Paul's Passing Thoughts

Galatians Study #5 Today, Sunday @ 10:30 am 4/15/2018

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on April 15, 2018

Acts Study Audio Podcasts

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on April 14, 2018

Link to study notes, outlines, and illustrations.

Link to videos and audio file downloads.

NOTICE: PPT or TANC Ministries does not profit from or endorse ANY advertisements posted by Blog Talk Radio or

Acts Lessons



What Is The “It”?

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on April 14, 2018

“When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.” ~ John 19:30

τετελεσται (teh-tel-es-tai) – verb; indicative mood, perfect tense, passive voice, 3rd person singular. It is derived from the Greek noun telos which is used to refer to something set out as a goal or an aim, or the conclusion of an act or state.

All Churchians most likely at some point in their life have heard the explanation that when Jesus uttered these words that He meant that he had finished what He had come to earth to accomplish. And what was it that Jesus accomplished? The orthodox interpretation of that would be that Jesus accomplished the forgiveness of sins. Moreover, it would be that Jesus lived a perfect life of obedience. Now having demonstrated perfect obedience to the Law, Jesus could fulfill his purpose as the perfect sacrifice for sin. His job was done.

It is true that Jesus did accomplish the forgiveness of sin with His death on the cross. But how exactly did this happen? Furthermore, Reformed orthodoxy would have us believe that Christians need to preach the gospel to themselves every day. They must daily return to the cross to continually have Jesus’ obedience imputed to their lives as a covering. This is accomplished by “faith alone” works through the “means of grace” administered by the local church. If Christians need an ongoing imputation of righteousness from Christ through His obeying the law for us in our stead, how exactly can one say that Jesus’ work is “finished”?

Lest I be accused of setting up a “straw man” argument, consider that after almost nine years of research here at TANC ministries, all of the problems with Protestant orthodoxy and the institutional church can be boiled down to one thing: a misunderstanding of the Law. Reformed orthodoxy keeps Christians “under law” (the Biblical definition of an unsaved person) by making perfect law-keeping the standard for righteousness. Because Protestantism’s metaphysical assumption of man is “total depravity”, man cannot keep the law, so he must rely on Jesus to keep the law for him.

But the Bible says that righteousness is apart from the law (Romans 3:21, 28). If Jesus must keep the law for us, not only does that make Jesus’ work not “finished”, but it is also not a righteousness apart from the law. What could Jesus have possibly meant when He said, “It is finished”?

It is important to note the grammar of that phase, which is only one single word in Greek. First of all, it is in the “passive voice”. That means the subject is the recipient of the action. Jesus did not say I have finished something. Some subject “it” received the action of being finished, and Jesus’ death accomplished that.

Second, the word “tetelestai” is in the “perfect” tense. The perfect tense is a verb form that indicates that an action or circumstance occurred earlier than the time under consideration, often focusing attention on the resulting state rather than on the occurrence itself. Although this gives information about a prior action, the focus is likely to be on the present consequences of that action.  In fact, the King James rendering of this verb is incorrect.  The correct rendering of this phrase in the perfect tense would be, “It has been finished.”  Jesus declared that His death produced a resulting state of something that now exists that is different from an earlier state.

Third, “tetelestai” is in the singular third person. The subject is not Jesus and something He did. The focus is on some third party subject that was the recipient of some action being performed upon it. Therefore, the statement, “It is finished” could not be a reference to Jesus finishing His work of perfect obedience to the Law. Something else had the action of “finished” performed upon it.

The question then remains, when Jesus said, “It is finished”, what exactly then is the “it”?

For one thing, the Law was actually a living will or “testament”, a covenant made between God and Israel that was ratified with Moses by the sprinkling of blood (Hebrews 9:18-21). This covenant of the Law acted as a guardian until the promise made to Abraham and his “seed” was fulfilled. (Galatians 3:16, 22-24). The Law took Old Testament saints into protective custody, protecting them from the Law’s condemnation upon their death. All sin was imputed to the Law. This was the “atoning” or “covering” aspect of the Law.

The Law’s testament pointed to the coming “promise” to Abraham that all the nations would be blessed. There would come one who would “take away” sin once and for all. This was so clearly symbolized by the picture of the “scapegoat” in Leviticus 16. The high priest would lay his hands on the head of a goat, signifying the imputation of sin to the Law. The goat would then be delivered into the hands of a strong man who would carry that goat into the wilderness and release it, signifying the taking away of sin as far as the east is from the west.

Jesus was the promised “seed” of Abraham. He was the “testator” of which the Law’s covenant spoke. Just as with any will, it could not be in force until after the death of the testator (Hebrews 9:16-17). It would seem reasonable then that the perfect tense of the verb “tetelestai” would put focus on the Law, its testament, and its role as guardian. The initiating of the Law was an event or circumstance of the past, but Jesus’ death now causes us to focus on its resulting change of state. The passive voice indicates that the Law is the recipient of this change of state. What is now changed?

  • The testament of the Law is finished. Jesus’ death now allowed its promises to be fulfilled; that is, sin would be ended because the Law was ended. All sin that was imputed to the Law would be taken away forever. The Law can no longer condemn.
  • The Law’s role as a guardian is finished. Since the “promise” had been fulfilled, believers are now the righteous offspring of the Father. There is no Law to condemn them, and where there is no law there is no sin. And since there is no sin there is no longer any need of a guardian. The covering aspect of the Law is ended.
  • The distinction between Jew and Gentile is finished. Now every born again child of God would be baptized into one Body. This is the mystery that Paul spoke of in Ephesians. He called it the New Man. Every person who is a member of the Body is given a gift to exercise to the edification of the Body and to demonstrate love to God and others. The Law is the means by which believers show love through obedience.

One could say that because of Jesus’ death to end the Law, there is now a new relationship to the Law.  There is a change of state; not only of the law but the state of the believer as well!

It was God’s plan to reconcile every man to Himself by putting to death the “old man” who is “under law” and replacing him with a new creature who is the literal offspring of the Father. In this way sin is ended because the Law is ended for those who are born again. The Law is fulfilled in us, every believer, each time we show love to another.

Sin sought to bring death by condemnation and alienate man from God. God defeated Sin by providing a way to make man part of His own family!


Dear Reformed Brother, Was Jesus Righteous Before He Kept the Law?
Wait, Believers Fulfill The Law?

Do You Believe a False Gospel?

Traumaunction: Definition

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on April 13, 2018

PIPERThe etymology of “traumaunction” begins on 4/12/2018; uh, in fact, yesterday. A word is necessary to describe the over-dramatized sermons of Protestants designed to inflict mental trauma on the listeners. The purpose is to inflict fear of condemnation in order to drive one back to the cross daily for more Jesus.

So, in true Protestant tradition, all sermons, if you are preaching correctly, seek two objectives; to aide one in “preaching the gospel to ourselves every day,” and maintaining control of people through condemnation. People who are under condemnation are “humbled” and are passive putty in the hands of Protestant despots.

Though a contemporary word, its consummate example is “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards. Many assume that Edwards used the traumaunction to wake up a Laodicea-like church, but such is not the case; the sermon and its results are the stated goals of every Protestant sermon according to orthodoxy. In our day, many seek to mimic Edwards’ iconic folklore, particularly, John Piper.PIPER 2

Hence, church is a place where you go to be traumatized in order to keep yourself close to Jesus. Pastors go to seminary for as long as eight years to learn traumaunction. Rather than being encouraged unto good works, the goal is to be brought low so the “saving works (note the plural form) of Jesus” are made manifest. This is the Protestant doctrine of Mortification and Vivification as well as the Vital Union doctrine. Praise bands are for the purpose of facilitating M and V leading to the Vital Union.

I will give every Protestant on the face of the earth a nickel if they know what these Protestant doctrines are. I have a coin jar behind my desk, that will cover it. But at any rate, it’s kinda cool knowing why I did what I did as a pastor for 20-plus years though after the fact.

So then, let’s nail down an official definition:

Traumaunction, (trauma/and an over-dramatized expression of speech, “unction”), is a Protestant sermon designed to inflict mental trauma for purposes of ongoing repentance leading to Mortification and Vivification resulting in the Vital Union…until the next time you preach the gospel to yourself.


Francis Chan Creates Controversy For Being Protestant Among Protestants That Don’t Know What a Protestant Is which is Most

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on April 12, 2018

“Yes indeed, the lovely church would never execute people who disagree with them, God is now doing that for them, that is, the god they are supposed to imitate.”

ppt-jpeg4More controversy in church land filled with plenary pandemonium. I pretty much stay away from surfing the Protestant internet because I don’t have as much time to write as I used to, and Protestant news is rife with opportunities to partake in musings of morbid curiosity like a fatal car wreck that we have to look at while we pass.

However, I have received several emails concerning a recent sermon by Francis Chan that apparently hit a nerve with churchians at large. So, I went to You Tube and observed the traumaunction. And as I suspected beforehand, it was Chan just being a good Protestant.

First, according to authentic Protestant orthodoxy, all sermons are to be traumaunctions. These are emotional expressions that create trauma in the mind. Francis Chan and John Piper stand out in regard to being particularly apt in traumaunction. This is because the founding fathers of Protestantism, the big three, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, believed that true sanctification is driven by fear; that is, fear of condemnation that drives us back to the cross for re-justification. That’s Protestantism in a nutshell…it is a religion of fear and condemnation. For detailed documentation on this point, get my book, “It’s Not About Election; Why Calvinism is ‘Another Gospel.'”

If you watch the video, said sermon is all about the fear. Someplace, the big three were smiling, wherever that might be, God knows. Protestantism is clearly a false gospel that defines the saints as yet under law (the biblical definition of a lost person), but many are thankfully confused enough to be saved. John MacArthur is probably an example of that.

Secondly, in said sermon, and true to Protestant orthodoxy, Chan claims that God will strike people dead who criticize the Protestant philosopher kings. That is absolutely necessary after Americanism took away the ability for the Protestant church to execute their detractors. Since we are supposedly a civilized society now, God has taken over executions for the church. Not; there is only ONE reason the church is no longer executing detractors…AMERICA…period. Why do you think we see an ever-increasing anti-American sentiment and leaning toward Socialism in the church? America took away the church’s power over the masses. Yes indeed, the lovely church would never execute people who disagree with them, God is now doing that for them, that is, the god they are supposed to imitate.

Hence, confused Protestants refer to Chan’s traumaunction as cultic behavior. Sigh, once again, let’s define cultism. The word enters into history after the American Revolution. Why? Because when the sword was taken away from the church, it had to resort to mind control manipulation in order to exert control over the masses. Cultism is defined by ANY religion that integrates authority with faith. At any time any church leader declares that said church has authority…that’s a cult…period. And let’s be clear, “The Bible is our authority” really means, “What we say the Bible says is the authority.”

Nevertheless, the mindlessness of Protestants never ceases to amaze; Chan, in said sermon, answers the question one might ask in regard to God not striking people dead right and left. Well, supposedly, he received a special word from the Lord on that; God’s people have not been sufficiently warned, so, Chan has begun fulfilling that duty which will apparently lead to a string of deaths. And, this didn’t lead to half the place heading for the exits. And so it is in our day.

Thirdly, in the traumaunction, Chan perfectly defines the definition of unity according to Protestant orthodoxy; it’s obedience to whatever the Protestant philosopher kings say. That’s because Protestantism in predicated on authority as truth. I have said it before and will keep saying it: this is salvation by obeying the church which is also black and white Protestant orthodoxy. This is the good news of church authority. This is the good news of Mark Driscoll’s “Keep your damn mouth shut and obey!” This is the good news of Albert Mohler’s “Pastors are God’s appointed men to save His people from ignorance.”

Do you realize why many Protestants are “converting” to the Catholic Church? Let me state it straight from the horse’s mouth: “If everyone would just obey the Catholic Church which has been around since the beginning we wouldn’t have all these denominations.” Right, the Protestant Reformation did spawn a total misunderstanding about religious freedom in the minds of many. This resulted in the Protestant church killing many of them, and in some cases, groups where hunted down and murdered by both churches.

If church is all about authority as truth, and it is, doesn’t it make sense to find salvation in what is clearly the first historical church? And besides, Saint Augustine is the Doctor of Grace for both churches. But does anybody give that a second thought? Nope.

Go easy on Francis Chan, he’s just being a good Protestant. Meanwhile, come out from among them and be separate.










%d bloggers like this: