Paul's Passing Thoughts

The 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.

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.

paul

“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.”

More 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'” which can be read for free here or purchased here.

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.

paul

The Protestant gospel is predicated on the total depravity of the saints and everything good about said “believer” only being a “legal declaration.” In Protestant orthodoxy, that is, if you know what it really is, all good remains outside of the “believer.” Faith is defined, again, according to orthodoxy, as a perception (illumination) that enables one to see the depths of their depravity as set against God’s holiness. So, saving faith is only an ability to see, but not do. Any ability to do good would be a “righteousness of your own.”

In other words, Protestantism calls for a strict dichotomy between good and evil with all good being from above. Martin Luther defined the Reformation’s philosophy on this in his Heidelberg Disputation which we had a lengthy series on and it will not be revisited here.

Hence, the real reason for the Reformation: Rome began to adopt the idea that righteousness was infused into the believer. Griping about  indulgences and the such was all pretense and a reason that peasants could relate to, but was far from being the real reason for the falling out with Rome. If you are paying attention, evangelicals promote this idea routinely…because it is factual.

Here at TANC, we are confident that we have the New Covenant relationship between law and gospel nailed down pat, but are still searching for how it fits together with the Old Covenant, which in fact, was an atonement, or mere covering for sin. But does that mean the OT saints were not really righteous as a state of being? And does it matter?

Yes it matters because if Abraham’s righteousness was only a, “reckoning” (a legal declaration), we find contradiction in many New Testament statements and a segue for the Reformed position which denies the new birth. More than likely, a more complete understanding of the new birth is needed. TANC is all about a collective effort of the laity to reclaim true biblical truth from the Protestant dark age. A basic understanding of true biblical justification is a good start, but much more work needs to be done. Let the discussion/debate commence.

One of the key ideas promoted in our day as to why Rome drifted away from dualism follows: they misinterpreted the words used to describe the justification of mankind as a state of being rather than an accounting term, or a mere legal declaration. However, even if righteousness is framed as something deposited into our account, that means we own the money. According to Protestant logic, righteousness is only recorded in the bank ledger but the money really isn’t in there. In a court context, God judges us righteous based on what Christ did, but it’s not really true. To Rome’s credit, they had a problem with this and still do; to their discredit, the new birth only qualifies the “believer” to get progressive salvation from the Church. But I must say, their belief in infused righteousness is closer to the truth than Protestantism, so if you must stay in the institutional church, at least go Catholic who at least believe in the new birth but misapply it. In both cases, it is clearly institutional progressive salvation.

The gospel is both simple and complex. Simple as an introduction to the way of salvation, but also complex so that study of how its complexities fit together confirm its truthfulness. Also, the Bible is primarily for sanctification, and life isn’t all that simple. In our seeking for truth, and that journey to increase our knowledge of life and godliness, we shouldn’t be overly concerned with what we don’t understand. We set aside that of which we are sure of, and build the rest on those principles that are concrete. When we know something is true definitively, future understanding will build on top off that. So, when we come across a piece of the puzzle we don’t understand, we can know that it will eventually fit in somewhere. Secondly, biblical statements that seem contradictory must bow to the definitive building blocks that we know are true until the right equation is figured out. Thirdly, when understanding is stalled, it is important to reexamine, or better said, double-check  presuppositions. Fourthly, learn to use interpretive questions such as…”Does the existence of sin under the Old Covenant for both saved and unsaved necessarily mean that righteousness was only a declaration, and how does that relate to what the new birth is?”

1. Collect objective truths and build on that foundation.
2. Future truths must submit to what is more objective.
3. Review presuppositions from time to time.
4. Ask interpretive questions.

And a final word on word study. The Greek this, the Greek that; the Hebrew this, the Hebrew that. Here is a great help with the word study tools we have in our day. Let’s use this “reckoning” (Abraham was “reckoned” or only declared/considered righteous) issue as an example. Using tools like E-Sword to ascertain the raw definition of the word is a good starting point, but what you can also do with E-Sword is right click on the word and it will show you how the word is used in the rest of the Bible. That’s huge. That will tell you what was really meant by the word’s use in context.

Here is what I found in the final analysis, especially in regard to how the word is used in other New Testament passages, and working from Paul’s quotation from Genesis in Galatians. The word is most often used in regard to a true assessment, or an assessment that is assumed to be true.

I contend that using the Protestant concept of imputation to assert the following is very problematic: “OJ Simpson may be guilty of murder, but that is totally irrelevant because he was declared innocent in a court of law. But our declaration is better because it is based on someone else’s righteousness that is imputed to us.”

This ministry has pontificated extensively on how that turns the true biblical gospel completely upside down.

At some point in this ministry, I knew definitively that righteousness was not based on perfect law-keeping. During that time, I was asked, “What then, defines righteousness?” I had to say I didn’t know, at that point, I simply knew it wasn’t the law. Later, the obvious in broad daylight was discovered, “we cannot sin because His seed remains in us.” The basis for righteousness is the new birth; we are God’s literal offspring. Being His literal child, regardless of anything, makes us righteous as a state of being.

Interpretive question: Could an OT believer be righteous as a state of being, but not yet a family member? Are particular relationship status’ particular to dispensations? Was an OT saint God’s “friend,” but not yet a family member? Was the adoption yet future upon Christ’s death?

Eventually, the answer to this question will be discovered as well, as the Spirit leads us in all truth. And by the way, the Spirit leads us, not John Piper, or any other notable one of the Protestant personality cult.

paul

via Depression: My Testimony

The church had its problems for 200 years after the American Revolution but was confused for the better. Since the Protestant church integrated Enlightenment thought with orthodoxy as a result of Americanism, misguided Protestants believed in individual empowerment and good came of it.

However, in real Protestantism, the ideology is nonnegotiable regardless of the results or the fruit. According to Protestantism, a tree is known by the ideology, not the fruit. As discussed during yesterday’s weekly Potter’s House program, the fulfillment of the law via a handful of church sacraments (faith alone works) IS antinomianism.

Look, when salvation is about the “Christian’s” life-work also being substituted, and God being sovereign over everything that happens whether good or bad in accordance with the gospel metaphysical narrative which must necessarily include evil to magnify God’s grace, the results are going to be what we see daily in the church.

Discernment bloggers never tire of reporting and pontificating on daily scandals flowing from the church like a broken septic tank. And let there be no doubt about it; the sole purpose of discernment blogs are to save institutional salvation. Though everyone will intellectually attest that “there is salvation in no other,” clearly, the functionality is trust in the church for salvation regardless of the fruit.

Hence, the broken record keeps playing the same tune over and over again. Yawn, oh my, I think I can motivate myself to report this week’s church/discernment blog drama.

A Washington woman says a former youth pastor sexually abused her 30 years ago when she was 14. Despite acknowledging the misdeed, she says, he continues to work in ministry — now at the International House of Prayer of Kansas City.

Brad Tebbutt was a 27-year-old youth pastor at First Baptist Church in Modesto, Calif., when the abuse began, Jennifer Graves Roach told The Modesto Bee in a story published Saturday. Roach told The Bee that Tebbutt consoled her when her father died, then sexually abused her over the next 2½ years in his church office, his car and his home while his wife was at work.

Tebbutt, who now lives in the Kansas City area, works in a ministry at IHOP for people in their 50s and above, according to his bio. When asked for a response, an IHOP spokesman emailed The Star a document titled “Our approach to handling sensitive information about a person’s sin or other wrongdoing.”

“We take sin seriously, but we also take redemption seriously,” it says. “We care about both.”

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article202020974.html

Now enter-in cause for rejoicing among the victims and discernment bloggers; their hero, the present-day champion of church salvation, the man of famed evangelical pedigree, Boz Tchividjian (the Boz), director of GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment). Don’t you know, all is well because GRACE will be “investigating” the situation. This will keep the donations rolling in for IHOP for as long as it usually takes the Boz to investigate ongoing church antinomian situations…about two years or longer.

In the ABWE scandal that involved kidnapping and every other crime under the sun, it took about that long even though the ABWE missionary kids did all the needed investigation accompanied with painstaking documentation. Then, at the end of the investigation, when the smoke had cleared, and the GARB sycophants had pretty much moved on, (ABWE is funded by the General Assoc. of Regular Baptists), ABWE fired the Boz. Of course, he protested, but his work was pretty much done anyway; ie., receiving donations for supplying cover for the institutional church.

And even if these “investigations” eventually end, what is the resolution? Well, a “godly response.” What’s that? It’s good ole fashioned Martin Luther metaphysics packaged as soteriology. The goal in everything, of course, is to glorify salvation by returning to the same salvation that saved us. And, the bigger the sin, the more God’s grace is magnified. So, the more sin the “investigation” reveals, the greater potential there is for magnifying God’s grace. Hence, everybody “owns their own sin” (even the victims), and all parties are “reconciled” in the endgame of magnifying the grace of God. Though some sort of practical justice may occur, it’s not relevant to the Boz’s mission. In ALL cases where justice was served up to some degree, or licenses revoked resulting in protection for children and others, it was by the hands of the victims, not GRACE.

Whether discernment blogs or the Boz, the goal is preservation of institutional salvation. A literal concept of God’s people functioning as a family cannot be comprehended by these people. But at any rate, it’s very good work if you can get it. For the Boz, the payment is cash, for discernment bloggers, it’s personal relevance based on the number of people who follow your blog.

This brings us to another aspect of institutional salvation that must be saved by the discernment bloggers; statism. In the same way they don’t understand church orthodoxy creates evil through its antinomianism, they seem perplexed by the liberal absurdities promoted recently by Together for the Gospel (T4G) and The Gospel Coalition (TGC). Not only have these organizations all but completely taken over the church, they represent a return to the foundations of Protestantism that most Protestants don’t understand. And primary to authentic Protestantism is statism. A cursory observation of history reveals that Protestantism was created in a church-state and for a church-state.

The best present-day example of this, and why Protestants vote Democrat more and more as they return to their founding principles, is recent comments by Michelle Obama at a women’s conference.

At the Simmons Leadership Conference in Boston, Obama appeared to take shots at President Trump’s administration in remarks first reported by local TV station WBZ.
The Obama administration “was like having the ‘good parent’ at home,” the former first lady said. “The responsible parent, the one who told you to eat your carrots and go to bed on time.”

“And now we have the other parent,” Obama added. “We thought it’d feel fun — maybe it feels fun for now because we can eat candy all day and stay up late and not follow the rules.”

During the wide-ranging discussion, Obama also offered praise for Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee and the first woman to secure the nomination of a major U.S. political party.

Clinton was “the best-qualified candidate,” Obama said. “She wasn’t perfect, but she was way more perfect than many of the alternatives.”

In her remarks, Obama also hit the low voter turnout for Trump’s victory in 2016, saying that voters were not “willing” to go out and vote for Clinton, whom she said was likely the most qualified candidate in history.

“We’ve got to be willing, when we do find qualified people, to vote for them,” Obama said. “And we didn’t do that in this election.”

“So I think people should be less … disheartened that me and Oprah don’t want to run, and more disheartened by the fact that Hillary Clinton, probably the most qualified person to ever seek the office of the presidency, lost. She lost.”

First, why would people espouse the outrageous notion that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate for President that there has ever been? Because in context of being a Socialist, that’s probably true. Secondly, Obama is not merely using allegory here; in socialism, like churchism, government, whether secular or church government, is the parent while the great unwashed are metaphysical children who will self-destruct if left to themselves. Remember, the Obamas are by no means irreligious and see the church as an important political entity. And as far as TGC and T4G, they know the political clout for gaining control through statism is liberal politics.

The current perplexity among discernment bloggers reveals their utter ignorance regarding what the church really is. They must understand that church has not been functioning according to its true tenants for well over 100 years. What we see today is in fact your great, great granddaddies church.

Though it is tough to admit you lacked understanding for most of your life, it’s best to cut your losses and move on to real revival. There is no saving the church because it is now in the following position: Its antinomianism produces the problem and also supplies the cure. It produces its own supply and demand.

The best course of action is to cut your losses and redeem the time for the days are evil.

paul