Paul's Passing Thoughts

Some Clarification on the “Love Story” Post

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 12, 2016

As someone running this ministry, working full time, and going to school fulltime, I really don’t have time to clarify ideas in my posts to the degree I would like. However, it’s not that big of a deal because my primary reason for writing is to provoke thinking anyway. Nevertheless, I would like to clarify the “Love Story” post a bit.

I think people are confused to some extent when I point to the fact that Protestantism is works salvation because it posits itself as the defender of grace throughout the ages. And this is what makes Protestantism so deceptive.

Here is the point of the post: when you live under law requiring a perpetual atonement because as a “Christian” you remain under law, the law’s condemnation is going to manifest itself in your life in spite of a constant drumbeat of “grace, mercy, forgiveness, grace mercy, forgiveness.” Even though that’s the life mantra, wherever one is still under law, an attitude of condemnation is going to manifest itself. This is what the post speaks to.

While Protestants decry living under law, let us remember that’s defined by Christ keeping the law for us. This enables churchians to have it both ways; they condemn when convenient, and they forgive when convenient instead of having a body attitude. When a part of our body annoys us, we don’t want to cut it off or punish it, we want to fix it. If our right hand annoys us in some way, we don’t hold it over a fire until our revenge lust is satisfied.

Because Protestant righteousness is defined by perfect law-keeping imputed to our lives via the perfect-law keeping of Christ by a perpetual return to the same gospel that saved us, a biblical new birth that ends the law in our lives is disqualified which negates a body-life mentality. Seeing ourselves as a literal member of one body is therefore excluded, and the law is not our standard for love, but is the terms for living in a perpetual ceasefire. So, we don’t live in a relaxed enjoyment of each other, we live in a soap opera. Living together isn’t free and relaxed; it’s a continual partaking in sin-sniffing.

The likes of Paul David Tripp define it this way: the Christian life is a “lifestyle of repentance.” Yikes! It’s a continual discussion about what’s wrong with everything and everybody. Our burden is not light, it’s heavy. “Marriage is hard work….marriage is two sinners living together” etc., etc., God help us.

Like the world, churchians live under condemnation; “loving congregations” and happy marriages are defined by lengthy ceasefires, but eventually the condemned must fall and fail.

And, the Love Story post describes what that sometimes looks like at ground level. The need for issue resolution and standing for what is right is by no means excluded in the post; rather, the post speaks to a single aspect of the overall subject.

paul

 

“Nothing But The Blood” Why New Calvinism Has All But Completely Taken Over the Protestant Church

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 12, 2016

ppt-jpeg4The difference between function and intellectual profession is an interesting study. Initially, Protestantism’s mode of operation and traditions accurately reflected its church-state progressive justification and salvation by church membership.

Americanism infiltrated and integrated contrary principles into the Protestantism that had come stateside, but then proceeded to corrupt Protestantism worldwide with open society principles. What evolved was worship predicated by authoritarian church ownership of salvation while professing the OSAS (once saved always saved) priesthood of believers.

Stated another way, OSASPOB was an intellectual staple for years while church ritual pointed to the Protestantism of old: ownership of salvation by the institutional church. Sunday worship proclaimed a salvation that we would ridicule while preaching at the office coffee table.

This is how we lived for years while assuming that we were the antithesis of Catholicism.

And what better example than a song we all sang for years Sunday after Sunday with tears in our eyes and from the depths of our heart? “Nothing But The Blood.” Consider the lyrics:

What can wash away my sin?

Nothing but the blood of Jesus;

What can make me whole again?

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Refrain:

Oh! precious is the flow

That makes me white as snow;

No other fount I know,

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

For my pardon, this I see,

Nothing but the blood of Jesus;

For my cleansing this my plea,

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Nothing can for sin atone,

Nothing but the blood of Jesus;

Naught of good that I have done,

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

This is all my hope and peace,

Nothing but the blood of Jesus;

This is all my righteousness,

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Now by this I’ll overcome—

Nothing but the blood of Jesus;

Now by this I’ll reach my home—

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Glory! Glory! This I sing—

Nothing but the blood of Jesus,

All my praise for this I bring—

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

The song lyrics propagate an egregious false gospel. It is the idea that Christians commit ongoing sins that need a reapplication Christ’s death. So, instead of salvation being a finished work that frees us to put our faith to work, the focus must be ongoing “atonement” by perpetually returning to the same gospel that saved us. And according to good old fashioned Protestantism, that ongoing atonement can only be found under the authority of the institutional church.

Hello. What do you think , “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day” means?

This isn’t complicated and it is what it is. This is just good old fashioned Baptist orthodoxy. The blood of Christ was not sprinkled on the mercy seat in heaven for the once and for all ENDING and taking away of ALL sin; no, no no, the blood of Christ is a what? Right, a “fountain.”  Um, what’s a “fountain”? Again, this isn’t complicated theology by any stretch of the imagination.

Look, one could write a book on how this one song propagates Catholic-like soteriology, but suffice to say that salvation is presented in the present continuous tense throughout the song including an outright denial of the new birth. If you were born of your parents, and I assume you were, you have their DNA—you don’t say that you “have no DNA of your own” and to do so is tantamount to saying that you birthed yourself into the world. Righteousness is the Father’s DNA of the new birth, and if righteousness is not part of your state of being, you are not born again and you are not saved.

Said another way, if you have been given a gift, it would seem evident that you take ownership of it or else it’s not a gift. Salvation is never described as a loan—it’s a gift. This doesn’t mean that you created the gift; it merely means that you received it. You have no gift that you have not taken ownership of. Hence, if you have no righteousness of your own, you have not received the gift of righteousness and you are not saved.

Why would you sing joyfully from the depths of your heart about not being saved? Have we lost our minds? Just how silly are we?

New Calvinism, Neo-Calvinism, Neo-Protestantism, etc., is a return to authentic church and is taking over the church like wildfire because its original gospel has always been running in the background. New Calvinism is un-confusing the church and leading Protestants back to Calvin’s Geneva.

And in every case, a brick and mortar church is either a confused congregation on its way back home, or has already arrived.

Come out from among them and be saved.

paul

Reconsidering “Love Story” and Protestant Condemnation

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 11, 2016

love_story_1970_film-2In 1970 the movie “love Story” starring Ryan O’Neal and Ali MacGraw was a huge box office hit. The movie’s catchphrase, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry”…”proved memorable, and has been repeated in various contexts [culturally] since. “The line has also been criticized or mocked, for suggesting that apologies are unnecessary in a loving relationship.”

Culturally, media presentations have also mocked the catchphrase by replacing “love” with other subjects: “On Weeds, Nancy Botwin, after the death of her drug dealer mentor, U-Turn, explains to the tattoo artist her reason for getting a U-Turn traffic sign tattoo is that ‘It just reminds me that Thug means never having to say you’re sorry.’ When asked by the tattoo artist if she doesn’t mean ‘love’, Nancy replies, ‘Absolutely not. Love means you’re constantly apologizing.’”

After pondering all of the aforementioned, I would like to make my own catchphrase: “Law means you never say you’re sorry enough.” One of the many things I do not miss about being a Protestant in the Southern Baptist church is the condemnation. If Protestantism keeps its participants under law, and it does, one should expect to see a lot of condemnation going on, and you do.

During my stint as a Baptist, there were several bazaar incidents that I never understood until now leading me to conclude that while I would not make the Love Story catchphrase a life theme to live by, I must say that it is much closer to the truth than “Law means you never say you’re sorry enough.”

A paramount example follows. As a young zealous Baptist fellow I took over a very large AWANA children’s program that was falling apart at the seams. The first year was a smashing success after I sunk my heart and soul into the program. The concluding program and awards ceremony at the end of the year on a Sunday night went particularly well which led me to deep thankfulness and joy…for about an hour after the closing program.

The first sign of a storm cloud came when I was informed that one of the children inadvertently was not put on the awards list. Let me make a very long story short: that misstep defined the whole year and everything that had been accomplished. Even though the mistake was made by the AWANA secretary, I was informed that some elements of any endeavor are so important that a misstep on that one element rightfully defines success or failure in regard to the whole. Hence, all of the loving effort poured into the program by me was for not. Furthermore, I couldn’t ask for forgiveness enough; it became apparent that the controversy was not going away until justice was fully satisfied. Basically, it ended when everyone felt like a sufficient poundage of flesh had been extracted.

What is all of this? It’s what you experience when you are under law and not under love. And folks, you can apply this example to every venue and strata of life…especially marriage. Love isn’t defined by the big picture and the assumed motives of people; love is defined by not doing something wrong. It isn’t thankful and insightful regarding the other person’s whole life, it is a constant state of truce until the other person makes a mistake. Then, the truce doesn’t resume until the suitable punishment fits the crime.

If you have ever been a pastor, and I have, and been to a lot of pastor’s conferences, and I have, you know that successful pastors are defined by the ability to “keep the peace” in their congregations; viz, the political ability to maintain a truce.

What is this whether a marriage or church congregation? It’s under law. Regardless of your motives and best efforts, you are defined, at least temporarily, by your most recent mistake. Yes my dear friend, you have fallen short of the “righteous demands of the law.” Be sure of this: all pettiness that goes on in the institutional church flows from its progressive justification gospel that keeps congregants under law…2+2=4.

Love is patient because it “dwells” on the big picture and all of the reasons you love that person. Love isn’t defined by not doing bad stuff; it’s defined by the big picture motives of any given person and our vision for what we want them to be. Law defines the person by the momentary weakness and the truce is canceled until sufficient justice has been executed. That is otherwise known as “condemnation.” Condemnation keeps a record of wrong and not love. Love dwells on what is honorable and does not keep a record of wrong. Love keeps a record of love. Love defines a person in regard to what they do by faith, not what they do when their faith is weak. Love doesn’t seek restitution, it seeks restoration.

Invariably someone will say, “That attitude is just going to promote unrestrained wickedness!” See what the assumption is? The goal isn’t true love, the goal is a love defined by not doing bad stuff. The person isn’t perceived for their love, they are defined in regard to whether or not they did something bad today.

You can tell when you are around people with an under law mentality or a straight up under law that flows from their Protestant progressive justification gospel. Someone’s moment of weakness becomes the big picture. Some isolated incident isn’t seen as a residual annoyance, it’s seen as Armageddon. And, invariably, they just won’t let it go. No reasonable explanation, apology, or even slashing of the wrists will end the affair until they feel that the law has been fulfilled by your suffering.

In love, we will have to apologize from time to time; however, I would have no problem with a love that doesn’t deem it necessary and assumes no ill motives were intended. But when you are dealing with someone with an under law mentality…

…”Law means never saying you’re sorry enough”…until the law is once again fulfilled by someone other than Christ.

paul

Addendum: Some Clarification on the “Love Story” Post

 

Revised: The Twelve Pillars of Contrast: God’s Prescribed Home Fellowships Versus the Institutional Church

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 9, 2016

As I catch up on reader homework, church drama is truly overwhelming. I find the information sent to me astounding. I was tempted to write five posts and I do not have time to do so—not even close.…

Source: Revised: The Twelve Pillars of Contrast: God’s Prescribed Home Fellowships Versus the Institutional Church

The Protestant Ruse, Donald Trump, Death, and Taxes

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 9, 2016

ppt-jpeg41Is it possible that the vast Protestant industrial complex is one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on mankind? It’s not only possible; it’s a fact. And it’s not because people are stupid—stupidity is actually a human anomaly—people are logic-driven and the logic that drives their behavior and beliefs often poses as stupidity. Moreover, the accusation of stupidity is often an analytical shortcut.

However, this does not exclude lazy thinking. While the genocidal plight of the masses is truly tragic and criminal those who occupy the mass graves of human history bear some responsibility; they weren’t paying attention. And as they kneel on the side of the hole with the bulldozer parked at one end peering down at their peers at the bottom, some still writhing, they always wonder how they got there because they didn’t know. One always bears some responsibility for not knowing because nothing happens in a vacuum.

Due to the fact that it is trending, and won’t stop, one example among the myriads has posed itself for a post continually…so I type. Yes: this whole thing about corporate fat cats like Donald Trump not paying taxes and thus skirting their civic duty while expecting the little people to pay all of the taxes. The only way this nonsense can be sold to the public is via our low information society. And Americans are very guilty of assuming that these residual issues and their rhetoric do not ultimately lead to the use of bulldozers to dig mass graves.

Now we must interpret “low information.” This by no means—means that information is not available because we are in the Information Age. It means that willing intake and critical thinking is at an all-time low. And again, historically, this is what fills up the mass graves.

So, back to our prime example at hand; this whole idea that corporate fat cats can use legal loopholes to avoid paying all taxes. That’s impossible. A: in business, there are many taxes that are mandatory and have no exemptions, and B: that obviously comes out of what a company owner or corporate officer would normally take as income. One example of this would be Social Security taxes that businesses must match. Businesses MUST also pay into things like workers compensation and Medicare. These are set tax fees that are unavoidable and have NO exemptions. Businesses, by law, must also collect taxes for the government via payroll deductions which means companies must hire administrators for such purposes. And depending on what kind of business we are talking about, the profit margin may not be there after taxes and regulations.

Federal income taxes are one example of where business owners can get relief, and as Trump pointed out in the last debate a business owner would be stupid in not taking advantage of such exemptions. Hillary Clinton then seized upon the opportunity to make Trump look like someone who thinks all of the burdens of taxation should be on the little people and worse yet for things that benefit society as a whole. This is Hillary knowingly exploiting a low information public. But for what purpose?

With that said, Trump is either a very poor communicator or knows the American public doesn’t have the informational wherewithal to understand a rebuttable on such matters. Either way, it is now time for us to examine how such examples lead to societal mass death in religious and secular venues.

I work in the caregiver industry. America spends massive amounts of energy and money to assist millions with the activities of daily living (what we call “ADL”). This money comes almost completely from the mandatory taxation of American businesses. An improper balance of taxation and regulation will positively leave millions without care and people will die. In other words, few Americans can afford things like dialysis and breathing treatments out of pocket, but even for those who can, without a healthy business culture the medical infrastructure would not be there anyway. And in additional words, political positions on business taxation and regulation are a matter of life and death…literally.

And in even more words, high unemployment should cause people who depend on Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare for activities of daily living to have the following experience: their whole lives should be flashing before their eyes because it is.

Such people, those who I serve, cannot afford to be ill-informed on these matters, and if they vote according to the presuppositions of others they eventually do so to their own detriment. The present system has the money to be over-the-top generous; even with the waste and corruption. According to my firsthand experience, disabled clients get just about everything they ask for whether newer medical beds or a plethora of other medical and ADL devices not to mention assisted care and long-term care facilities.

There is one reason and one reason only that America takes care of it’s disabled better than any other country in the world ever has: capitalism…period. Yes, capitalism is a very powerful concept. The overall unique American experience is not historical happenstance and you cannot separate capitalism from American fundamentals—they go hand in hand.

Sorry, now we have to define capitalism. Yes, I know, time for thinking and that is hard. Most Americans do not know how to define capitalism, and most Americans also vote. This is also a cardinal illustration.

“Capitalism: a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government.”

~ Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

Now perhaps we come to the crux of the post. Any proposal that one is pro healthcare while demonizing mythical corporate tycoons who pay no taxes is a stunning contradiction. This is a lie deliberately told to people known to be ill-informed. And buyer beware because any idea that government should run businesses goes hand in hand with what we call “socialism” which was the historical norm until America came along.

“Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.”

~Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

And further apologies because although I am going to keep this simple, we are now going to discuss why people would think commerce should be controlled by the government. It all boils down to the ability versus inability of mankind. Man is either able or unable…that is…to do good. It’s basically a moral question. And, the latter requires a social stratum or moral class who should rule over the great unwashed masses. Don’t get lost here, no need to, this is simple math. If man is morally unable, the only hope is that something good can guide him through the dark morass of reality. So let’s have a conversation.

“Ok, so how would the difference between the masses and the needed guides be calculated? How should the ruling class be defined and determined?” Answer: historically, this is defined by KNOWLEDGE; specifically, a theoretical grasp of reality. It has always varied from culture to culture, but the family lineage one is born into can determine it or one who has shown himself or herself as an apt knower of things regarding reality according to whatever the system is that determines such. But all in all, we are talking about a social class stratum that determines who rules over whom. Social strata is always a result of presuppositions concerning mankind with the linchpin being ability or inability.

In capitalism, social strata are earned and determined by individual accomplishment. In socialism, social strata are predetermined by authority—usually via miseducation and conquest if necessary…for humanity’s own good of course. Now let’s have another conversation.

“But Paul, why would anybody jeopardize the care of the disabled by being anti-capitalistic?” Answer: because the disabled are limited in how they can contribute to the government’s ability to rule over others not to mention their limited contribution to society as a whole. Socialism sees them as takers and not givers. Their elimination becomes a moral obligation for the sake of the collective good. I would point to a cursory observation of history, but few Americans have such.

America was the first nation predicated on mankind’s ability, and the historical results plainly speak for themselves if you know history. And there is only one group better than socialists at rewriting history; Protestants.

Breakpoint: if man is unable, his only hope is an elite ruling class who must control the masses for their own good. Their access to information and resources of any kind must be limited. Any empowerment of the individual endangers humanity as a whole. Again, the metaphysical math is pretty simple, and the Bible does strike a balance in all of this, but what the Bible states in regard to all of this is not the subject of this post.

Hence, all class warfare evolves from the ability/inability of man question; government either protects the individual’s right to pursue happiness or assumes mankind is only happy when his evil desires are satisfied. America has forced socialism to change its tactics because straightforward open conquest of the individual by pain of death has been eliminated. The new strategy is to be voted into power by creating class warfare; ie., “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” etc. Teach those greedy cooperate bastards a lesson by voting us into power and we will make them pay their fair share of taxes, your education, and a fair wage.

Um, the real goal is to put American business out of business because it’s capitalism predicated on individualism and not socialism.

And, religion has always been socialism’s collaborator in this endeavor with Protestantism being no little example. Sure, shortly after the American Revolution Protestantism became a hybrid of European tradition and individualism, but Protestantism is now returning to its European roots and utter rejection of individualism. As the renowned evangelical John MacArthur Jr. recently stated, Protestantism is indeed predicated on the inability of man. This is why pro-Americanism is presently only taking place in churches that are still confused, but those churches are quickly diminishing in number. Let me point out that before America, Protestant history was defined by the burning stake, wars, the renaming of treason as “martyrdom,” and doctrines written in blood. In fact, incidents like the Salem witch trials provoked the American Revolution. Protestantism has always been about the inability of man contrary to anything Americana.

This is where I must submit that even though Americans are dumbed down by design, they may understand some things that are apparent and this might explain the Trump phenomenon. In my book, the guy is not someone who I would want to hang out with, but to some degree, do Americans understand the critical role that business plays in our societal wellbeing? Asked another way: do Americans understand capitalism more than I give them credit for? Trump’s ridiculous character aside, does the bottom line follow: he is perceived to be a successful capitalist and his followers think successful capitalism is critical to saving America? They may not know enough to verbalize it that way, but is it otherwise apparent?

Finally, as born again Christians whose nation yet remains in heaven along with our king, should our vote be moral or practical? I only pose the question and it is far from being rhetorical…because a vote for Trump may not be a vote for Trump the man, but a vote for capitalism…

…which is a matter of life and death for many.

paul