@ Wartburg Watch / Dee Parsons
@wartwatch Exact rhetoric I have heard from Calvinists to silence me. Shut it down I am not there to defend myself = common decency #abuse
— Paul M. Dohse (@PaulMDohse) June 3, 2015
Deb and Dee of Wartburg Watch .com: Gossip, Not Gospel; Hobby, Not Hope
There is a huge problem with the Christian blogosphere; it is very comfortable with hopelessness. In fact, hopelessness has become a hobby. The real world simply can’t function without solutions, but the Christian e-world seems to be exempt from that reality.
I started this blog when most blogs that address trends in Neo-Calvinism started, circa 2009. The goal was to find answers and an eventual solution to the New Calvinist movement that continues to turn the church upside down. Perhaps my solution-oriented bent comes from my entrepreneurial background; without solutions—you don’t make payroll. I never had to face any of my employees and say, “I can’t pay you this week” because the possibility was too terrifying. Trust me, it was all about solutions for many years.
The problem is simple: the recent and ongoing tsunami of spiritual abuse is due to a false gospel which shouldn’t surprise us. That was my first goal; to find the “why.” Then I found the solution.
What is more obvious than the fact that the institutional church which some call, “the evangelical industrial complex of celebrity pastors” makes the ongoing abuse possible? What is more obvious than the fact that institutions cannot function without money? Take ABWE of the missionary kids infamy. GARB churches could have brought ABWE to its knees inside of a week; yet, even in light of unspeakable atrocities against children, not one congregation pulled support. Hence, the situation dragged on and on for roughly twenty years with little or no justice brought to bear. Why? Where are the missionary kids today? Does anybody even remember them? Oh, I forgot, their situation isn’t trending right now; that would be the latest drama everyone is feeding on: Jordan Root and Matt Chandler’s Village Church.
The discernment blogosphere could stop spiritual abuse dead in its tracks. We are talking about huge numbers and people who have immense influence. Why would you continue to give any credence whatsoever to an institution that makes abuse possible? Churches are either directly involved in abuse, or turn a blind eye to it. Pastors who dwell in the institutional church could indeed put a stop to it as well. For example, a handful of IFB pastors could have stopped the Jack Hyles cartel from wreaking havoc on innocent lives, but they didn’t. Why?
Obviously, it’s a preservation issue of some sort at the expense of innocents who are attending church and trying to do what’s right. Instead, they fall prey to tyranny and pedophiles. There is a reason why the Protestant church now bears the same fruit of the Catholic Church while both continue to thrive. How can this be?
Let’s pause for clarification of points:
- The Protestant/Catholic/evangelical industrial complex of celebrity pastors is predicated on a false gospel, specifically, the false gospel of progressive justification. Protestants and Catholics merely disagree on man’s role in the progression. False gospels bear bad fruit—this should be evident.
- Catholic/Protestant hierarchies both claim God’s authority on earth to oversee the progression of salvation. The Catholics are more upfront about the idea, Protestants less so; nevertheless, this ministry has a cache of quotations from leading evangelicals that make the same claim. And they get that directly from Calvin and Luther.
- Participants of the evangelical industrial complex of celebrity pastors knowingly profess progressive justification, or unwittingly function by it.
- Progressive justification calls for an institution vested with God’s authority to oversee salvation. We hear all of the time that formal church membership is synonymous with being in the “body of Christ.”
- Progressive justification, theologically, allows for any and every kind of sin under the auspices of authority. We simply must not question God’s anointed who “stand in the gap” and “stand in our stead” before God. Our role is “humble submission” before God. If those who stand in the stead have wronged us—they will answer to God, not us. Our role is to “forgive the way we have been forgiven.”
Break point: most discernment blogs are pundits of this system. Their only hope is in the system itself. This is why they refuse to associate ideology with behavior. Regardless of what’s going on in the “church,” the goal is to somehow fix the church. Since 2009, they continue to whine, cry, and beg the institutional church to behave itself. They gather together, moaning and licking each other’s wounds, crying out to the institutional church as god rather than the Prince of Peace. Really, it’s pathetic.
The paramount example of this sad scene is Deb and Dee’s Wartburg Watch .com. In their attempt to save the institutional church, they have become a celebrity subculture that mediates between the hierarchy and Churchianity’s sheeple herd. They are also a model for most of the other discernment blogs.
Listen, when the focus of salvation is a system, people will cling to that system at all cost. It is NEVER the ideological foundations of the system; it is ALWAYS a few bad apples that are to blame. If you suggest that it is the system itself that is the problem, you better go to that conversation in full riot gear.
And yesterday was a good example. It’s an amazing scene. In the same way that celebrity pastors get a pass from their followers, Deb and Dee not only get a pass for their illogical ways and steroidal hypocrisy, but also, as I found out yesterday, a vibrant defense from their faithful followers. Dee, and probably Deb as well, stood by while I apparently got what was coming to me. And cursory observations of their comment streams reveal that they are selective in regard to who receives this verbal abuse.
There is no room here by any means to document the full brunt of their ideological disconnects and hypocrisy, but I will touch on the basics. Let me start with explaining their intolerance of me regardless of the following: the price I paid for asking New Calvinists too many questions rates near the top of the abuse scale, so why did Deb and Dee stand by while I received my verbal beating which included blatant false accusations and baseless name calling? Because like black conservatives who are not black because they are conservatives, I am not a fellow victim because I offer an articulation of the problem and a solution.
Besides the fact that Deb and Dee are not victims of the institutional church, an articulation of the abuse problem and a solution threatens their hobby; ie., gossip mongering. For years, they have held an endless recycling of trending drama in the institutional church with spotlighted victims coming and going. They have their own Top 40 hits of the trending victims that eventually drop down to number 200 or lower. The discussion held on their blog is the musical hit of the week until people get tired of it and wait at the doors of their Wartburg castle with bated breath for whatever is trending next.
But here is the bottom line: Karen Hinkley will not find justice any more than the missionary kids, and that’s NOT ok with me. Karen Hinkley is at the top of the chart right now, and the missionary kids are not even on the chart. Deb and Dee are comfortable with that because trending victims come and go feeding their hobby and celebrity status as hopeless gossip peddlers. Their gargantuan pooling of opinions has not solved anything and has actually enabled the institutional church to continue in tyranny and abuse. They are facilitators—not advocates. They only have talk and have no solutions. In other words, they offer no hope.
Let’s put feet on this a little more. Deb and Dee see no real power in the truth or a connection between ideology and behavior. The latter has been my primary problem with them for several months. In a venture to keep people connected with the institutional church in some way, shape, or form, they offer an e-church hosted by none other than Wade Burleson who is a consummate Neo-Calvinist.
Let that sink in a little. While supposedly taking up the cause of those abused by the New Calvinists, they endorse a New Calvinist, and make it a point to expose others to his teachings.
Really? Do I really have to expound on this further? Look, I could cite the lame excuse they present for doing this on their blog, but I can’t really muster up a mental incentive to do so. This comfort with metaphysical contradictions is post-modernesque in the extreme.
Now, regardless of the fact that I rarely, actually, VERY rarely visit other blogs, and the subsequent accusation by Dee’s minions yesterday that I am a “low grade troll,” I was beckoned to Wartburg yesterday in regard to a statement that she made which leads me to the next point. Since the obvious must be discussed in our day, it stands to reason that the obvious must also have need of being articulated. This speaks to the other problem I have with Wartburg: they do not see truth as efficacious to healing.
Let me be clear and make a statement that I fully intend to stand by: Deb and Dee believe a false gospel. How do I know this? Dee said so. The statement that was brought to my attention follows:
Remember, we are all positionally holy but we are all functional sinners.
This is clearly a false gospel that denies the new birth. In fact, it is a return to the same authentic Protestant gospel that New Calvinism is predicated on. Deb and Dee cannot help people victimized by New Calvinism because they are functioning New Calvinists and that’s exactly why they are hooked up with Wade Burleson which should be more than obvious, but anyway, it is what it is.
Sigh. Ok, let’s start with the fact that the biblical definition of a “sinner” is someone who is unregenerate. Really? Do I have to explain this? Do I have to point out that Dee called “believers” functioning unregenerates? Are evangelicals that far gone? This is the exact same gospel that John Piper et al hold to. He states it plainly all of the time: Christians still need ongoing salvation that can only be found in the institutional church. Furthermore, that also comes directly from Calvin and Luther both in no uncertain terms. Deb and Dee, as well as many of their minions, are well aware of this ministry’s numerous citations that establish this as fact, but…
…they simply don’t care about the truth nor do they see it as relevant, except for the fact that it threatens their hobby and celebrity status. Clearly, their problem with John Piper is primarily his tweets, not his gospel, and they have as much said so in the past. Why? Because they believe the same false gospel.
Christians, if they are really Christians, are not merely “positionally” righteous, they are in fact righteous beings because they have been literally born again of God. In the gospel according to Deb and Dee, there is no understanding of sin in regard to justification and sin under grace. UNDER LAW (the biblical definition of a lost person) and UNDER GRACE (the biblical definition of a saved person) are not separate—“Christians” remain under law and under grace is merely a covering supplied by a perpetual imputation of Christ’s righteousness. This is the New Calvinist false gospel that Deb and Dee buy into while claiming to be champions for those abused by the “Calvinistas.” It’s otherworldly ironic.
So in the final analysis, the Wartburg Watch offers no one hope—victims are only fodder for their hobby, regardless of their motives, and they offer no true good news, but rather replace the gospel with gossip.
paul
When Church is Spiritual Gangrene: Sanctification by Justification
We have recently received our weekly dose of Neo-Calvinist drama. This time, it was Matt Chandler’s turn to give discernment bloggers the gift that just keeps on giving. This recent incident involving Chandler’s Village Church has gone super-viral. Secular news networks are even reporting on the episode resulting in a public outcry.
These incidents are not isolated and will continue to be exposed in both Protestant and Catholic circles because they are the result of a false gospel. As Jesus said, a tree is known by its fruit.
Jordan Root
Apparently, the constant drama taking place in the evangelical church is not nature’s way of telling us something is wrong. However, the most recent drama concerning former missionary Jordan Root supplies a pretty decent insight into the core problem of progressive justification.
Christ’s called out assembly is a body that depends on individual members. The apostle Paul used a body analogy because it is the perfect analogy of Christ’s called out assembly. Strong individual members make a strong body. Consequently, every member’s role must be identified and nourished. To the degree that members (body parts, not the Salvation Club membership) do not function properly, the body is crippled and falls short of fulfilling Christ’s mandate.
Christ is the only head. The common goal is the one mind in Christ. The advent of Christ’s called out assembly was a monumental event. The monumental event was the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is a major participant in the plan of salvation. Beware of any doctrine that emphasizes one of the three Trinity persons over the other in the plan of salvation. Salvation is Trinitarian.
There was a new birth before the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but until that time, salvation was atonement by the law. In other words, according to Moses, obedience to the law could bring both life and death, but at that time the law was a covering for sin. All sin was imputed to the law and the law held that sin captive along with the believer. The believer was blessed by obedience to the law, and their sins that were a violation of the law were held in escrow until the coming of Christ. Of course, the terms of this particular escrow is an eradication instead of a payment.
On the other hand, the sins of unbelievers were not imputed to the law, but rather the law condemned them for every offence. In both cases, life and death according to the law was experienced, but with different ENDS. Whether believer or unbeliever, degrees of life and death occurred, but salvation determined a life end while being unsaved determined a death end with degree of violation determining the wages of eternal death.
When it was the Spirit’s time for His major event, He resurrected Christ from the grave and gave gifts to Christ’s assembly while baptizing Jews and Gentiles into one body. Christ died to end the law by paying the penalty for ALL sins imputed to it. With the ending of the law, all sins committed against it were ended as well except for those who were not covered by it. For unbelievers, the law was not ended and therefore they remain condemned by it.
Hence, the law is no longer an atonement for believers, but only serves as a means to love God and others. Before the baptism of the Holy Spirit, it served as atonement and a means of love, now it can only serve as a means of loving God and others. However, for unbelievers in this day, the law has a sort of grace to it; in that sin is still imputed to it. If and when they believe in Christ, every sin they committed against the law (all sin is a violation of the law) is ended with the law and now there is no law that can condemn them in the future. Therefore, the Old Testament atonement is still a “ministry of death” that is “passing away” (From an eschatology point of view, this is why believers were in the abode of the dead until Christ died on the cross. During the three days after His crucifixion, he preached to the “captives” and set others free leading them to heaven in a victory procession).
Nevertheless, through ignorance, the believer can experience as much present death, or even more death than unbelievers who will come to realize a death ending. There is a specific dynamic that figures in. The Bible splits this up into “under law” and “under grace.” Under law is the biblical definition of an unregenerate person and possesses a certain metaphysical dynamic, or state of being. Those under law are free to do good but enslaved to sin. This is primarily because they are under the law’s condemnation or judgement. In conjunction with SIN, the law empowers sin. When the law is ended, sin is stripped of its power because there is no condemnation. Sin finds its power in condemnation.
And death finds its sting in sin. The primary root of all fear is fear of judgment, and mankind, having the “works of the law” written on their hearts and administered by the conscience, knows intuitively that future death means future judgement. But “perfect love casts out fear.” What’s that? That’s “under grace” which is now no longer under the condemnation of the law; the law only serves to inform the believer in regard to loving God and others. There is NOW NO condemnation for those in Christ.
Yet, there is still a death/life dynamic going on that is experienced by the believer and unbeliever alike. The end is different, but not necessarily the life experience. Those under grace are enslaved to righteousness, but unfortunately free to sin. They are enslaved to righteousness because of the baptism of the Spirit. Don’t get too hung-up on the “slave” nomenclature. Under law enslaves the unbeliever to the laws condemnation. That is inescapable. They are crippled and enslaved to constant condemnation and the fear of death. This is where it is vital to realize that the baptism of the Spirit is a literal death of the person who is under law and enslaved to it. They are enslaved to its inevitable endgame of death measured by the degree of life choices regarding law—primarily the law of their conscience, but ultimately the full brunt of God’s specific law of which they are indifferent.
Once a person is saved, they are ”free” from the condemnation of the law also known as the “law of sin and death,” and “free to serve another.”
Romans 7:4 – Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Note the slave terminology. Through the death of Christ, he purchased all of mankind by ending the law. His death purchased all people from the Sin slave master. Think about that in regard to those under law. Their freedom has been purchased already. If Christ died to end the law, and He did (Romans 10:4), and all unsaved people are under the law, and they are (Romans 8:2, 6:14), those who believe in Christ are now dead to the law and any possible condemnation in the future.
Christ didn’t die for anyone in particular, He died to end the law that all of mankind is under at one time or another. That necessarily demands a conclusion that Christ died for all people unless some are born into the world who are not under law, and that is obviously not the case.
To believe in Christ is to follow Him in the Spirit’s baptism. It is not merely a mental ascent to the facts of the gospel of first importance, it is a decision to follow Christ in that baptism. You recognize that Christ has purchased you from the Sin master, and know that you will not escape if you reject so great a salvation. The judgement is greater in this era because atonement spoke on earth through Moses and none who rejected it escaped, but now the call comes from heaven.
In Romans 7:4, we see both sides of the Spirit’s baptism:
A. Death;
you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another.
B. Resurrection;
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit.
This is summarized this way:
Romans 6:3 – Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
We are released from the law (death) in order to be freed to “serve” another (resurrection). The guide for that service is the Spirit’s law. That’s a really good thing to call the Bible: the Spirit’s law; He uses it to convict the world of sin and the judgment to come in regard to those under law, and uses it to sanctify those under grace (John 17:17).
This is all by faith because if we do not live by this dynamic, if we do not take it literally, the metaphysical dynamic of life/death starts to bear unfortunate fruit – the death type. We will practice and apply what we believe to be true. How literally we take this dynamic does not modify the natural effect of the dynamic. If a tree really fell in the forest, that really happened whether we believe it or not. And the life/death dynamic happens whether we believe it or not.
Even though the endgame for every believer is life, they can live a life of death through ignorance. Through ignorance, they can actually be enslaved to the sin they were freed from. How does this happen? The Bible is very clear about how this happens.
It begins with ignorance about desire.
Though the old us/we literally died with Christ, and we are no longer under the law and free to serve Christ rather than serving the law of sin overseen by our old master, our mortal bodies that are not yet redeemed still possess the desires of the old man. The “mind” is redeemed, and we therefore share the same desires of the Spirit, but sin can still harass us through sinful desires. It is important to note that “the flesh” is NOT inherently evil, but rather “weak.” “Sins of the flesh” and “desires of the flesh” refer to when the flesh, or our bodies are succumbing to desires that come from sin via our choices regarding obedience. The body can also be used for holy purposes as well as sinful purposes.
At any rate, one who has died with Christ and has been resurrected to new creaturehood with Christ is able to say “no” to desires that come from sin that still resides in our mortal bodies. One reason among others that we are able to say “no” is due to the fact that sin’s power has been stripped away because it can no longer condemn us (1Corinthians 15:56). Our motives in love are by default pure in regard to justification because we are righteous and justified apart from the law. The law cannot condemn us, so the only venture left is to use the law for loving God and others. Any attempt by a believer to earn justification is completely illogical because that would be an attempt to finish an already finished work (Galatians 3:3 | note the YLT version).
Succumbing to sinful desires as a Christian is a matter of family sin, and not sin that relates to justification in any way. So in regard to justification we are blameless via the new birth that ended the law, but we may be chastised by God in regard to not loving our Father and others as we are called to. Note in the Lord’s Prayer that we ask forgiveness from our Father which is an altogether different matter than seeking salvation from sin that condemns us.
The Bible also teaches us that the intensity of sinful desires is increased if we give “provision” to those desires. In other words, by obeying sinful desires, we increase the intensity of sin’s appeal through the passions and emotions. Furthermore, since we become slaves of the master we obey, Christians can become enslaved “once again” to the demands and desires of the old master. Of course, this is due to extreme ignorance. Nevertheless, obeying sinful desires nourishes the desires, intensifies them, and over time a Christians can be habituated in regard to those desires.
This problem finds its roots in religions that promote progressive justification. Because salvation is supposedly a process that begins at point A and progresses to point B (rather than a onetime, and once-for-all-time transformation that guarantees salvation), the “Christian” life, also known as sanctification, is part of the salvation/justification “progression” from point A to point B. Consequently, the very definition of sanctification, ie., knowing how to “control our own bodies” (1Thessalonians 4:3,4) is egregiously circumvented.
And the idea of being sanctified by justification plays well for existing guilt. True believers feel bad that Christ had to die for our sin, and our lack of ability to grasp the full gravity of Christ’s sacrifice feeds that guilt as well. Far removed from the actual historical event, our lack of identification with Christ’s suffering makes us feel unthankful and indifferent. As a result, we are open to ways that enable us to better identify with Christ’s actual suffering as a way to obtain an acceptable appreciation of our salvation. This idea plays to our natural and logical inclinations.
But there are several problems with this approach. First, the Bible doesn’t call us to continually revisit the same gospel that saved us in order to obtain more and more gratitude for our salvation. This can easily become a way of earning our salvation via acceptable gratitude. Secondly, the guy who would be able to plunge the depths of why Christ had to die for him IS dead. Thirdly, the new creature cannot endeavor to better understand the condemnation that Christ died to end precisely because there is no condemnation. The subject is looking for something that cannot exist apart from the law, and therefore, if he/she finds any, it’s a figment of their misguided imagination.
Unless of course, they are deceived and are actually experiencing real condemnation because belief in a progressive justification gospel did not bring about the baptism of the Spirit. Remaining under law, they are finding ample condemnation that is “making the cross bigger and people smaller.”
In most cases, and due to overall ignorance regarding sanctification because all of the traditional rage is to make sanctification part of the justification process, the new Christian is immediately confused that they are experiencing sinful desires. After 2000 years since the advent of the Spirit’s baptism, EVERY new believer should be able to say:
According to the Bible, I just experienced a sinful desire. God has promised me that I am able to say “no” to that desire, and if I disobey that desire, I am sucking the life out of it more and more and learning to hate it more and more. I am a slave to whatever I obey, and sanctification is putting off the old habits of the old person and putting on the new habits of the new creature. Obedience results in habituation to either godliness or ungodliness.
This dynamic is not operative in those under law because they are not born again and are indifferent to God’s word. Psalm 119 is the heart of a born again individual. Those under law may live a moral life that is part and parcel with being created in the image of God, but every violation of the law is a wage for death. Not being subject to certain desires of the baser sort does not exclude them from being under law—they will just suffer a more tolerable end.
There is something VERY important to understand about the desires that come from sin: they are myriad, of various and sundry stripes, and at times horrifying. They can, and do include a desire to murder people, all kinds of covetousness, and a plethora of unnatural sexual desires.
Nothing is sadder than a Christian who experiences a baser type of sinful desire and doesn’t understand what’s going on. Immediately, in most cases, they will doubt that they were really saved. That will lead to fear of condemnation which is not love. Likewise, a person may profess Christ to escape such a desire, and rightfully so, only to find out that the desire is not gone. Not understanding that the desire is stripped of its power, the individual will be thrown into turmoil because the desire still presents itself. At this point, believing that the sinful desire is still a part of their redeemed being, which it is not, is very unhelpful to the cause of godliness to say the least.
How much better is it that a person follows Christ in death and resurrection, but understands that the desire may present itself after salvation? That should be the case. The individual should be prepared to understand the desire and what to do about it. Believing that sin no longer has “dominion” over the saint is part of believing the truth of the new birth and salvation itself. Others who seek Christ will have lesser struggles and different issues that caused them to seek Christ. Some may be moral persons who put many Christians to shame, but want the hope of eternal life. Even though they are upright persons as far as persons go, they are aware that they still fall short of God’s glory. Such persons will have a lesser struggle in sanctification.
But in all cases, various and sundry desires can be reduced to a whisper through depriving the desire of nutrients (provisions), and practicing selfless love. It’s hard to sin while you are loving God and others.
A sanctification dynamic that is not helpful is the idea of a Christian having “two natures.” No, a Christian only has ONE nature, the new one. The two natures construct gives under law and under grace equal billing, and places them in the ring to duke it out. No, Christian living is not a series of battles lost or won between two natures with equal dominion over the believer. Only one nature has dominion, and love is a choice. James explains the dynamic clearly:
James 1:13 – Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
All sin, even the family sin of saints that does not condemn brings forth some sort of death albeit very subtle in a lot of cases. For the believer, it is the present consequences of sin. ALL sin brings about some sort of death. Again, the death that is often brought about is very subtle. One consequence of sin that is apparent may actually be the culmination of several other sins. A person may look 15 years older than they should, and that can be the result of years of bad thinking, or the culmination of trillions of bad thoughts. This can even be more scientific; researchers have determined, on average, how much each cigarette smoked shortens one’s life. When a person smokes a cigarette, they don’t drop dead on the spot, but the one cigarette has brought forth death. Furthermore, this same analogy can be used to illustrate how obeying the desire to smoke one cigarette leads to being enslaved to the habit of smoking.
Back to Jordan Root
Let’s suppose that as a young man in seminary, Jordan was afflicted with the very unfortunate desire to have sexual relations with children. Horrible. Like most professing Christians in a progressive justification church culture, he would not have had the tools to deal with this affliction. Many in his shoes are afraid to approach individuals privately about the struggle because they are obviously very ashamed and confused that they have this desire. After all, it doesn’t seem to go well with a Christian profession to say the least. Many go to sermon after sermon after sermon in hopes that the issue will be addressed. In the Protestant church—that would be a pipe dream because sanctification is not the focus, returning to the same gospel that saved us in order to keep our justification moving forward is the focus.
That necessarily brings us to the preaching that Root eventually began to sit under: Neo-Calvinism. For Root to make direct efforts to rid himself of the desire through literal biblical instruction would have been “focusing on his own doing instead of what Jesus HAS done.” And you see, the whole problem with desires is that we “desire something more than Jesus.”
This doctrine would have been, and is presently a death sentence for Root. Typical is the creation of such problems by the nonexistent sanctification of Neo-Calvinism followed by their claim to be the cure for what they helped to create.
Gangrene
This is also exactly why the apostle Paul called false doctrine “gangrene” (2Timothy 2:17). My wife Susan contracted gangrene after a motorcycle accident. The doctor discovered it during a routine follow-up examination after the accident. The condition was completely painless and Susan was totally unaware that gangrene was silently and slowly eating away her leg. Fortunately, the condition was discovered before her leg needed to be amputated in order to prevent its spread to the rest of her body resulting in certain death.
There is not a more apt description of sin’s slow death and the false doctrines that promote it.
Progressive justification is driven by a return to the same gospel that saved us because apparently, as Christians, we still need salvation. And if we still need to be saved as Christians, as plainly stated by Dr. John Piper and many others including Matt Chandler, we abide in death still. In fact, the Neo-Calvinist doctrine of mortification and vivification calls for a meditation on our sin while only EXPERINCING resurrection—not walking in it. By a deeper and deeper realization of how sinful we are, we experience the joy of “future glory.” Sin is our function, while resurrection is not our function—only an EXPERIENCE. Even the experience is a progression towards the ultimate experience of “final justification.” Neo-Calvinist Paul Washer stated it this way:
At conversion, a person begins to see God and himself as never before. This greater revelation of God’s holiness and righteousness leads to a greater revelation of self, which, in return, results in a repentance or brokenness over sin. Nevertheless, the believer is not left in despair, for he is also afforded a greater revelation of the grace of God in the face of Christ, which leads to joy unspeakable. This cycle simply repeats itself throughout the Christian life. As the years pass, the Christian sees more of God and more of self, resulting in a greater and deeper brokenness. Yet, all the while, the Christian’s joy grows in equal measure because he is privy to greater and greater revelations of the love, grace, and mercy of God in the person and work of Christ. Not only this, but a greater interchange occurs in that the Christian learns to rest less and less in his own performance and more and more in the perfect work of Christ. Thus, his joy is not only increased, but it also becomes more consistent and stable. He has left off putting confidence in the flesh, which is idolatry, and is resting in the virtue and merits of Christ, which is true Christian piety” (Paul Washer: The Gospel Call and True Conversion; Part 1, Chapter 1, heading – The Essential Characteristics Of Genuine Repentance, subheading – Continuing and Deepening Work of Repentance).
Obviously, in this progressive justification process, “Christians” live for the sole purpose of experiencing joy only through primarily focusing on sin. Note that this joy is accompanied by a progressive “resting.” Clearly, this reduces Christianity to an experience only. Moreover, is this not, for all practical purposes, a rejoicing in evil that the apostle Paul warned about in 1Corintians 13? Is this, in essence, the antithesis of love? I believe it is. Justification is a rest; sanctification is a labor of love more and more as we see the day approaching. If we don’t actually do the work, we are not doing the love.
Progressive justification is a doctrine of death, and there are many Jordan Roots rotting away in the clutches of gangrene. Like Root, they at some point start losing limbs, but return to the source rather than new birth. Their end will be certain death.
paul
The Magnum Opus of the Reformation: Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation; Part 1
Listen to the show or download audio file.
Welcome truth lovers to Blog Talk radio .com/False Reformation, this is your host Paul M. Dohse Sr. Tonight, part 1 of “The Magnum Opus of the Reformation: Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation.”
Greetings from the Potters House and TANC ministries where we are always eager to serve all of your heterodox needs. Our teaching catalogue can be found at tancpublishing.com
If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback.
Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.
Remember, you may remain anonymous. When I say, “This is your host; you are on the air, what’s your comment or question—just start talking.
If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at paul@ttanc.com. That’s Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat, paul@ttanc.com. I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in. You can post a question as well.
In the introductory primer for this series on the link page, I stated the following:
About six months after Luther posted his 95 Theses on the front doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, he presented his doctrinal disputation to the Augustinian Order in Heidelberg, Germany. This is a timeless document that laid the foundation for Protestant doctrine and its primary principles have never been altered. This document is the very roots of the Protestant tree. The Reformed tradition has never strayed from its major tenets. To understand the Heidelberg Disputation is to understand all of Reformed tradition.
Absolutely. The Heidelberg Disputation laid the foundational worldview/philosophy/ideology of the Reformation and everything taught from a Reformed perspective flows from this document in one way or another. The introduction of this document reads as follows from the Book of Concord which are the confessions of the Lutheran Church:
Following Luther’s proposal for a disputation on the subject of indulgences, the Augustinian Order, to which Luther belonged, was generally supportive of his views. The head of the order in Germany, Johannes Staupitz, called for a formal disputation to be attended by the leadership of the order, in which Luther would be provided a chance to expand upon his concern. The disputation took place at the meeting of the Augustinian Order, in Heidelberg, in April 1518. Luther’s opponents had been hopeful that Luther would be silenced, but Staupitz wanted to give Luther a fair hearing, since he was generally sympathetic with Luther’s views. At the meeting, Luther put forward a “theology of the cross” as opposed to a “theology of glory.” The disputation is, in many ways, more significant than the 95 theses, for they advanced Luther’s growing realization that the theology of late Medieval Roman Catholicism was fundamentally and essentially at odds with Biblical theology. As a result of the disputation, John Eck proposed a debate between himself and representatives of Luther’s views, which was held in Leipzig (lighp-sig) from June to July, 1519.
Ok, so let me tell you what I did in devoted service to the saints; I suffered through a lot of the Leipzig debate between Luther and Eck (as an aside: both were vehement anti-Semites). This is a huge consideration in all of this: what specifically where the divisive issues between Luther and the Catholic Church? Well, of course, initially, they were supposedly moral; i.e., the 95 Theses.
Now, Luther held a lot of people captive in the Catholic Church because there was agreement on the moral issues. I mean, what was going on with indulgences and so forth was pretty much in your face and totally ridiculous. But what were the actual doctrinal issues? So, once again, I sought to ascertain the answers to this question, and once again, I end up right back at what I wrote in the booklet, The Reformation Myth. It’s only about 30 pages, and nails down the doctrinal issues between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Let me give you the short version. In the aforementioned booklet, I focus heavily on the fact that both camps hold to a progressive justification gospel. Basically, salvation is a process that starts at point A, and progresses to point B, and the Mother Church oversees the progression via authority granted it by God. I cite a bunch of references in the booklet to make this point.
Take note: the Reformers were very strong advocates of the imputation of authority and apostolic succession. This is why they did not want to make a complete break with the Catholic Church. Luther and Calvin both were rabid followers of St. Augustine who is a Doctor of Grace in the Catholic Church. Till this day, Protestant Reformers proudly claim Augustine as the founding father of Reformation doctrine. The late David Hunt documents this fact thoroughly in his book, What Love is This? with much incredulation. And by the way, Johannes (yoh-hah-nis) Staupitz whom I mentioned earlier is one of many, like Augustine, who are recognized/claimed by both camps, viz, Protestants and Catholics both.
Why is this? It’s the authority issue. This is why both camps claim Augustine; he is the authoritative tie that binds. In the TANC Theological Journal, volume 2015 issues 4 and 5, I document the transition between home fellowships and the institution church and the warfare between the two. The home fellowships led by elders resisted the takeover of Christianity by the Gnostic church fathers who set up an apostolic succession authority in Rome.
The home fellowships rejected church hierarchy, and insisted that apostolic authority rested in the Scriptures alone and not men. They insisted on a cooperative body under one head, Jesus Christ. They insisted on ONE mediator between God and men—Jesus the Christ. In both Catholicism and Protestantism, the proffering of popes, priests, and pastors as additional mediators is absolutely irrefutable. You can read both of those issues online for free: http://truthaboutnewcalvinism.weebly.com/
So, what are the specific doctrinal contentions? It’s the same reason there are many, many denominations which are mostly predicated on progressive justification. The argument is always, “What is the correct way for people to get from point A to point B in the salvation process?
Catholics believe man has freewill and is able to participate in the process. Protestants believe man has no role in the salvation process at all. This is why much of the Leipzig debate was about election and the freewill of man, and a lot of haggling over what Augustine taught.
Both agreed on church authority, church hierarchy as sub-mediators, and progressive justification while the contention regarded man’s role in the process.
Again pause for a moment to take note: the argument regarding man’s role was argued from the standpoint of philosophy…PERIOD! Let me boil it down to the most common denominator: Plato versus Aristotle. Note the title of Luther’s 29th thesis in the disputation:
He who wishes to philosophize by using Aristotle without danger to his soul must first become thoroughly foolish in Christ.
In her excellent series on Plato, Augustine, and Calvin during the TANC 2013 Conference, my wife Susan stated the following about Plato:
He became acquainted with Ambrose of Milan, a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church who introduced him to the books of the Platonists. While in Milan, his encounter with Platonism provided the major turning point which reoriented his thought among the basic things that were consistent till his death. Augustine himself makes it clear that it was his encounter with the books of the Platonists that made it possible for him to view both the church and its scriptural tradition—the key word there is tradition—as having an intellectually satisfying and indeed resourceful content…
Augustine is referred to as one of the great Christian Platonists. And there’s that oxymoron again. In particular, Augustine’s interpretation of Plato dominated Christian thought for the next thousand years after his death in the 5th century. In his Confessions, Augustine openly describes the help he received from the Platonists. Platonism colored the whole future thought of Augustine, and thus this gift of Plato’s writing set a current in the thought of Western Christendom. Augustine believed that Plato lifted him to a true and almost worthy knowledge of God. And early in his Christian career he declared, “I am convinced that I shall discover among the Platonists nothing repugnant to our religion.” The Platonists are therefore the only serious antagonists just because they need so slight a change to make them Christians. Augustine’s physical, logical and moral philosophy, all this learned first and most thoroughly from Plato, and many a formula of Platonic ethics have been passed down through Augustine and Christian literature…
I’m going to quote Augustine from his writing on Christian doctrine. “If those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not to shrink from it. We are to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it.” Now I want you to know that looks good on the surface. You find something true, and you claim it. But I want you to note his phrase, “harmony with our faith,” the faith in the Roman Catholic Church, not in harmony with Scripture but harmony in the faith that he found in the Roman Catholic Church.
Getting back to Luther, notice that Luther equates philosophy with the condition of one’s soul in the cited 29th theses. And let me interpret this statement for you preemptively: Aristotle must be understood through Luther’s Platonist epistemology known as “the foolishness of the cross.” As we will see as we move along in the series, in medieval theology from which the Reformation gospel is grounded, the ancient sophists clearly were the authority. Clearly so. The theologians of this time who were little more than a brood of world philosophers, then went to the Bible to make their case; the Bible was clearly interpreted through ancient philosophy.
Apparently, Catholic theologians became “corrupted” with Thomism (the integration of theology with the philosophy of Aristotle by Saint Thomas Aquinas) after being primarily of Augustinian (Platonic) persuasion since the 5th century. Thomism made serious inroads into Catholicism. Consider what was said by Pope Pious X in the 20th century:
The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church (Pope St. Pius X, Doctoris Angelici, 29 June 1914).
It would appear that the crux of the Reformation was an Augustinian/Platonist pushback against Thomism. Actually, a more obscure part of the Heidelberg Disputation confirms that. I have studied this document for months, and always assumed there were 28 theses. These are known as the theological theses. I assumed such because every resource or commentary I ever used in my research only spoke of the theological theses.
In preparation for this series, I find that there were actually a total of 40, and the last 12 are known as the philosophical theses. As we will see, these last 12 of the 40 primarily concern Aristotle and Plato.
This clears up a lot of whispering questions that used to float around in the back of my mind. Where is the emphasis on this document in Reformed circles? This is the doctrinal statement of the Reformation six months after the 95 Theses was nailed to the church doors in Wittenberg. It is the primary demarcation between Catholicism and Protestantism. It is the very essence of contemporary “gospel-driven” living. It also explains the life application of gospel-driven living and how it is experienced. Why then, is this document not a household name in Western culture?
Because the last 12 theses would expose the Reformation for what it really was: a philosophical debate, not a biblical one. Yes, the first 28 theses have a strong Platonist flavor if you are familiar with Platonism, but there is no direct reference to it. The last 12 leave no doubt as to what the real bone of contention was in the Reformation. In fact according to William Herman Theodore Dau in The Great Renunciation: Leaves from the Story of Luther’s Life, page 75, he states the following:
On the following day Luther declared outright to the Dominican Butzer that with these theses he had meant to strike at the entire theological activity of the Thomists and Scotists (Scotism).
This gives us a picture of the Protestant tree. The roots are Plato, the trunk is Augustine, the branches are Catholicism, and the fruit is Protestantism. This is why evangelical Baptists are really just functioning Platonists to one degree or another. Examining the fruit from the top of the tree, evangelicalism is fraught with dualist lingo that finds its roots in Platonism.
For instance: “I didn’t do it! Don’t give me the glory! It was the Holy Spirit!” So, something happened, and it appears that you did it, but you really didn’t do it, it was done by someone else from the invisible realm. Well, that’s just good old fashioned dualist realm manifestation, or realm birthing. Also, that particular example finds its bases in Luther’s venial sin versus mortal sin which will be explained in parts following.
Before we move on, from the editor’s introduction which we already read:
At the meeting, Luther put forward a “theology of the cross” as opposed to a “theology of glory.”
Luther’s theology of the cross is a Platonist worldview. It is the interpretation of all realty via redemption. All other knowledge/reality is categorized as the “theology of glory,” or worldly wisdom. This disputation explains how this works and its application to life experience. As we evaluate each thesis one by one, the full spectrum of Reformed tradition will be understood.
Before we begin with the first thesis, I have a few remarks regarding Luther’s introduction to the Augustinian order:
Brother Martin Luther, Master of Sacred Theology, will preside, and Brother Leonhard Beyer, Master of Arts and Philosophy, will defend the following theses before the Augustinians of this renowned city of Heidelberg in the customary place, on April 26th 1518.
Distrusting completely our own wisdom, according to that counsel of the Holy Spirit, »Do not rely on your own insight« (Prov. 3:5), we humbly present to the judgment of all those who wish to be here these theological paradoxes, so that it may become clear whether they have been deduced well or poorly from St. Paul, the especially chosen vessel and instrument of Christ, and also from St. Augustine, his most trustworthy interpreter.
Leonard Beyer was a correspondent at the disputation and information about him will not be visited here. What I would like to focus on is the, “Distrusting completely our own wisdom” and the verse that is even used today to make a case for the worthlessness of worldly wisdom versus wisdom from above; that is Proverbs 3:5. Note also that St. Augustine is clearly put on the same par with the apostle Paul. And lastly, note that Luther states that this document is made up of “paradoxes.” Herein is the epitome of spiritual caste systems with Augustine as chief philosopher king dictating the paradoxes to the masses.
Thesis 1: The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.
This is made clear by the Apostle in his letter to the Romans (3:21): »But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law.« St. Augustine interprets this in his book ›The Spirit and the Letter‹ (De Spiritu et Littera): »Without the law, that is, without its support.« In Rom. 5:20 the Apostle states, »Law intervened, to increase the trespass«, and in Rom. 7:9 he adds, »But when the commandment came, sin revived.« For this reason he calls the law »a law of death« and »a law of sin« in Rom. 8:2. Indeed, in 2 Cor. 3:6 he says, »the written code kills«, which St. Augustine throughout his book ›The Spirit and the Letter‹ understands as applying to every law, even the holiest law of God.
The Achilles’ heel of Protestantism is the law. Here, Luther interprets Romans 3:21 as pertaining to any righteousness that might be practiced by a believer. Remember, Luther sees justification as progressive. A onetime imputation of righteousness through the new birth that makes a person righteous apart from the law is not in view here. In other words, Luther doesn’t see this as people being made righteous apart from the law, but rather makes law the standard for righteousness. In truth, the new birth is the standard for righteousness, not the law. By the way, it is tempting to cite the Calvin Institutes as a supplement here. The Calvin Institutes are an expansion of the Heidelberg Disputation. The first sentence of the Institutes is a statement that reflects the foundational premise of Luther’s Disputation.
Therefore, since the law is the standard for righteousness, it can only hinder someone trying to use it for righteous living. Luther then cites Romans 5:20 to make the case that the law only increases sin. Well, that’s true for those who are under it (see Romans 6:14). Luther makes under grace a covering for remaining under law instead of one ceasing and being replaced by the other one. Said another way, being under grace doesn’t replace being under law, under grace is only an ongoing cure for remaining under law.
But this is what Romans 3:21 is really talking about: we are made righteous apart from the law; righteousness and law are mutually exclusive in justification. As believers, we act righteously because of the new birth, not because we are law-keepers. The law doesn’t make us righteous—the new birth does.
Paul’s reference to the law increasing sin applies to those still under it. The same goes for Luther’s twisting of 2Corinthians 3:6. The law is a ministry of death for those who are still under law, but not for those under grace. The smoking gun on this is Luther’s handing of Romans 8:2 in that he only quotes half of the verse.
This is the crux of the error regarding the Reformed view of law and its single perspective. He only cites the one perspective on the law as a ministry of death only, and not the perspective where the Spirit of life uses the same law to sanctify us (John 17:17). Observe Romans 8:2 and you can see the two perspectives on the law in that verse.
Ironically, thesis 1 is all you need to totally debunk the Reformation—the theological math doesn’t add up. But, remember, all of this errant theology flows from the philosophical argument. This makes the Reformation’s sola scriptura (sol-us script-tora) a big fat lie. Clearly, Plato was the authority starting with Augustine moving forward.
Thesis 2: Much less can human works, which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end.
Since the law of God, which is holy and unstained, true, just, etc., is given man by God as an aid beyond his natural powers to enlighten him and move him to do the good, and nevertheless the opposite takes place, namely, that he becomes more wicked, how can he, left to his own power and without such aid, be induced to do good? If a person does not do good with help from without, he will do even less by his own strength. Therefore the Apostle, in Rom. 3:10-12, calls all persons corrupt and impotent who neither understand nor seek God, for all, he says, have gone astray.
Note that the real issue here is “natural precepts.” Because this is really a Platonist document, anything man does that can be perceived with the five senses, no matter what it is, must be evil because it can be perceived. Period.
So Reformed tradition concerning law/gospel starts right here folks. You’re looking at it right now. What did Luther do with the law and its commands to mankind in light of his Platonist philosophy? Here is what he did:
He actually made the law part of the Trinity. He actually made the law God. He made the law a co-life-giver with God. Eternal life is not granted through the new birth APART from the law; the law becomes the standard and expression of eternal life.
In Robert Brinsmead’s brilliant articulation of Luther’s soteriology in the theological journal, Present Truth, he explains it this way:
The Holy Spirit gives the sinner faith to accept the righteousness of Jesus. Standing now before the law which says, “I demand a life of perfect conformity to the commandments,” the believing sinner cries in triumph, “Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, His suffering and dying; mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, and suffered, and died as He did . . . ” (Luther). The law is well pleased with Jesus’ doing and dying, which the sinner brings in the hand of faith. Justice is fully satisfied, and God can truly say: “This man has fulfilled the law. He is justified.”
And…
We say again, Only those are justified who bring to God a life of perfect obedience to the law of God. This is what faith does—it brings to God the obedience of Jesus Christ. By faith the law is fulfilled and the sinner is justified.
So basically, what you have is Jesus not only coming to die for our sins, but to fulfill the law so that his obedience can be imputed to us in order to satisfy the law because we can’t keep the law perfectly. But that’s not why we are righteous—we are righteous because our minds are renewed by the Spirit and we are born of God’s seed. This results in a different direction, not perfection. The dynamic is found in Romans 6:20: those under law are enslaved to sin, but free to do good. Those under grace are enslaved to righteousness, but unfortunately free to sin. It’s a reversal of enslavement and freedom resulting in a different direction. The will of man is both enslaved and free. Of course, Luther contended that man’s will is in total bondage to sin.
At any rate, what you have here is also the very cradle of what the Reformed call, “double imputation,” a doctrine lauded by the Reformed in this day. Again, let me remind you, this is the very first theological theses of the Protestant Reformation, and all of the major tenets lauded by the Reformed in our day find there beginnings in this document. Also remember, these tenets necessarily flow from Luther’s Platonist worldview.
And this is why in our day you hear conservative evangelical Baptists say things like, “We have the righteousness of Christ,” “The resurrection was proof that God was pleased with Christ’s obedience,” “When God looks at us He only sees Christ,” etc., etc., etc. This is why the Baptist stripe of Protestants, and for that matter all others as well, are little more than functioning Platonists.
The fulfilment of the law for the implementation of eternal life is just a steroidal antithesis to Pauline soteriology even though Luther claims in the introduction that this disputation is based on Pauline theology. This was Paul’s whole point in Galatians chapter 3, the law cannot give life for justification.
In this particular thesis, Luther states that man is given the word as an “aid” that does NOT enlighten him, or enable him to do good. So how does it aid him? That was covered in thesis 1; it is an aid to show man how wicked he is whether saved or unregenerate. Luther then twists Romans 3:10-12 to make the point.
But again, we have an example of something we will see throughout this disputation and often in our day: the citing of verses that pertain to presalvation/justification applied to post salvation existence, or if you will, sanctification. Paul is simply citing Psalms 13:1-3 to make the point that unregenerate Jews are no better off than unregenerate Gentiles and both need Christ just as much as one does or the other.
So, someone might say, “But Paul, doesn’t that passage say that no man seeks God?” Sure it does, so what? The nature of fallen man, as exhibited by Adam and Eve, is to do what? Hide. For certain, when Adam and Eve sinned, they didn’t immediately go looking for God and say, “We messed up, how can we fix this?” No, God had to seek them out, they didn’t seek God, but once God cornered them with the truth, did they or any person after them possess an inherent inability to respond in the positive? I doubt it. Again, we see God seeking out Cain in the same way after he slew Abel.
That’s what evangelism is all about even in our day. The Spirit and we seek men out on God’s behalf. The Spirit convicts men of sin and the judgement to come, and we do the same. We have our life testimony, the word of God, the conviction of conscience either excusing or accusing men according to the works of the law written on their hearts, and the work of the Holy Spirit. They already have the works of the law written on their hearts administered by the conscience; it is our job to set that on fire with more specific revelation.
What God did in the Garden in regard to seeking out Adam and Eve is our job, that’s our duty. That’s part of what makes us like our Father.
Well, we have done pretty well tonight. We have completed the introduction and evaluated the first two theses. Let’s go to the phones.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment