Christianity Has a Serious Law Problem
In 1983, primarily because of the investment in my life by a professing Christian, I decided that I wanted to be with God and walk with God. There was a strong sense in which I wanted to exchange the life I had for a new life—one that had hope. Even in my confusion, I think God honored my desire for this new life in Him; I think I was truly born again.
However, my relationship with the church was always an uneasy one. I always knew something wasn’t right. When I presented the evangelical canned gospel about “original sin,” I was never entirely comfortable with it. I did my duty and shared the “gospel,” but I really didn’t feel at ease with the presentation. Why? I think the video below offers a few suggestions to think about.
This whole idea that Adam broke a covenant with God and Christ came to restore the covenant doesn’t hold water and worse yet, the foundation of church is predicated on this idea. As Western followers of God, I think we know very, very little about the truth of the gospel, and for the most part only know what others want us to know for errant agendas. I think most truly born again Christians were/are confused enough to be saved by the skin of their teeth.
This is the mission focus of TANC ministries; we are striving for the laity to rise up and seize their calling to be learned disciples. It is a calling to freely pursue our individual priesthood and life more abundant. It is a call to break free from the shackles of the institutional church and its elitist scholarship. It is a call to stop funding a lie with hard earned money. It is a call to aggressive love that doesn’t wait for permission. It is a call to see God glorified in living out real truth. It is a call to a life of power without the feigning of human manipulation and slick multi-media propaganda.
I think TANC ministries has pointed out some very basic fundamentals, but there is much more work to be done; this work must be done by the collective efforts of Spirit-filled born again Christians.
Our starting point begins with a contention: justification/righteousness/salvation is by new birth—NOT law. Jesus did not come to restore a covenant; He came to make a way for man to escape his present life of death and find new life as a literal child of God. Protestantism has redefined the new birth and exchanged it with a quadity: the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the Law. It is a religion that has Jesus bowing before a throne and offering His perfect works to the Law. It is a religion that crucifies Jesus again and again at the church temple when we “offer the perfect work of Jesus in the empty hand of faith” instead of our own living sacrifice of love flowing from new creaturehood. Salvation is not a mere legal declaration; it is a state of being.
I am confident that the laity will arise in these last days and seize their true calling. And I am confident that many like the skeptic in the below video will see a truth that makes logical sense. They will inquire when they see our obedient love as living sacrifice to God Almighty; not the sharing of His glory with the law-god of manmade tradition.
We invite you to join us in this journey; an exodus from law to life.
Paul Dohse
TANC Ministries
Deb, Dee, and Wade; Partying Like It’s 1999
WadeWatch.com has become so indicative of what the Bible says to be aware of in the last days. Let me clarify how the Bible defines the “last days.” It is the last age among ages. It is a period of time marked by the death and resurrection of Christ in its beginning, and an ending that is marked by the imminent return of Christ to redeem all believers dead and alive who belong to this age.
The Bible is clear: this age or what the Bible calls the “last days” will be marked by deception and lust-driven ideology—mostly in the name of God. While Deb and Dee constantly present themselves as bastions of apostolic truth, what they believe is at times bizarre and often pontificated by their in-house prophet Wade Burleson.
Recently, a blogger asked me to review his research on WadeWatch.com and post it. That’s not going to happen, but on the other hand, I find some of his research to be…well, it is what it is. What said blogger writes about is just too far from the TANC/PPT theme, but again, a lot of his research speaks for itself and that’s what this post is about.
It’s about institutional authority as truth. It’s true because Wade Burleson is an ordained Southern Baptist philosopher king. I have said it before and frankly I remain resolute: if Al Mohler, Wade Burleson, or any other evangelical philosopher king proclaimed salvation by eating green frogs, the Protestant herd would buy it while Catholics would object to green frogs having preeminence over the Pope. Burleson can proclaim anything he wants to via Deb and Dee’s E-Church—the Kool-Aid drinking Wade-watchers will buy into it.
Burleson vigorously endorses a long list of eccentric Christian mystics including Jon Zens, Dallas Willard, and William Paul Young. Zens is one of the core-four that founded the present-day New Calvinist movement which WadeWatch.com purports to be its primary nemeses. This is but one example of the prevailing cognitive dissonance taking place at WadeWatch.com.
Burleson teaches that God is both male and female, and per his custom, takes liberties with the languages to make his point:
According to Wade Burleson, “In the Old Testament, El Shaddai is given as one of the names for God. El Shaddai means ‘The God with breasts’ or even more precisely ‘The God with many breasts.’ (L) El Shaddai actually means God Almighty.
“Pronounced el-shadY, this is the best-known of the “EL” compound names. It means The All-Sufficient One, and in English bibles as “God Almighy,” “the Almighty,” or “Almighty God.” (L)
Wade Burleson cites a perversion of Genesis 49:25 to make his case:
“God possesses all the wonderful and good attributes of men and women. For example:
“I am God, your father, who supports you, the Shaddai who blesses you with blessings from the skies above and from the deep sea below, blessings from breasts (shadayim) and the womb (Genesis 49:25).” (L)
Wade Burleson teaches that Jesus Christ Is Michael, the Archangel.
The following quotes have been taken from Wade Burleson’s post, “At That Time Michael … Shall Arise:” The Basis for Your Trust of the Gospel:
“Michael, the Son of God and Savior of the world, has come.” (L)
“Michael is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior and Defender of His People.” (L)
The following quotes have been taken from Wade Burleson’s, Michael Is a Name for the Son of God Himself, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
“‘Michael’ is another name for the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal second Person of the Trinity…”
“We have thus a proof, drawn from Scripture, that Michael is a name for the Son of God himself.”
“From all this it is evident, that Michael is a name for our Lord himself…”
“We observe, further, that the very name, Michael, is an appropriate name for our Lord, and for him alone.”
Of course, this parallels the doctrines of the Jehovah Witnesses which are often aped by Jon Zens as well. And again, don’t let this escape you: Burleson claims Zens as his mentor while he is the Pastor of Deb and Dee’s E-Church who claim to be the number one apologists against New Calvinism; Zens is one of the founding fathers of New Calvinism.
Burleson holds to all of the fundamental Reformed doctrines from which spiritual abuse flows. While Deb and Dee fancy themselves as advocates for the spiritually abused, their pastor endorses every fundamental Reformed doctrine that creates abuse in the institutional church. His eccentric teachings are just the icing on the party cake.
Yet, the following at WadeWatch.com is pretty much off the chart; it is indicative of this age, and that party is just getting started. I predict things there in the future that one cannot even make up in their wildest imaginations.
When authority is truth, there is no end to the party favors.
paul
The Orlando Massacre is Primarily a Political Problem, Not a Moral One
Play it again Sam. After the recent terrorist attack at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, the Europeanesque ensemble begins. “We are Orlando,” and even one I saw on Facebook: “Today, we are all gay.” Arighty then. This is typical, as the fact that it was a gay bar is all but completely irrelevant. Collective ignorance once again strips all identity meat off the bone to fuel therapeutic escapades worldwide; circumstances merely dictate the theme echoed by those holding the candles. So, it begs the question: how can holding candles prevent the future slaughter of people trying to perform life? It can’t, regardless of how many attend the ritual.
Play it again Sam. President Obama, like so many leaders pontificating what has become a cliché, commended Americans as a resilient people who can “absorb” this unfortunate tragedy. Our FBI director echoed more of the same by exhorting us to not “give in to fear”; golly gee, if we do that, “the terrorists win.” This, apparently, is the remedy: get as many people as you can together and hold candles as a way to show the terrorists that we refuse to be afraid to perform life. Oh, and don’t forget; be gay for one day. Be French for one day, etc., etc. Since the supposed primary goal of terrorism is fear, if we refuse to be afraid, the terrorists will quit and go home. How’s it workin’ for us?
As a political Libertarian and biblical religionist, I leave judgement to God on personal issues and strongly endorse political action that frees humanity to pursue life, happiness, and choice. Since God has always given people freedom to either fear Him or not fear Him, far be it from me to demand that they fear Him though I think it’s a really good idea to do so. Therefore, this massacre once again reminds us, or should remind us, that the bigger issue is political and not as much moral though the moral is never far away.
Perhaps the most ignorant truism pontificated by mankind is, “Two things you never talk about in public are politics and religion.” Politics pertain to the present execution of life; religion pertains to eternal life, so ya, let’s not talk about those things. Brilliant. Take for example our indifference towards educating our children about economics; um, economics have been used to massacre more people than guns or spears would ever venture to. For one example among myriads, take a gander at China’s “Great leap Forward” economic stimulus plan that killed about 45 million people in four years. AR 15’s are the problem? Really?
Ok, so shooting people for giggles is naughty, and being gay is naughty, but one’s politics is personal preference? We have that all backwards, and the core problem is very simple: individualism versus collectivism; this is the political element. This is a discussion about man’s state of being, and the politics that determine applied ethics resulting from our presuppositions concerning mankind.
Is the individual capable? Or does the individual need to be ruled over by elitists for the collective good? Does politics cause you to constantly scratch your head? This metaphysical question regarding presuppositions about mankind explains everything. Everything political flows from this question. Politics, whether you want to come to grips with it or not, will determine whether or not your morals are dressed up with no place to go.
Let’s apply this principle to terrorism which usually relies on soft targets. Not knowing who is packing heat in any given public gathering presents a huge problem for terrorists of all stripes. Apparently, at Pulse, not one of the approximately 300 patrons were packing. Wow. In school shootings, armed teachers would obviously present a huge problem for an active shooter. So, what seems to be the problem? Answer: if you are a collectivist, everyday folks carrying guns around is far more terrifying than terrorism. It is far better for 49 gay people to take a hit for the team; for the “collective good.” You see, if everyday people are allowed to carry guns around, wholesale chaos will supposedly ensue even though it never has. We don’t want any solutions that would lead to more death than what terrorists are doling out. That is obviously the reasoning.
In politics, it is a simple question: is stateism the answer to every problem? Who owns man? Does man own man, or does the state own man for the sake of the “collective good.” And who owns truth? If the state owns truth—you have no right to believe anything without the state’s permission. Where does the ownership end?
But the picture gets bigger. An armed populous makes it very difficult for any government to have their way with the people. In case you haven’t noticed, the people always outnumber the ruling class. So, a government that does not have an individual-focus needs to control the great unwashed masses through first, thought control, then…well, fear, what they accuse terrorists of. Be sure of this: the government’s aversion towards an armed public also extends to every area of life including what you use for toothpaste and who you have sex with because as an individual you are completely unable.
This simple fact is why the United States of America is the greatest force for good that the world has ever known. For the first time in world history, a group of men said “no” to stateism, and “yes” to a government formed BY the people and FOR the people; in essence, a government for the individual. This is predicated on the belief that the individual is capable.
No, I am not gay, not even for a day. But many gays are certainly capable. In fact, most of them. We all win or lose by the way we choose, but we all have this in common: stateists want to take our choice—they want to take our freedom. For certain, as one example among many, they will give gay people legal rights, but what about the right to live? When you embrace someone who claims to be your advocate, be sure to ask yourself this: on what basis are they claiming to help you? Is it because you are pathetic and cannot survive without their help? Or is it based solely on respect for individual freedom and reverence for the individual? To know one’s worldview is to know one’s motives. Before you side with any politician, know what their view of mankind is…know their philosophy regarding state of being.
Symbolism over substance; ie., candle holding and being someone else for a day as opposed to protecting one’s right to do life is the issue, and a political one at that. As a Biblicist, I want the freedom to persuade someone and I want them to have the freedom to respond; stateism will eventually prevent both. Watch out for any worldview that deems a person’s right to live in accordance with their contribution to the group and its supposed collective good as determined by ruling elitists.
That’s politics, and it decides who will judge what moralism is. It will decide who defines morals: you or the state.
paul
Galatians 5:22,23; Those Under Law Cannot Understand Love
A good way to lend more understanding to the New Testament is to study present-day Calvinism. All in all, Calvinism, especially Neo-Calvinism, is identical to the Gnosticism that wreaked havoc on the first-century assemblies.
If you are a Protestant and a Calvinist in particular, your love is anemic at best because there is a law against your love. What is that law? Perfection. See, since your love is imperfect because you are mortal; your love is illegitimate. So, why bother when it gets right down to it?
The love you practice in this material world is a mere shadow of the perfect form of love in the spiritual realm; this is/was the Neo-Platonism of the first century known as Gnosticism. Like in our day regarding evangelicalism, this philosophy had completely taken over the Jewish religious culture during the time that Christ and His apostles ministered. In fact, Gnosticism is really the root ideology of evangelicalism.
This is behind Paul’s statement in Galatians, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.”
I was reminded of this during a discourse I had recently with a Calvinist on Facebook. I brought up a few of many Bible passages that completely dismantle the foundations of Protestant soteriology; specifically, those that state the following: love fulfills the whole law. Calvinists are quick to bring up passages stating that one violation of law violates the whole law as Calvin does in 3.14.10 of his Institutes, but then disregard passages that state the contrast. And that’s what the Bible does deliberately; it states two contrasts to make a point about being under law versus being under grace.
Since Calvinism’s view of man is fundamentally Gnostic, and man is of the material realm, there can be no good in man or of man, and certainly no man can do a good work. So, supposedly, according to Calvinism, God uses the “righteous demands of the law for perfect law-keeping” to make this point. Therefore, there is a law against OUR love because our love is imperfect; only Jesus’ love fulfills the law because His love is perfect.
So, in regard to where the Bible states that “OUR” love fulfills the law; the following argument is waged: that’s really talking about Jesus’s substitutionary law-keeping applied to sanctification by faith alone in the same gospel that saved us, or “living by the gospel.” We can’t really love; the law is against our love because we can’t keep it perfectly. But in contrast, Paul states that there is NO law against love or any other fruit of the Spirit. And another point needs to be made here; in the Bible, “perfection” usually refers to “maturity” and not perfect law-keeping to begin with. This is just another example of the Reformed plenary redefinition of biblical words, terms, and concepts.
It’s interesting; when I cited the Bible to make my case for the law being fulfilled by us through love, the following discourse ensued:
Now, if you read all of Galatians 5, this Facebook discourse fits the context of the argument to a “T.” In context, “circumcision” may represent the law. The Judaizes relaxed applicable law-keeping as love because their rituals fulfilled the “righteous demands of the law” not love. Paul not only mentions circumcision, but the recognition of days etc. elsewhere. This is why Paul states,
“Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”
This is absolutely no different than Protestantism which forgoes obedient love through some ritual that fulfills the law instead of the “believer.” Paul says, NO, the individual is culpable for obeying the whole law IF one is justified by it. For the Judaizes, it was circumcision and the recognition of days etc.; for Protestants it is returning to the same gospel that saved you perpetually in order for the obedience of Jesus to fulfill the law, but that is still…“you who would be justified by the law.” Who keeps it is not the point. And whatever the system, it ALWAYS leads to the same results:
“For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh.”
Look, if the standard for love is perfect law-keeping, how obvious is it that the prescribed ritual is going to replace the work of obedient love leading to a living by the flesh, viz, obeying the desires of sin which resides in mortality? This is Paul’s entire point in Galatians 5. This issue effectively explains every foul testimony taking place in the Protestant institutional church; it has merely replaced justification by the law via Judaism with “preaching the gospel to ourselves every day” so Jesus’ love will stand in for us and keep us saved via the law. It’s absolutely NO different. But who is to do the loving? Who is to do the obeying? Answer:
“You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?”
What must take place instead of the fulfillment of the law through ritual? Paul explains:
“And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”
That’s the baptism of the Spirit. That’s the death of the old you that is no longer under the law. You may coincide that with this…
As Protestants, former Protestants, and recovering Protestants, this is difficult to get our minds around because of what has been drilled into our heads for almost 600 years, but it is really just another form of good old fashioned justification by the law. This is why the Protestant is confused by Hebrews 11 which explains obedient love versus justification by perfect law-keeping.
paul
The Science of Debating a Calvinist; What You Must Know, Part 1
Today 6/11/2016 Live @ 3:00 pm. Live Program Link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/falsereformation/2016/06/11/the-science-of-debating-a-calvinist-what-you-must-know-part-1
Sometime prior to the airing on 5/28/2016, I took part in a pre-recorded Q and A with Reformed theologian Dr. James White. This was hosted by Justin Brierley of the UK radio show “Unbelievable” on Premier Christian radio.
The host rightly identified our contention with the Protestant Reformation: the false gospel of progressive justification. During the Q and A, Dr. James White used deceptive communication techniques common among Reformed scholars.
The purpose of this program is to identify those techniques, and the substance of his false gospel.
Prior to the Q and A, the host and James White were presented with the following memo:
7 Yes or No Questions For James White
Also, the program transcript: J. White processed vid (2)
TANC Ministries 6/7/2016.
2 comments