Paul's Passing Thoughts

The Doctrine of Centralism and the “Cult” Misnomer

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 13, 2012

“Hence, there are only two types of churches in our day: those that promote bondage to pastor kings, and those that promote the priesthood of believers—with the latter being an anomaly in our day. ”

“This Reformation myth—the epic battle for truth between Rome and a lowly monk, is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.”

Like “legalism,” “gospel,” “grace,” and “Christian,” “cult”  is a loosely used term thrown around in our day. Like “legalism” in particular, I don’t think there is any such thing as a “cult.”

The word is very unhelpful, inaccurate, and enables spiritual abuse and tyranny of the worst sort. And, bibliology, or doctrine, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an organization is something that doesn’t exist; namely, a cult.

Have you noticed? People still attend and vigorously support what some call the big C. Why is that? Why do they also cover up big C behavior? Why the blind faith? Why do upright law abiding citizens support certain organizations in the face of damning evidence? Why are the victims blamed for the actions of their abusers? What’s going on?

Same Behavior

Observation begins to supply clues. Some years ago, I had a ministry to Jehovah Witnesses. JW’s are commonly accepted as being a cult.  But in case you haven’t noticed, they aren’t going away anytime soon. Why is that? I will answer that question later, but for now, let me state a procedure that JW’s use to neutralize those who contend against them: they set out to end your marriage. I was called into a situation where an individual was meeting with a group of JW elders from a kingdom hall that his wife was a member of. They had been recently married. He wanted to follow God, and considered the Bible to be the authority, and wanted me to attend the meeting to present another perspective on Scripture for him to consider.

But I did something surprising. I wouldn’t discuss doctrine with them. Instead, I brought copies of old Watch Tower theological journals (some dating back to the 1920’s) that clearly showed how JW’s have changed their positions on major theological issues over the years. Until the 70’s (if I remember correctly), JW’s disallowed blood transfusions (based on obscure Old Testament law) which led to the untimely deaths of many of their followers—especially children. Some of the younger elders present were unaware of this fact and didn’t buy the idea suggested at the meeting that I had photo-shopped  the copies.

The next morning, three  ladies from the  same kingdom hall came to visit my wife  after I left for work. They offered to come to our home during the day and have Bible studies with her. Despite my outrage, they were so persistent that I had to consider the obtaining of a restraining order from the local police.

Now enter Calvinist churches that are in contention with individuals. They do the EXACT same thing. The first thing that is going to happen when, and if you are in a contention with Calvinist elders in a local church—they are going to set the wheels in motion to drive a wedge between you and your spouse. I don’t condone it, but in cases that have been brought to our attention, the stalking of wives was only halted when Reformed elders were threatened with physical violence, or confrontation in the middle of Sunday morning services. The latter we do indorse, and many Reformed churches have security teams in place to thwart such confrontation which by the way is biblical. In other articles, I have outlined fourteen cult elements that are aped by Reformed churches. According to “cult” experts, the primary motivating factor is CONTROL. The process aimed at getting control and keeping it is known as centralism.

Now, try to solve the Reformed bully problem by labeling them a cult. Ya, good luck with that one. So, herein is now the problem: by labeling some “cults” and others not cults, the others get a free ticket to act like a cult without being one when the fact of the matter is that they are all CONTROLISTS.

Controlism  

Labeling them all “control freaks” (centralism, or controlism) is much better, and more accurate than “cult,” but still way short of being solution oriented. Why would so many people be concerned with controlling others? People do what they do for a reason. They do what they do because of what they believe or want. “Oh, you mean ‘doctrine,” right?” Wrong. Doctrine is the tool that makes control possible. Something comes before the doctrine. We are going to discuss the primary crux of this issue and lay all of the residual issues aside. This is the big picture.

Philosophy

Philosophy is the theory of being or existence, how we know what we know, ramifications of knowledge, and how we communicate it to others. Western culture is predicated on the idea that philosophers are an elite class that should rule the world. And depending on the philosophy’s doctrine, they are mediators between the masses and the cosmos, nature, various invisible forces, gods, or thee God.

Prior to the sixth century, Western culture primarily functioned on mythology. The fifth century saw a movement towards science, but the study of  human existence and how truth related to life (philosophy) did not emerge till circa 400 BC. The epicenter was the Academy in Athens Greece. This is where the philosophical wheel of Western culture was invented. The primary premise mentioned above, Plato’s philosopher kings, moved out from Athens into history by two roads: secular, and religious. In the religious realm, doctrines and church polity were geared for the ultimate goal necessary to implement the core philosophy: CONTROL.  Though religious wars have raged throughout Europe till this day under the auspices of doctrinal disagreements (going to war over doctrine is not doctrinally sound to begin with), what the issue has always been is that of control.

Even in regard to the doctrinal contentions between the Reformers and Rome, both doctrines were designed to control the saintly masses. That is why the results have always been the same whether Reformed or Catholic: heavy-handed leadership, abuse, and cover-ups. Why are there so many different denominations, doctrines, and beliefs?  Really there isn’t; these are just different theological systems that approach control in different ways.  The doctrine assimilated into the minds of both groups lead to the behavior. Why do pastors feel entitled to abuse? Philosophical indoctrination via biblical proof texting. Why do pastors cover for each other and refuse to confront other pastors? Same reason. Why  are victims told that it is their fault? Same reason. Why do parishioners look the other way and pretend it didn’t happen? Same reason. Want to see this in action? Watch the following video:

And this article: http://martybraemer.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/jack-schaap-my-friend/

The primary crux of Centralism in both Reformed doctrine and Catholicism is the emphasis on saintly ineptness. The Reformers relegated the saints to total depravity and a total inability to please God in any way. If you can convince people that they are worthless, it goes without saying that they become docile followers who are hesitant to question anything. Likewise, on the Catholic side, if you can’t interpret the Scriptures on your own and absolution can only be found through the Catholic Church—few are willing to rock the boat. Today’s Baptists of all strips are either one or the other, or a combination of both. While supposedly rejecting both, determinism and weekly absolution can be found at the altar weekly. After all, we are “all just sinners living by the same grace that saved us.”  Sermons are about “forgiving the way we have been forgiven,” and how “complaining is always sin.”

As obedience to the local pastor king is slowly assimilated into the minds of parishioners through various doctrines, followers will ultimately drink the Kool-Aid if they are told to. The infamous Jack Hyles (Independent Fundamental Baptist) demonstrated this to a fellow pastor by saying to one of his deacons: “stand up”; and he did. “Sit down”; and he did, and much to the astonishment of the other pastor. Hyles’ daughter once stated that she was certain that her father’s 50,000 followers would drink the Kool-Aid if he told them to and prefaced the statement with, “I’m not kidding!” Therefore, in her estimation, when it got right down to it, the (at one time) largest Baptist church in the world was no different from Jonestown, and I concur. Hyles and Jim Jones simply had different flavors of doctrine that were geared to obtain the same results.

When Christ came upon the scene proclaiming His good news of the kingdom of God, His message was a head-on collision with Greco-Roman philosophy that had been integrated into Judaism. Christ proclaimed the Scriptures, for all practical purposes, to be the comprehensive metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political,  philosophical statement directly from God, and placed it in the hands of the saints to interpret it for themselves, and supplied everything necessary to do so. The priesthood of believers is the extreme antithesis to philosopher kings. And Christ looked to none of the theologians of that day for credibility—He didn’t cite any of them. He picked twelve uneducated blue-collar workers to build the greatest kingdom of the ages, and made every citizen a priest unto God.  He purchased us with His own blood, and we are owned by no other man.

Hence, there are only two types of churches in our day: those that promote bondage to pastor kings, and those that promote the priesthood of believers—with the latter being an anomaly in our day. Susan and I are visiting churches right now, and we know this: any given church will be geared to control the members through doctrine, polity, and ministry, or will be geared to equip priestly saints full of goodness and competence in spiritual matters—able to minister to each other and the world with all knowledge. There is no in-between; every church will fit into one of these two criteria.

Where Truth Still Matters

Christians are under the illusion that truth matters, and doctrinal disagreements in our day are driven by such. Hardly. Truth is irrelevant; the real crux of the matter is what doctrine best suits to effectively control the masses. Truth is not the epicenter of God’s comprehensive philosophical statement on life and godliness in our day. The prior question (which doctrine best controls) has always led to the marriage of church and state throughout history. The state has always sought to unite with a “unifying belief system,” ie., religion; the state has a vested interest in a docile populous, while religion has an interest in using the state to control the totally depraved zombie sheep from destroying themselves. Rome and the Reformers were in agreement on the marriage of church and state; their disagreement concerned the gospel of centralism under the guise that gospel truth really matters. This Reformation myth, the epic battle for truth between Rome and a  lowly monk, is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. And, read the book of Revelation and the book of Daniel for yourselves, the marriage of  the anti-Christ statesman with the one world religion of the latter days is hardly a mere preface in the scheme of things. The anti-Christ is Plato’s magnum opus of philosopher kings.

1. Exhort with sound doctrine and truth.

But there are still plenty of saints around that care about real truth, and they must be convinced with sound doctrine and sound doctrinal apologetics. This is the first piece of the puzzle that answers the ministry riddle of our day.

2. Save the honestly deceived.

There are saints who love the truth, and have no agenda, but have unwittingly resigned their priesthood to pastor kings, and are owned by them instead of Jesus Christ. They must be convinced with the truth they love, and thereby rescued from throwing away their high calling and casting their pearls before swine.

3. Do not invest in “saints” with itching ears. 

Don’t waste time with those who value what they receive from pastor kings more than truth. Pastor kings offer easy believeism, and ease is a universal temptation.  Whether, this is easy because to do anything in sanctification is works, and not grace; or, obedience is optional—at least we are saved; or, we are totally depraved pieces of crap that couldn’t please God even if we tried, so what could be easier?; or, any effort in sanctification is works salvation because the two are the same; or, the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us—no need to move on to anything else that might be harder than that; or, no need to delve deep into the Scriptures and study hard because the Bible is a gospel narrative only; or, whatever else is the reason—something that people want that they are receiving from the pastor kings is more important than truth. Truth is often hard.

This is why they are willing to compromise and lay almost everything at the altar of the pastor kings. It’s easy. And, victims are a big-time inconvenience. Hence, ignorance is bliss and cover-ups are the first order of the day. Doctrine will condone this in various and sundry ways. Occasionally, these saints with itching ears will contend against truth bearers that threaten their comfort. Be careful to not invest time in them—invest in the honest doubters.

4. Prevention

Saints must be educated and warned not to squander their priesthood under the auspices of the pastor kings, whether of the Reformed stripe, the Arminian stripe, or the misnomer of cultism.

paul

The Philosopher King Wars

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 6, 2012

“The sheep are catching on. They are pushing back against being owned by anyone other the Lord who purchased us with His own Blood.”

In our day, most pastors, indeed, most, fit into two categories: the philosopher kings of the first gospel wave, and the philosopher kings of the second gospel wave. First, I will explain what a philosopher king is, and then I will explain the contemporary eras in which they function. Thirdly, I will describe some of the contemporary wars between them and the saints. Then I will explain the theory of the third gospel wave.

The contemporary reign of philosopher kings in the church began in circa 1950. The concept of the philosopher king as pastor began with St. Augustine. He got the concept from the fraternity of philosophers that has shaped Western culture; ie, Plato’s Academy, which was the first institution of philosophy and higher learning in Western culture. This philosophy was founded on four basic principles:

1. The total inability of man (Augustine projected that into Christian discipleship as well).

2. The ability of some to connect with the true, beautiful, and good (those who love knowledge).

3.  Those who have striven and succeeded in knowing the true, beautiful, and good, should rule over the remainder of mankind; ie, philosopher (lovers of knowledge) kings.

4. The laws of men are necessary to restrain the ignorant, but are empirical, and not intuitive, and therefore not the most expedient in all cases for the philosopher kings.

Until the second century A.D., churches were primarily led by a group of common people. Various pressures that eventually culminated with Augustinian thought ushered in the one church—one bishop concept. In essence, a philosopher king for each congregation. Today’s seminaries have become Plato’s Academy where men go to become philosopher kings, and then go to congregations to lord it over the flock.

The First Gospel Wave

This era is from 1950 to 1970. It was primarily predicated on the inability of the saints. Just believe only and get your fire insurance. Commendable kingdom living was devalued because of a fundamental belief in inability on the part of the saints who are still “sinners saved by grace” instead of  holy ones empowered by the Holy Spirit and aggressively colaboring with Him. The clarion call of the first wave philosopher kings was to get people saved in church under the auspicious of the enlightened ones. Hence, the same gospel that saved us was the predominate theme, not discipleship and kingdom living par excellent.  Christians in our day are theologically illiterate because the philosopher kings of the first wave did not teach congregants the theology that they learned in seminary—deeming them unable to understand it. “Change” was just a pipe dream in the realm of theory. “You can’t fix stupid.” Pastors refused to counsel with the word of God and farmed counseling out to the secular philosophers. As one pastor told me: “I am not going to let counseling distract me from the gospel.”

The Second Gospel Wave

The second gospel wave not only devalued discipleship, it returned to pure Augustinian thought which rejected it all together. Man is so inept—even after conversion—that he can have no significant role in either salvation or discipleship. Augustine believed that biblical imperatives only exemplified God’s desires and besought Christians to pray that God would bring about His desires in the lives of Christians. He believed that goodness was manifested in a spiritual realm—not by Christians. Hence, theology only focuses on the works of Christ and our own depravity which continually magnifies the same gospel that saved us. Therefore, the primary goal of the second wave philosopher kings is Comfort Care until God comes for those whom He has predestined. This entails a constant, “showing forth of the gospel” that saved us and constantly reminding us of our total depravity.

In both waves, the survival of the philosopher king is paramount for the comfort of the sheep and the salvation of souls. Though enlightened, they are still totally depraved like the rest of humanity with expected behaviors following. Hence, some philosopher kings fall into deep sin, but must be protected for the benefit of the whole. Their fall would result in lost souls (first wave) and horrendous discomfort (second wave) among the pathetic, pitiful sheep. Those who are victims of the philosopher kings must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole.

Eventually, the sheep begin to reject this notion. Because of this rejection, pure Augustinian theology eventually dies a social death within Christianity. Some examples are Colonial Calvinism and Confederate Calvinism. The saints begin to rise up. But after the pain and the memories of the tyranny subside, coupled with a historic shortfall of appropriate action/ education to prevent its return, the door is opened for the rebirth of the philosopher kings. This is commonly known in Reformed circles as “Gospel Recovery movements.” We are now seeing the beginning of this social death in our own day via the Philosopher King Wars. The following are examples of a few major battles, and are by no means exhaustive.

First Wave Wars

Do Right Hyles-Anderson verses Philosopher King Jack Hyles

Jack Hyles is the premier philosopher king of the first gospel wave. For years, his family members and understudies reined unfettered terror upon God’s people. Regardless of this, fellow philosopher kings in the same denomination refused to confront him, and even went as far as to name a Christian college after him. Finally, after years of crying out from victims falling on deaf ears for the betterment and comfort of the whole, the organization Do Right Hyles-Anderson has struck a powerful blow for the justice God loves. Their ministry statement reads as follows:

This group was created to be supportive to all the victims of FBC/HAC and the IFB community. This is not a group started out of hatred, resentment or bitterness. The core of our group is grace, unconditional love, and redemption. We support all the victims. We want our voice to be heard. We will hold IFB churches accountable for abuse and corruption. And we will report any and all cases of abuse that are brought to our team of victim advocates. We’re not going away…this is a life long mission and we will help the helpless.

Undoubtedly, this organization played a large role in the very recent dethroning of Hyles’ son-in-law as pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond which at one time had the largest Sunday School program in the world. His sins, though criminal, are tame compared to the past terrors of the Hyles cartel. The fact that he has been dismissed by FBCH is a gargantuan step in the opposite direction from the tolerance of the past. This is about Christ’s 1 of 100, and the Jewish proverb, “He who saves one life—saves the world,” and not Socrates’ sinful sacrifice of the few for the sake of the many.

W. Kempton

The ABWE Bangladesh Missionary Kids verses Philosopher King Donn Ketcham

For some 20 years, the abuses of GARB hero Donn Ketcham fell on deaf ears. Other ABWE/GARB philosopher kings such as Wendell Kempton covered for Ketcham in a massive and shameful cover-up.  Nevertheless, Kempton is presently being honored with a multimillion dollar sports complex on a Christian college being named after him. For the most part, the GARB community has shown only token distaste for what has occurred. Again, protecting the enlightened ones is best for the community as a whole. Because of the ineptness of the great unwashed—the likes of Ketcham and Kempton must be protected due to their irreplaceable contribution to the totally depraved.

Second Wave Wars

Mahaney

SGM Survivors .com  verses Philosopher King CJ Mahaney

SGM Survivors is one of many such organizations pushing back against philosopher king CJ Mahaney, who among other various travesties was taped black mailing SGM cofounder Larry Tomczak. Regardless of this, the who’s who of second wave philosopher kings are protecting Mahaney and investing in media spin on his behalf (John MacArthur, Mark Dever, Al Mohler et al). This has resulted in him being reinstated as president of SGM. However, the pushback against second wave philosopher kings is becoming more formidable by the day.

J.A. Smith

Julie Anne Smith verses Beaverton Grace Bible Church

There is perhaps nothing more representative of the revolution against second wave philosopher kings than the everyday Oregon housewife Julie Anne Smith. When big name second wave philosopher kings came to BGBC’s defense against this humble soccer mom—she didn’t even blink, calling out the likes of John MacArthur lackey Phil Johnson who has recently stopped blogging (supposedly by his own choice). MacArthur hack and executive director of his media, Fred Butler, recently published unconfirmed smut/slander concerning Smith’s daughter after she prevailed against BGBC in a 500,000 dollar lawsuit. After years of striking fear in the hearts of pastors coast to coast, the second wave philosopher king pastors are incredulous in the face of Smith’s unsinkable courage. Their fears of her are warranted as others will follow including American pastors who exemplify a spirit of spinelessness never before seen in any other generation.

The Third Gospel Wave?

The sheep are catching on. They are pushing back against being owned by anyone other the Lord who purchased us with His own Blood. He owns us, not the philosopher kings. Nor do the philosopher kings own us by proxy. We are only slaves to Christ, not cruel masters who demand our children to be their willing and unwilling concubines. We will follow those of the Lord who lead us by His example. We remember our brother Paul who exhorted us with tears to only follow him as he followed Christ. And trust me, the philosopher kings of our day are no Apostle Paul. Not only can they not even carry his water, they are the clouds without water that Jude spoke of. As clouds come and promise nourishment for the crops, they come with the same promises—but they have nothing but lies instead of rain.

Authority only resides in the full, complete, and infinite philosophical statement of the Scriptures. The only authority elders have is truth as judged by the Bereans. We are not obligated to follow delusional hypocrites because of their Reformed accreditation and name-brand clothing, but only the Chief Shepherd. We detest those who say that the very breath of God is nothing more than a narrative for mystic gospel contemplationism. The Scriptures are written for Bereans who’s hearts are set on fire by our Counselor and Helper—the blessed Holy Spirit. The Bible contains its own hermeneutic, and we do not need the arrogant to teach us how to read it or listen to it as it supposedly comes from them.

We pray for a third gospel wave that endeavors to make disciples, not “saved” mindless followers of philosopher kings. We pray for leaders who will equip us to be full of goodness, full of knowledge, and able to counsel each other (Romans 15:14).

Not those who suffer us to glory in our supposed total depravity in order to satisfy their own lust for control.

paul

Destroying Eve-il is a Reformed Family Tradition: Today Danvers, Tomorrow the Gallows

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 1, 2012

Great pizza party last night with an author who is writing a sci-fi novel. As I sat and listened to him share his shocking  plot designed to invoke terror in his future readers, my recent research for “Reformation Myth” (due to be published in January 2013) made the chilling plot seem mundane in comparison to sexy witches being hung, burned, and impaled with images of Mary fitted with large spikes.

On the one hand, the Reformers were supposedly brilliant for recognizing Plato’s theory that pure truth and beauty is immutable, while on the other hand, their brutality was merely the “mentality of the age.” It is also understandable why Reformed folks are so big on, “all truth is God’s truth” because the Catholic church had a lot of ideas that the Reformers thought were pretty cool; specifically, that because of Eve, women in general are predisposed to evil, or Eveil.

Between sips of mocha that could barely be executed because of my fixated attachment to the narrative, the little angel on my right shoulder kept saying, “Excuse me, this is history, and it really happened.”

Indeed it did happen, and the war declared on witches by the Catholic Church and the Reformers resulted in casualties that surpass many, many wars waged throughout history. And, to say the least, the due process of law that determined who was a witch was, well, shall we say, a little lean. Since it was thought that 90% of all witches were women, if you were a woman, and dragged into court, your gender was a bad start to the process. In at least one case, a particularly pious woman didn’t even take her arrest seriously and was sarcastic towards her accusers—who later executed her. I guess there is only one thing worse than a witch—a sarcastic woman. Then, there was this also:

The climate of fear created by churchmen of the Reformation led to countless deaths of accused witches quite independently of inquisitional courts or procedure. For example, in England where there were no inquisitional courts and where witch-hunting offered little or no financial reward, many women were killed for witchcraft by mobs. Instead of following any judicial procedure, these mobs used methods to ascertain guilt of witchcraft such as “swimming a witch,” where a woman would be bound and thrown into water to see if she floated. The water, as the medium of baptism, would either reject her and prove her guilty of witchcraft, or the woman would sink and be proven innocent, albeit also dead from drowning (Helen Ellerbe: The Dark Side of Christian History,Chapter Eight: 1450 – 1750 C.E.).

It all started with the Catholics first, and the Reformers later joined the campaign that supplemented the inquisition:

Pope John XXII formalized the persecution of witchcraft in 1320 when he authorized the Inquisition to prosecute sorcery. .” Thereafter papal bulls and declarations grew increasingly vehement in their condemnation of witchcraft and of all those who “made a pact with hell.” In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued the bull Summis desiderantes authorizing two inquisitors, Kramer and Sprenger, to systematize the persecution of witches. Two years later their manual, Malleus Maleficarum, was published with 14 editions following between 1487-1520 and at least 16 editions between 1574-1669. A papal bull in 1488 called upon the nations of Europe to rescue the Church of Christ which was “imperiled by the arts of Satan.” The papacy and the Inquisition had successfully transformed the witch from a phenomenon whose existence the Church had previously rigorously denied into a phenomenon that was deemed very real, very frightening, the antithesis of Christianity, and absolutely deserving of persecution.

It was now heresy not to believe in the existence of witches. As the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum noted, “A belief that there are such things as witches is so essential a part of Catholic faith that obstinately to maintain the opposite opinion savors of heresy.” Passages in the Bible such as “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” were cited to justify the persecution of witches (Ibid.).

The following gives us an idea as to the extent that this was going on:

Contemporary accounts hint at the extent of the holocaust. Barbara Walker writes that “the chronicler of Treves reported that in the year 1586, the entire female population of two villages was wiped out by the inquisitors, except for only two women left alive.” Around 1600 a man wrote:

Germany is almost entirely occupied with building fires for the witches… Switzerland has been compelled to wipe out many of her villages on their account. Travelers in Lorraine may see thousands and thousands of the stakes to which witches are bound (Ibid.).

The general mentality of the Eveil motif was part and parcel with the war on witches:

The witch hunts were an eruption of orthodox Christianity’s vilification of women, “the weaker vessel,” in St. Peter’s words. The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.” The Church father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:

“And do you not know that you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert that is, death even the Son of God had to die.”

Others expressed the view more bluntly. The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, “Woman is a temple built upon a sewer.” Bishops at the sixth century Council of Macon voted as to whether or not women had souls. In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, “To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure…” The thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: “nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then.” And Lutherans at Wittenberg debated whether women were really human beings at all. Orthodox Christians held women responsible for all sin. As the Bible’s Apocrypha states, “Of woman came the beginning of sin/ And thanks to her, we all must die”(Ibid.).

And the Reformers were completely onboard with the Eveil rage of that Day:

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend:

“What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman……I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.”

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546):

“If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.”

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 to 1274 CE):

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.”

But the Reformers did way more than stand on the sidelines and cheer. When doing a pdf document search on Witch Hunts In Europe And America, An Encyclopedia by William Burns, “Calvin” got 32 hits including the following:

There are about five hundred recorded witch trials in the 150 years after Calvin’s arrival in Geneva. Given the high rate of survival of Genevan records, this probably represents the majority of cases that occurred. The witch-hunt in Geneva peaked relatively early, in the 1560s and early 1570s. The records show that, outside the witch-hunt of 1571, Geneva had one of the lowest rates of execution in Europe, about 20%. Geneva magistrates seem to have used banishment as an alternative to execution in cases where the guilt or innocence of the subject was in doubt, rather than following the practice of other areas which simply tortured until a confession was obtained. The relatively mild torture practiced by the Genevans kept individual witch cases from developing into large hunts, and in some cases the magistrates were uninterested in following up accusations even when an accused witch named others…

The comparatively small kingdom of Scotland, whose legal system blended English and Continental elements, had from the mid-sixteenth century on a zealous Calvinist clergy intent on creating a godly society. It executed the most witches of any British region. The other British area of high witch-hunting activity was the legally anomalous Channel islands….

William Perkins was Elizabethan England’s leading Calvinist theologian, and his posthumously published A Discourse on the Damned Art of Witchcraft (1608) had an unrivalled influence on subsequent Puritan demonologists in old and New England. Perkins’s approach was intellectually austere. He shunned reference to previous demonologists or actual cases of witchcraft, and based his argument almost entirely on the Bible, particularly Exodus 22.18, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Perkins saw the essential nature of witchcraft as the making of the satanic pact, or “covenant,” which inverted the covenant relation between God and his elect that was basic to Puritan Calvinist theology. So closely does Perkins relate the witch’s contact with the Devil to the good Christian’s contact with God that he claims that to deny the possibility of physical contact with devils would be to deny the possibility of covenant with God. Perkins describes the making of the covenant as a simple agreement, without the necessity for the witch to sign in blood or kiss or have sex with the Devil. Other central aspects to the witch stereotype as the sabbat or the Devil’s mark he also ignored. Even maleficia played a minor role. Perkins’s principal target was not the maleficent witch, but the “good witch,” whom he described over and over as even more worthy of death than the evil witch. Perkins believed that all power to perform “magic” could only come from Satan.

William Perkins was the elder statesman of the very same Calvinist Puritans that boarded the Mayflower and landed on Plymouth Rock. John Robinson, their pastor and follower of Perkins, gave an impassioned speech to them before they boarded the ship. The Pilgrims, who were really political refugees, set up a Geneva style Calvinistic theocracy known as the American Colonies and was the spawning grounds for colonial Calvinism.

Go figure, not long after, in Salem Town and Salem Village, the infamous Salem witch trials occurred. The Puritan Cotton Mather was heavily involved and attended the execution of Salem Town’s pastor, George Burroughs, who was accused of aiding and abetting a covenant of witches. An actual account of the sad proceedings follow:

George Burroughs was executed on Witches Hill, Salem, on the 19th of August, the only minister who suffered this extreme fate.

Though the jury found no witches’ marks on his body he was convicted of witchcraft and conspiracy with the Devil. While standing on a ladder before the crowd, waiting to be hanged, he successfully recited the Lord’s Prayer, something that was generally considered by the Court of Oyer and Terminer to be impossible for a witch to do. After he was hung, Cotton Mather, a minister from Boston, reminded the crowd from atop his horse that Burroughs had been convicted in a court of law, and spoke convincingly enough that four more were executed after Burroughs. Below is the original account as first compiled and published in 1700 by Robert Calef in More Wonders of The Invisible World pages 103-104, and later reprinted or relied upon by others including Charles Wentworth Upham and George Lincoln Burr,

Mr. Burroughs was carried in a Cart with others, through the streets of Salem, to Execution. When he was upon the Ladder, he made a speech for the clearing of his Innocency, with such Solemn and Serious Expressions as were to the Admiration of all present; his Prayer (which he concluded by repeating the Lord’s Prayer) was so well worded, and uttered with such composedness as such fervency of spirit, as was very Affecting, and drew Tears from many, so that if seemed to some that the spectators would hinder the execution. The accusers said the black Man [Devil] stood and dictated to him. As soon as he was turned off [hung], Mr. Cotton Mather, being mounted upon a Horse, addressed himself to the People, partly to declare that he [Mr. Burroughs] was no ordained Minister, partly to possess the People of his guilt, saying that the devil often had been transformed into the Angel of Light. And this did somewhat appease the People, and the Executions went on; when he [Mr. Burroughs] was cut down, he was dragged by a Halter to a Hole, or Grave, between the Rocks, about two feet deep; his Shirt and Breeches being pulled off, and an old pair of Trousers of one Executed put on his lower parts: he was so put in, together with Willard and Carrier, that one of his Hands, and his Chin, and a Foot of one of them, was left uncovered.

—Robert Calef

Now, in our day, and unbelievably, the proud children of this Calvinist legacy pronounce themselves  the experts on “biblical manhood and womanhood.”  Specifically, an organization was formed in 1987 called “The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” It is funded, organized, maintained, and directed by the who’s who of the American Neo-Calvinist movement including, Ligon Duncan, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and Al Mohler. They formed a statement/declaration on this subject that was so well attended by their forefathers called the “Danvers Statement.” It is called the Danvers Statement because their declaration was finalized in—get this— Danvers, Massachusetts.

So, what’s relevant about that?  Well, Danvers is the modern day location of Salem Town, the location of the Salem witch trials. In fact, these guys made it a point to have the meetings there that finalized the document. Ok, I mean, really, if you are a bunch neo-Nazis who want to start a forum on Judaism, would you make it a point to finalize your declaration at Auschwitz?

Furthermore, the Reformers didn’t get up one morning and decide to start burning witches—it all began with their Eveil doctrine. And the proponents of this movement not only swear by the theological genius of Calvin, but what they teach about the fall and Eve’s participation is word for word. Also, in regard to what is actually going on as far as treatment of women, all that is missing is the gallows. Whether it be women locked in basements as punishment, being spanked by their husbands, deprived of education, or their children being held hostage through manipulation of relatives by church elders—it is at least Witch Hunt Light.

Have I read the Danvers Statement? No, why would I? Christ said that false teachers are known by their fruit. The root of the fruit is the doctrine. Good trees don’t bear bad fruit, and Reformed leaders are little more than Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin in priestly garb.

paul

 

Cluelessness Saves Southern Baptist Pastors From New Calvinist Heretic David Platt

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on June 27, 2012

New Calvinism is a resurgence of authentic Calvinism. Since its conception during the so called “Reformation,” authentic Calvinism dies a social death from time to time because of the spiritual tyranny that its basic philosophy produces. Most of the rediscovery/resurgence movements of the past since authentic Calvinism died out after the Reformation have made little impact on Christianity.  However, Calvinism Light (sanctified Calvinism) is left behind to live on after these movements die. When resurgence happens, the sanctified Calvinists actually take offence, not realizing that they are not really authentic Calvinists. Authentic Reformation theology in the vein of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, is gross heresy. It is a works salvation with Gnosticism as its practical application. This also contributes to its eventual demise, but this takes a while because Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were masters of nuance and using familiar terms to articulate their doctrine.

The rediscovery movement that has become New Calvinism is different. Robert Brinsmead, the father of contemporary New Calvinism, argued that the recovery movements of the past failed due to a lack of systemization. Three other Reformed theologians agreed, and they started a theological think tank (the Australian Forum and its theological journal, Present Truth Magazine) to prepare the doctrine for a proper launching. That was in 1970, when the doctrine was originally known as the centrality of the objective gospel completely outside of us and New Covenant Theology.  NCT took a brutal beating in Reformed Baptist circles and caused a split in at least one convention. Eventually, the doctrine was only represented by about twenty churches in those circles. However, the doctrine found new life in Presbyterian circles as Sonship Theology. Nevertheless, Sonship experienced a severe pushback by sanctified Calvinists in Presbyterian circles and was forced underground in circa 2000. It was renamed, “Gospel Transformation” and experienced massive growth between 2000 and 2004.

In 2004, the fallout from its tyranny became more evident, but no one could identify the doctrine. It was coined “Gospel Sanctification” by a small group of protestants including Dr. Jay E. Adams.  But its influence and controversy continued to expand and the whole world started taking note when it was dubbed “New Calvinism” in 2008. Like the prior rediscovery movements, it has spawned a massive wave of spiritual abuse in the church under the auspices of several different sub movements such as Patriarchy and the Shepherding Movement. New Calvinists have also reached back into history and revived movements that were based on authentic Calvinism and brought them back into the fold. The whole thing is a perfect storm of mystical despotism dressed in orthodoxy.  Robert Brinsmead was right; the movement needed the systematic touch.

In 1981, a Presbyterian started an organization for the sole purpose of taking over the Southern Baptist  Convention with this doctrine, and today that organization is known as Founders Ministries. Until last week’s controversy concerning one of the speakers at the annual SBC Pastors Conference, authentic Calvinist heretic David Platt, I was convinced that the SBC was doomed to be taken over by this doctrine. But the response by 80% of the pastors who attended has given me great comfort.  Per the normal, my beloved Southern Baptist brethren are too theologically illiterate to be led astray by a false doctrine. Their utter incompetence is demonstrated by the fact that heretics such as Platt could even be invited to speak at such a conference, and the additional fact that the flagship seminary of the SBC is run by New Calvinist “Big Al” Mohler.

Platt dissed the Sinner’s Prayer in his message, calling it “superstitious and unbiblical.” His particular beef with the prayer is the concept of “accepting Jesus into our hearts.”  Platt’s message was full of nuanced and peculiar use of the English language, including the misidentification of subjects and objects, and turning verbs into adjectives, which should have begged the question: “What is this guy’s particular beef with the Sinner’s Prayer?”  But my beloved Southern Baptists didn’t even blink, and did what I can always count on them doing lest they think below the surface of anything leading to possible deception; they focused on the ridicule of one of their sacred traditions. Thank goodness for that ole time religion. My dumbed down faithful brethren moved quickly to submit a resolution to the convention to confirm the validity of the Sinner’s Prayer. The resolution passed by more than 80%. Whew, that was a close one! Platt, apparently amazed at his inability to deceive them, responded to the clamor by saying that he wished he would have presented it differently. In other words, I think he meant that he wished he would have simplified it more. Platt need not worry; it wouldn’t have made any difference. I am now totally assured that my brothers are safe.

Actually, Platt’s problem with “asking/accepting Jesus in our hearts” is directly related to authentic Calvinism’s rejection of the new birth. Classic: one of the rising stars in the SBC, like Big Al, rejects the new birth, but how dare them diss the Sinner’s Prayer! You see, authentic Calvinism borrows the Platonist concept of emphasis. Though shadows are true, they are only a result of the sun’s true reality. Therefore, to emphasize shadows is to reject the only thing that can truly give life—the sun. Shadows can’t give life, only the sun’s light can. Since authentic Calvinism believes that life only comes from meditating on the works of Christ outside of us, an emphasis on the new birth, which is inside us, is to emphasize the result of Christ’s works and not Christ himself. So, to the degree that we focus on regeneration, we take away from the only thing that gives life: the personhood of Christ and His works. That is exactly what Platt’s beef is in regard to “accepting Jesus in our hearts.”

The crux of what Platt is really after was articulated by the Australian Forum. They dedicated a whole issue of their theological journal to  The False Gospel of the New Birth. One article was titled as such. I will quote two members of the Australian Forum on this wise and throw in other quotes by contemporary New Calvinists as well:

“The false gospel of the new birth” imagines that the new birth refers primarily to what happens in the believer and that this is the greatest news in the world. This is classical Roman Catholicism. It teaches that a good thing is the best thing, that the work of the Spirit is greater than that of the Son. It takes the fruit of the gospel and elevates it over the root, which is the gospel. It confuses the effect of the gospel with the gospel itself.

~Geoffrey Paxton: Present Truth; The false Gospel of the New Birth Volume Thirty-Seven — Article 4

How can my life, my doing, be fruit and not root? The fruit of the tree of justification and not the root of justification? The fruit of God being on my side rather than the root of making God be on my side? How can it be the fruit of the Holy Spirit so that I’m acting in the power of another and not in my own power?

~John Piper: http://marshill.com/media/guests/be-killing-sin-or-sin-will-be-killing-you

Bultmann’s existential gospel led him inevitably to a negative view of the Old Testament. And the new-birth oriented “Jesus-in-my-heart” gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism.1 [Goldsworthy’s footnote #1] (1 See Geoffrey J. Paxton, “The False Gospel of the New Birth,” Present Truth Magazine 7, no.3 (June 1978): 17-22).

~Graeme Goldsworth: Present Truth; Obituary for the Old Testament Volume Forty-One — Article 2

It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.

~ Geoffrey Paxton (Australian Forum)

But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?

~ Michael Horton

As my lovely wife said in her first session at last week’s conference on spiritual tyranny:

By glazing over the finer details of Christianity and focusing  on more moderate doctrines he [Billy Graham]  made evangelism enticing, non-threatening, and easy to swallow, and in a lot of ways gave definition to easy believeism.

His mission to present the “gospel” and get people saved and on their way to heaven permeated the focus of many fundamental churches thereafter, particularly the Southern Baptist denomination with which Billy Graham was associated.

As a result of the success of Billy Graham, many other evangelists and pastors adopted and adapted his mode of operation in order to” bring in the sheaves.”  This is often referred to as the first gospel wave that swept over America in the 50’s and continued on into the early 70’s.

Please do not misunderstand my opening remarks. The biographical remarks were taken from an article written of Billy Graham. We all believe that people were genuinely saved as a result of the ministry of Billy Graham; but I want to also say that many thought they were saved as a result of his ministry as well.  Here’s the dilemma his type of evangelism created: a) genuine salvation experiences occurred and   b) professions of salvation made but no outward change in living or life-style and   c) lack of assurance of salvation as a result of poor follow-up and discipleship.

In my neck of the woods the “At least he is saved mentality”  which the Billy Graham Association innocently created, helped people rationalize sinful lifestyles, make valid  emotional experiences and equate them with regeneration, and issued “fire insurance” policy mentality amongst church going people.  Just say the sinner’s prayer and you are guaranteed a home in heaven.

So, at least some people get saved, and they’re too doctrinally illiterate to be taken over by a movement that is completely of the devil.

Maybe it’s not all bad!

paul

What’s in a Video? Part Three: Al Mohler’s Mystic Contemplationism

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on May 25, 2012

The next snippet of profound unction in the 2012 Resolved Conference promotion video (http://youtu.be/3BbyzPkE_kc) is that of Al Mohler, president of Southern Theological Seminary. Along with CJ Mahaney, he is one of the “core four” of the Together For The Gospel conferences. Again, a close examination of words used in this video speak to the false doctrine they teach, and Mohler’s excerpt is no exception.

Mohler refers to us being continually “rescued” by the Scriptures. Per the usual, the verbiage is deliberately ambiguous, and could apply to initial salvation or our life as Christians, or both. There is a sense in which the Scriptures continually save Christians from the consequences of sin and instruct us on how to please the Lord. But Mohler is speaking of using the Scriptures to contemplate on the gospel with the result being, as stated by others, a “mere natural flow” of obedience. This is because it is not really us obeying, it is a manifestation of the active obedience of Christ. John Piper would say that we experience the manifestation of Christ’s active obedience in our lives when the obedience is accompanied by a willing spirit and joy. If we are confronted with the necessity to obey, and have not the joy, Piper’s counsel is to go ahead and obey, but ask for forgiveness:

I am often asked what a Christian should do if the cheerfulness of obedience is not there. It’s a good question. My answer is not to simply get on with your duty because feelings don’t matter. They do! [Especially since he makes joy synonymous with true salvation in When I Don’t Desire God]. My answer has three steps. First, confess the sin of joylessness. ( John Piper: Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial ebooklet; ch3, Desiring God.org )

This is simply the Bibliology of their doctrine: the Bible has one primary purpose; it is for contemplating the gospel and the works of Christ. Biblical imperatives are a fruit catalog of things we can’t do, and are in the Bible to evoke thankfulness to Christ for obeying the imperatives for us. The result of this Gospel Contemplationism is what they call, “new obedience,” or what Piper calls, “Beholding as a way of becoming.” If you read the Forward to Uneclipsing The Son by Rick Holland, you will also find out that John MacArthur Jr. has bought into this nonsense. The secondary use of the Scriptures is for controlling the totally depraved zombie sheep and church polity.

Of course, they are not going to say it plainly, but this all boils down to the idea that we are resaved every day. Their motto is, “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us.” It’s a progressive justification. They call it “progressive sanctification,” but that’s deception. Likewise, New Calvinist Paul David Tripp teaches that Romans 7:24 refers to a “daily rescue” (Paul David Tripp: Playing With The Box; Southeastern Theological Seminary chapel service, Spring 2007). Couple that with the New Calvinist maxim, “We need the gospel just as much today as when we got saved,” and the kind of “rescue” they are talking about is apparent.

And this is also exactly what Mohler means in the promo clip when he said we are “rescued by the Scriptures.”

paul