TANC Takes A Hit Via False Representation: My Response and Clarification
After building my whole life around a church over a twenty-year period, I lost every “friend” I had at the time, my wife of 24 years whom I led to the Lord, and the privilege of living with my son, because I contended with the elders of that church over a different doctrine they brought into the assembly. Though the event was extremely unfortunate, it was the final leg of a broken road that has brought me to a blessed place.
In this blessed place, I am married to a real wife, understand real truth, and have real friends. The events of this week also remind me of something: when some disagree with you; it would seem they don’t think you deserve friends because you disagree with them. It is sort of funny how they bid you farewell in a seemingly classy way, wishing you the best of luck, after turning others against you.
There are more divisive ideologies out in the world than one can shake a stick at, but I customarily focus on the most significant; that is, until one in particular causes me to lose friends. And biblically speaking, falsehoods are always divisive. Where there is falsehood, there is division and broken relationships. Always.
This post will address events that have taken place this week within TANC Ministries, and center on a former friend of this ministry, Zack Vandermeer, the author of unreformingtheology.com and Melancholy Acoustic which focuses on “sad music being therapeutic.” One reason I want to address this issue is because Zack propagated a falsehood against this ministry that we hear often. It goes something like this: while TANC opposes Protestantism and Calvinism in particular, we really believe the same thing. And additionally, my treatment of other people proves that I bear the same fruit as well. Apparently, this was confirmed in the minds of others last week when I supposedly endorsed Ted Cruz who supposedly advocates the carpet bombing of innocent women and children, a policy that any self-respecting Calvinist would agree to.
How does Zack conclude that I am an unwitting Calvinist? I can only cite his own writings. In an article titled, “No! The Bible is NOT the Standard of Truth: A response to Paul Dohse” posted on his blog April 15, 2014, he states the following:
Now, I say “startling” because the theological/philosophical implications of such a declaration are so massive that if Paul means this as strictly and literally as it sounds, then he has made his entire anti-Calvinist argument moot. And that means that everything he writes and everything he thinks and everything he believes with respect to Calvinism being a false gospel is irrelevant. If he truly believes that the standard of Truth is an edict outside of man’s life then he has ceded the entire Calvinist argument, replacing one false gospel with another.
Although this very serious indictment against me, pretty much totally dismissing all of my convictions and labors of eight years, took place in April of 2014, Susan and I continued to cover this statement and many others like it with love and patience. Zack’s argument follows:
The truth is there is absolutely no rational argument for any standard of Truth outside of man’s life. Period. Full stop. There is no logical defense…such a notion is pure mysticism, and demands that man sacrifice what he IS (his life and the context of his SELF) for that which he is NOT (i.e. a standard of Truth OUTSIDE of his life). This is the singular premise which forms the foundation of every cult of death, be it Communism (or other sundry forms of economic collectivism), Calvinism, monarchism, tribalism, racism, etc., etc.
This is why I am concerned that Paul would make such an egregious statement. Indeed, if Paul really believes that the efficacious existence (truth) of ALL things must be vetted by the Bible, then all he has done is replaced “law” with “Bible”. He rails against the Calvinists for demanding that the keeping of the law is the means of justification, while at the same time ceding the philosophical assumption which under-girds such an idea: Truth is outside of man. He replaces “law” with “Bible”. How do you know if you are TRUE? (And the flip side of that is GOOD.) Your truth and good are a direct function of you integrating yourself into the commands of the “standard of Truth”, the Bible.
Bible-keeping is Paul’s law-keeping. And the rest of his argument is meaningless.
The Calvinists win.
Interestingly enough, those who parted ways with us this week used the same terminology for their reasoning, especially the whole “cult of death” thing. But at any rate, where is TANC being misrepresented here? Notice that Zack totally excludes a principle strongly emphasized by TANC Ministries: the ability of humankind to reason. Simply stated, it is true that authentic Protestant orthodoxy rejects an inner ability by man to reason and ascertain truth that comes from God. In essence, according to Protestant orthodoxy, all understanding must be gifted to people when preordained by God.
TANC does not believe that at all, but moreover, and as stated in numerous posts on this ministry’s blog, paulspassingthoughts.com, we believe that the law of God is also INSIDE of man. In other words, because man is created in the image of God, His common truth is self-evident to all men. Therefore, people have the ability and freewill to choose God, but many deliberately suppress this inner truth in unrighteousness. This is diametrically opposed to Calvinism.
Indeed, Calvinism does promote the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us, but for crying out loud, I define that doctrine and refute it in The Truth About New Calvinism. I think something like four chapters address the subject.
To Zack, because of his Idealism Philosophy, which I will not delve into here, anything apart from man and outside of him rejects the very existence of man, or at least his right to exist, as you may read for yourself in the post cited.
Zack’s method of reasoning on this issue is patently absurd, but the damage is done. Nevertheless, it is a lesson well learned; when bearing with others in ministry, you need to know when to hold ’em, and when to fold ’em.
paul
The Secular “Sunday Assembly” Movement Makes Perfect Sense
There is a growing movement worldwide called “Sunday Assembly.” If you go to the movement’s website, sundayassembly.com, you discover the following:
“The Sunday Assembly was started by Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans, two comedians who were on the way to a gig in Bath when they discovered they both wanted to do something that was like church but totally secular and inclusive of all—no matter what they believed. The first ever Sunday Assembly meeting took place on January 6th 2013 at The Nave in Islington. Almost 200 people turned up at the first meeting, 300 at the second and soon people all over the world asked to start one. Now there are 68 Sunday Assembly chapters in 8 different countries where people sing songs, hear inspiring talks, and create community together. Why do we exist? Life is short, it is brilliant, it is sometimes tough, we build communities that help everyone live life as fully as possible.”
The movement, sometimes reported as “atheist church,” is growing fast enough to get the attention of many major media outlets such as NPR. The public charter follows:
The Sunday Assembly is a godless congregation that celebrates life. Our motto: live better, help often, wonder more. Our mission: to help everyone find and fulfill their full potential. Our vision: a godless congregation in every town, city and village that wants one…
- Is 100% celebration of life. We are born from nothing and go to nothing. Let’s enjoy it together.
- Has no doctrine. We have no set texts so we can make use of wisdom from all sources.
- Has no deity. We don’t do supernatural but we also won’t tell you you’re wrong if you do.
- Is radically inclusive. Everyone is welcome, regardless of their beliefs – this is a place of love that is open and accepting.
- Is free to attend, not-for-profit and volunteer run. We ask for donations to cover our costs and support our community work.
- Has a community mission. Through our Action Heroes (you!), we will be a force for good.
- Is independent. We do not accept sponsorship or promote outside businesses, organisations or services
- Is here to stay. With your involvement, The Sunday Assembly will make the world a better place
- We won’t won’t tell you how to live, but will try to help you do it as well as you can
- And remember point 1… The Sunday Assembly is a celebration of the one life we know we have.
This kind of group makes perfect sense because the church has completely hijacked the Bible and used it for a doctrine of spiritual caste. Because of the way church defines individualism, bad fruit will incite people to leave church in search of something else that will give them hope. Obviously, this movement is about individual journey and feeling good about life in the process. In contrast, the church is all about the inability of man, and complete submission to church authority for purposes of obtaining eternal life. Reported responses by clergy are most telling:
“I can see why people would agree with what they are hearing because a lot of us are lonely and seeking something larger,” said Wittmer, a professor of systematic theology at the Grand Rapids Theological Seminary at Cornerstone University. “The question is what do they believe in? They might be catching the wave of a culture, but what does it mean in the end? To me, they’re leaving out the most important part.”
In church, that means letting the “biblical scholars” tell you what to believe. And if it just doesn’t add up in your mind, well, check your conscience at the door because you are totally depraved and must not “lean on your own understanding.” Humanity was willing to go with that for about 1700 years, but the church hasn’t delivered anything from that idea other than more death and misery. In the same article, Wittmer reveals one aspect of the problem:
Wittmer maintains the absence of a religious faith and a commitment to autonomy presents problems. He wonders how the group will settle conflicts should they develop, issues traditional congregations solve by looking to clergy and religious texts.
Get the picture? An organized group of people utilizing leadership without authority in a spiritual caste system will lead to chaos. This is due to the church’s presuppositions concerning mankind. The church has effectively hijacked the Bible and rewritten it according to Plato’s, The Republic. This movement, and church, represent two extremes. The only problem is this: the church has defined the Bible as such in the minds of most.
The truth follows: The Bible looks more like Sunday Assembly in regard to individualism and presuppositions regarding humankind. God has never imposed His truth on anyone. He offers life, and freewill to choose. He offers life more abundantly in the here and now, and eternal life in the end. Death, and death more abundantly in the here and now, and ultimately eternal death, is a choice people make on their own accord.
A lot could be said here about the fact that real Christian life is found somewhere in the middle between church and Sunday Assembly, but I will end with this: The latter has the correct presuppositions in regard to humankind and life-value, but is missing the boat in regard to a definitive truth. This is key: the definitive truth is there, but the individual alone is culpable before God and must be persuaded in his or her own mind.
That’s what a true believing community does; it is a cooperative organized venture to obtain one mind of truth as each is persuaded.
paul
Protestant and Catholic Progressive Justification
Both Protestantism and Catholicism hold to progressive justification. This is the idea that salvation is a process, and not a onetime completed event that redirects the believer to focus on representing God’s characteristics in life. Salvation is a gift, life is a reward. Protestantism and Catholicism both make salvation the reward for persevering in church orthodoxy.
With Protestantism and Catholicism, salvation cannot be finished, nor an individual matter between people and God, or the church would have no cause to be supported as an institutional industrial complex. In order for their massive institutions to be supported financially, they must claim God’s authority in overseeing the salvation of humanity.
Protestants claim that the Reformation was necessary because of the issue of “infused grace.” Luther and Calvin believed that all righteousness remains outside of the “believer.” The new birth, as defined by Protestantism, is a mere ability to perceive “truth” while doing no good work. Mortal sin (unforgivable) results if one thinks any person can do a good work. Venial sin (forgivable) results if it is believed that any person, whether saved or unsaved, can do no good work. Venial sin can be forgiven by the “means of grace” found only in the church.
Catholicism believes that the new birth enables the individual to cooperate with the church in finishing salvation. The individual is infused with God’s righteousness and can do good works. Mortal sin is sin committed by those outside of the church. Venial sin can be forgiven through the means of grace found in the church whether Protestant or Catholic. However, in Catholicism, the person actually grows in righteousness. In the end, Purgatory finishes the process, and in fact, makes the person perfect enough to obtain eternal life and enter into heaven. Only members of the Catholic church qualify to enter Purgatory.
Church doctrine is therefore the essence of sin because sin is a master that seeks to control humanity through condemnation (Genesis 4:7). If “believers” still need salvation, they are not free to love without fear of condemnation.
In truth, salvation is finished, and yes, we do “move on to something else” where sin is the exception and not the rule. We are not under law and its demands, but rather under grace and free to fulfill the law through love. The motive of the true believer is love—not law-keeping in regard to orthodoxy.
Achieving Total Conquest Over Depression, Part 4: Paul and Susan Christian Living Series on Blogtalk Radio Program 6
Live Broadcast link for tonight 2/5/2016 @ 7pm:
Links open in separate pages so you can view without going back and forth reopening pages.
Paul and Susan will have a conversation regarding practical ways to overcome depression. The conversation will focus on the article, “10 Small Steps You Can Take Today to Improve Bipolar Disorder” by Margarita Tartakovsky M.S. Paul will also comment on information sent to him by PPT readers and Blogtalk listeners.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/10-small-steps-you-can-take-today-to-improve-bipolar-disorder/
Of course, everything starts with a proper view of salvation. Assurance of salvation is foundational to “being much more than conquerors” (Romans 8:37). We want to start by discussing these documents sent to us.
1. Justification-Hyper Grace-Trinitarian %231 (1)
3. Justificaton-Hyper Grace-Trinitarian %232
4. Misused Scripture to Support Trinitarian Theology
5. Justification-Hyper Grace-Trinitarian %233
Also in regard to the gospel:
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2011/01/gospel-defined-part-1.html
Fear and Depression:
http://wutbju.tumblr.com/post/137409149400/on-monday-september-28-2015-at-approximately
Marriage and Bipolar Disorder: 1Corinthians 7:12-14
Self Condemnation and Self Esteem.
Calvinist Husbands Need to Shape Up or Be Shipped Out
Written by PPT/TANC Publishing ghostwriter one.
1Corinthians 7:10 – To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Susan and I, for some time, have been presented with opportunities to counsel women married to Calvinists. Not confused Calvinists who are often confused enough to be good guys, but Calvinists that really understand what a Calvinist is and act like one. Nor are we writing about women who are Calvinist queens and couldn’t be happier. Happiness is a good thing; we are called to it. Look, if some gal is happy being married to an ISIS guy, more power to her—life is about choices. Don’t misunderstand me, that is only an analogy; I am not sure, but I don’t think I have ever compared Calvinism to ISIS.
Rather, we are referring to women in marriages where Calvinism is the crux of the issue. In some of these situations, the wife has been brought up on church discipline and declared an unbeliever. That is totally unacceptable, and grounds for immediate biblical divorce. Let me explain.
The thing that I like most about my life is that I am constantly learning, and would like to think that learning is leading to change. Something strange also happens when you are in a learning mode; you are completely comfortable not knowing stuff. If you are in the process of learning, you know what you don’t understand will come into focus eventually. So, we are about to look at 1Corithians 7:10-16, and some of it I understand, and some of it I don’t. This is about what I do understand.
What I do understand came together through these counseling experiences, my recent gig as an HHA, and the word of God. My recent experience as an HHA caused me to take a closer look at 1Corinthians 7:13 in context with the rest of the chapter. In recent history, “’deinstitutionalization,’ the policy of closing state mental institutions,” has led to mental patients being dumped into the realm of HHA care. Hence, HHAs are often saddled unawares, perhaps because of medical disclosure laws, with individuals who would have been institutionalized in the past.
My first two clients where Bipolar ODD/PAPD individuals. That’s Oppositional Defiant Disorder, or Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder. Basically, every minute of the day, anything that involves conversation is a debate. These people suck the peace and civility out of every environment that they enter into. When these people were institutionalized, psych aids could deal with them because they were labeled and everyone understood why they (patient and aid) were in the situation and what needed to be done. The aid could simply ignore their verbal abuse and was not obligated to please them in any way, shape, or form because the institutionalized individual’s rights were taken away.
In context of HHA care, the aid is obligated to please a serial abuser, and their job will probably depend on it. I have already heard the horror stories of young single women suffering the verbal abuse day after day in order to support their children. In my own experience, these people have wreaked havoc on my own personal wellbeing. When you are with these clients, you walk on eggshells the whole day, and any conversation =’s conflict. You don’t sneeze, you don’t yawn, you don’t use their bathroom, you don’t chuckle because of something they are watching on TV, you don’t say that you like their dog, or their cat, everything you say or do is an issue or the rewriting of the Declaration of Independence.
And here now, finally, is my point in context: one such client is a faithful church attender and professing Christian husband married to another professing Christian. I never met her as she works a lot of hours; go figure. Apparently, she found a job as a live-in nanny somewhere. Well, I would imagine. As a professing Christian, is she biblically obligated to remain married to this man? I don’t think she is for four biblical reasons:
- She may treat him as an unbeliever because of his fruit that obviously comes from a bad tree.
- He is only pleased to live with her for unbiblical reasons.
- She is called to peace.
- She does not know for certain that she will ever be able to lead him to the Lord, and is not obligated to sacrifice her call to peace accordingly.
Please don’t misunderstand me; I don’t think I have ever compared a Calvinist to someone Bipolar or ODD/PAPD. However, on the flip side, the idea that a spouse who has been brought up on church discipline not having any rights as a spouse does sound familiar.
The windcock of this conversation is verse 13. “If” in this context is a conditional noun used with “and” stating two conditions: an unbelieving spouse that is “pleased”(KJV) to live with a believing spouse. It’s a conditional clause—if the opposite is true, so is the condition, and the imperative. However, in this case, “not enslaved” (v.15) denotes liberty, and not an opposite imperative. Even though the believing spouse is not obligated to remain married to the unbeliever if he/she is not “pleased,” “willing” or “happy” (NET) to live with the believer, divorce is a matter of liberty and not a command. However, if the unbeliever is pleased to live with the believer, he/she “should not divorce.”
“Divorce” is the decision at hand. But, in regard to a decision to stay with the displeased unbeliever, one of the benefits is NOT “the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” While I do not know exactly what this benefit means, I do know that in context it does NOT apply to a displeased unbelieving spouse, but only to a pleased unbelieving spouse. In other words, this benefit will not be reaped by the believing spouse sacrificing the following: “God has called you to peace.” This benefit only takes place in a peaceful situation.
We now hone in on the word, “consent” (ESV). Uh, this kind of puts forth the idea that the unbeliever may agree to live with the believer for a myriad of different reasons and the believer is thereby enslaved to the marriage. In regard to the idea put forth by the word “consent” in context, and in regard to how I have counseled women in the past, I now say, “nope.” This is another thing about learning mode, admitting you were wrong isn’t as hard. Let’s look at the actual word:
4909 syneudokéō (from 4862 /sýn, “identity with” and 2106 /eudokéō, “seems good”) – properly, to consent in a “hearty” (personal) way, in keeping with the close identification involved (note the syn);enthusiastically agree to cooperate with a partner to reach solutions, i.e. to achieve the things both have committed to do together.
This is why the word is often translated “pleased” or “happy” in many English translations. It’s the idea of being in agreement with each other. It has the idea of being happily on the same page regarding life in general. This does not include any sordid reason under the sun that an unbeliever might “consent” to living with a believer.
But, isn’t this qualified by the unbeliever deciding to divorce? “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases, the brother or sister is not enslaved.” I believe that “But” marks a contrast and comparison between a qualified situation and the likely mentality of a believer: “If I endeavor to stay with this person no matter what, God can use me to save them.” Paul’s answer to that is, “For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” yes, it could happen, as it did with my grandmother 36 years later, but it’s not guaranteed.
Furthermore, it is very questionable as to whether or not “But” is the actual first word of verse 15 which seems to qualify the deciding factors for verses 12 and 13. In most interlinears, verse 15 abruptly begins with another “If” denoting another situation altogether. This is a situation where the unbeliever is obviously displeased about living with the believer, and decides to divorce or separate. A few English translations note this and leave out “But” in exchange for “Yet” (ERV) and “If” (WNT). The YLT even adds more delineation by adding “And” before “if” in the beginning of the verse. This puts forth the idea of an additional situation altogether rather than further qualifying the previous situations. I believe the YLT has it right.
Now let’s apply this to a situation where a married couple are at doctrinal odds, and the doctrine, in this case, Calvinism has created un-oneness in the marriage. The spouse, in most cases the wife, refuses to submit to the authority of orthodoxy. False doctrine promoted by any group is defined in the Bible as “heresy” or sectarianism; meaning a person or group that divides with false doctrine.
First, the wife is in fact married to an unbeliever because the husband believes a false gospel. Like in all cases, this doesn’t mean she knows his heart for certain, but because he professes a false gospel, she can treat him “like” an unbeliever. In only one of many qualifying examples, authentic Calvinism is almost always part and parcel with the doctrine of double imputation which is a blatant gospel aberration.
Second, especially in cases where the husband has had the wife brought up on church discipline, which isn’t in the Bible to begin with, it is apparent that he is not pleased to live with her. And additionally, in considering the texts used to support a phrase found nowhere in the Bible, “church discipline,” these verses demand a separation of fellowship. Uh, really? While you are still like, married? Does this mean that Matthew 18 is probably not meant to be applied to marriage? Ya think?
Nevertheless, the Calvinist, ie, unbeliever, has in fact left the wife via church discipline because the verses used in the orthodoxy of it, in fact, call for separation and disfellowship. Hence, the Calvinist, ie, unbeliever, is consenting to live with the believing wife who has rejected his false gospel for unwarranted and unbiblical reasons. She is free to divorce him immediately unless he repents posthaste. And additionally, she should take him to the cleaners financially. Well, that might be a little harsh.
However, all in all, the Christian spouse, whether husband or wife, should never violate their conscience if it is not yet at peace with this exegesis. If a spouse then says, “I have been in turmoil and walking on eggshells for _______ years and I am totally at peace with this exegesis,” alrighty then. The Calvinist needs to shape up or be shipped out. You are called to peace, not a false gospel.
Marriage is about oneness, peace, and love—not law.
leave a comment