin the whole human race is implicated, and has therefore fallen under the wrath and condemnation of God, — a condemnation which dooms the race, as a whole and as individuals, to everlasting woe. So deeply is Augustine interested in establishing this position, that the redemption of the world by Christ inevitably assumes a subordinate place, and is practically denied. Adam and not Christ becomes the normal man, the type and representative, the federal head of the race. There is a solidarity of mankind in sin and guilt, but not in redemption, — a solidarity in Adam, not in Christ. There stands, as it were, at the opening of the drama of human history a quasi-supernatural being, whose rebellion involves the whole human family in destruction. Endowed with a supernatural gift, — the image of God in his constitution which united him closely with his maker, — he lost it for himself and his descendants by one sinful act, and thus cut off humanity from any relationship with God. In this catastrophe, the reason, the conscience, the will of man suffered alike; the traces of the divine image in human nature were destroyed.
 
How then is the sundered relationship to be restored? What is redemption, and how is it to be applied? The place of Christ in Augustine’s scheme is not a prominent one, for humanity has not been redeemed. Augustine continues to speak of Christ, it is true, in the conventional way, but he no longer finds in His work any bond which unites God with humanity. The incarnation has become a mystery, — God chose to accomplish human salvation in this way, but as far as we can see He might have adopted some other method. It almost seems as though, if Christ were left out altogether, the scheme of Augustine would still maintain its consistency as a whole and retain its value as a working system. The reasons which led Augustine to deny the universality of redemption were the same as had influenced Gnostics and Manicheans, — he was oppressed by the sense of sin in himself, the knowledge of it in others, the appalling extent and depth of human wickedness; these things to the mind of a practical Roman made it meaningless to think or act as if humanity were redeemed to God. But when the Christian principle of redemption had been abandoned, there was only one other alternative, and that was to follow still further in Gnostic and Manichean footsteps, — to adopt the principle of an individual election by which some souls were saved out of the great mass doomed to destruction. The bond of union between this world and God is the divine will, — a will not grounded in righteousness or love, into whose mysterious ways it is vain for man to inquire, the justice of which it is presumptuous for him to discuss. That will whose arbitrary determinations constitute right, chooses some to salvation and leaves the rest to follow out the way to endless misery. In one respect the Augustinian idea of predestination diverged from the Gnostic and approximated the later Mohammedan conception, — it is a predestination which acts here and there in an arbitrary way without reference to human efforts or attainments. The clearest manifestation of the divine will in the world, which is open to the gaze of all, is the Catholic church, the one divinely appointed channel through which God has decreed that the elect are to be saved. Predestination is to a process within the church. For although Augustine believed that outside of the church none could be saved, he by no means held that all within the church would escape damnation. Although all are to be compelled to enter the church, this is only in order that the elect among them who are known only to God may obtain the grace to be found alone in the church, by which they make their election sure.
 
by Alexander V.G. Allen
pp. 156-159

 

 

 

 

4 comments

Get Over It: Calvin and Luther Propagated a Blatant False View of Justification

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

Source: Get Over It: Calvin and Luther Propagated a Blatant False View of Justification

1 comment

The Historical Transition From Home Assembly and Passover to Church and Easter

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

From Christ’s Assembly to the Institutional Church: Part 1

http://truthaboutnewcalvinism.weebly.com/vol-2015-issue-4.html

From Christ’s Assembly to the Institutional Church: Part 2

http://truthaboutnewcalvinism.weebly.com/vol-2015-issue-5.html

 

leave a comment

Five Damning Facts About Calvinism

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on April 13, 2017

Source: Five Damning Facts About Calvinism

1 comment

Is John MacArthur Totally Confused, or Simply a Liar?

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on April 12, 2017

Mac 1Yesterday, I was sent a link from a series going on at Grace to You Blog. Of late, advocating the free and civil exchange of ideas is in vogue among the Neo-Protestants. Susan and I heard this theme echoed at the recent TGC conference in Indianapolis by Kevin DeYoung.

As one who has painstakingly documented Neo-Protestantism’s claim to God’s authority by proxy for years, the need to respond to such an absurd notion; specifically, that Protestantism advocates the free exchange of ideas, is much like getting motivated for oral surgery at the dentist’s office. Nevertheless, I will take one for the team.

However, instead of comparing MacArthur’s criticism of Pentecostalism’s authority claims with his own claims of authority and thereby painting a picture of gargantuan hypocrisy, I will instead explain what is really going on here.

First, the basics. All disagreements flowing from the church in general are disagreements over different expressions of the same basic doctrines. Whether Catholicism, Protestantism, or all  other flavors that flow from church ice cream, the fundamental doctrines are exactly the same. Let me name them: collectivism and progressive justification. For that matter, even religions that are of temple worship like Hinduism and Islam are predicated on the same basic doctrines.

Collectivism is based on particular presuppositions concerning mankind and reality. Like all churchians and templetons, MacArthur is neither confused or a liar per se, but totally driven by these exact same fundamental doctrines. Am I saying that when it’s all boiled down MacArthur is little different than a Hindu priest? Pretty much.

Collectivism is the idea that mankind cannot comprehend reality. The epitome of wisdom is defined by knowing that you can’t know. Those who think they can know are defined as having a god complex and are detrimental to the world in general and the collective good of others specifically. Hence, those who know that we cannot know should rule over those who struggle with the temptation of thinking they can know, and this for the common good of mankind and its ultimate survival. In other words, individual knowing is the destroyer of wellbeing that will eventually annihilate mankind. Therefore, all collectivists whether Protestant, Catholic, or Hindu are on a mission to save mankind from itself.

For the most part, reality is interpreted through Plato’s two worlds. The material world is a totally separate existence from the invisible world. Those granted wisdom via whatever spiritual/invisible realm authority seek the best wisdom for existence in the material realm, and of course, because they have been granted this wisdom from the other realm they should be vested with rulership over the great unwashed.

Farfetched? Keep these basic principles in mind and go to church on any given Sunday and listen carefully. Pay attention for a change and you might be surprised. Though the religious systems for our best material realm life now are innumerable, Protestantism claims an “objective” truth. What is that “objective” truth? All reality is interpreted through Christ’s redemptive act for the glory and self-love of God and this “truth” is “experienced subjectively.” It’s an ingenious system that posits Plato’s two world philosophy as objective truth. Sure, you can know something: here it is; “I know nothing but Christ and him crucified.” Reality, according to Protestantism, is a metaphysical movie produced by God to reveal one thing only: God’s holiness as set against mankind’s total depravity. The goal of all reality is a greater revelation regarding the dichotomy between mankind and God. Accordingly, you may note that the logical conclusion is the same outcome of all collectivist religions that make up the vast majority.

Now, Aristotle confused things a little. He made authority into authority light by making expertism a synonym for authority. Aristotle believed that the material world reflects reality in totality. Man can know reality. That glass sitting on the table is really a glass. A=A. Man can ascertain knowledge of reality through empirical observation and study. However, those who do the hard work of study and are able to comprehend should rule over the ignorant. This is where we get the following: “Dr. John Doe is a leading authority on…[fill in the particular discipline].” Unlike Platonism, authority is not mandated by force, but you are deemed an idiot if you do not obey the experts. This is why expertism is so prevalent in Western culture. Until Americanism came upon the world scene, freedom to ascertain reality for yourself could get you executed and often did. In contrast, Americanism didn’t go far enough with individualism; you are not executed for daring to think for yourself, but you are looked upon as ignorant. It’s character assassination versus physical assassination, and those who do the challenging work of study are rewarded with higher pay, attractive spouses, spacious living abodes, and collective accolades.

Either way, it’s a caste system. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that America’s tacit node towards individualism completely turned the world upside down for the better. It is fair to say that the historical metaphysical pendulum swung from Platonism to Aristotelism, but in regard to religion is swinging back to Platonism. And by the way, this issue, Plato verses Aristotle, and collectivism verses individualism is what sparked the Protestant Reformation. That’s just plain historical fact. If you believe that freedom of religion and sola scriptura sparked the Protestant Reformation, I have some oceanfront property in Xenia, Ohio that I would like to sell you.

Speaking to the secular realm, not so much; Brexit and the election of Donald Trump signifies a rejection of expertism in exchange for collective individualism, or the ability of the individual versus “total inability.” At least in the secular realm, we may be seeing a movement that will go beyond Americanism. This probably poses an opportunity for the home fellowship movement which is greatly hindered by the idea of expertism. Home fellowships promote the idea of individuals contributing spiritual gifts to a body that is led, not ruled over by experts or those claiming authority over individual conscience in the name of God.

This brings us to the second fundamental, progressive justification. This is the basic soteriology of all religions. Why? Because if the new birth changes the individual’s state of being to a literal child of God and a family heir to Christ’s kingdom, where does that leave mere men regarding knowledge and authority? Answer: totally out in the cold with no clothing. In addition, authoritative institutional religion must have what we call reoccurring monthly revenue (RMR) to support infrastructure where the gods or cosmic authorities over men meet to dole out salvation on the installment plan. Salvation becomes a lifelong goal instead of being spiritually birthed into God’s family as a onetime finished, and permanent transaction. This lends no authority whatsoever to men claiming coregency with God.

So, MacArthur et al are not confused or lying per se, but are practicing Platonism’s “noble lie.” What they teach is driven by trending “concerns” coming from the great unwashed herd. Of late, it’s the idea that the church doesn’t tolerate critical thinking. What in the world might give them that idea? Therefore, the herd is calmed by statements of crass contradiction. Regardless of the obvious, MacArthur is the expert. Any contradictions must be “truth masquerading as a contradiction” otherwise known as “paradox.”

paul

8 comments