Paul's Passing Thoughts

Inside the Mind of Tyranny

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on March 22, 2019

ppt-jpeg4Paul,

My intent is to be helpful. To that end, you misspelled ‘definition’ in the title of your blog.

It seems to me that the ‘church gospel’ you’re fighting against doesn’t exist. You’re trying to catch people in their words through specifically formulated questions which creates the impression to the hearer / reader of your blogs that there is apostasy where there is none. Please stop. 2 Timothy 2:14 – “Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” There are CRYSTAL CLEAR forms of apostasy all around us (prosperity gospel, ‘New Apostolic Reformation’, etc). Why don’t we battle against that together, OK?


Scott, I am only replying for demonstrative purposes. At least in regard to myself, I have a strong tendency to interact with people based on my assumptions. And what are those assumptions? That people can be persuaded by sound logic. Actually, Scott, your email, this email, may be a historic event in my life because I am finally going to put feet to what I have seen for more than ten years now, but have never acted upon a final resolution. And what is that resolution? Tyrants can’t be reasoned with, and where applicable, they must be defeated. Once someone is defined as a tyrant, you avoid them, but if they are somehow interfering with your endeavor to accomplish the things that are self-evident, all resources must be invested towards their defeat while any attempt to persuade them is a fool’s errand.

Why is this, and how did I reach this and other related conclusions? By reading a lot of Martin Luther. The author John Immel inspired me to understand philosophy and gave me some important first principles, but Martin Luther, the consummate tyrant of the ages, is the one who enabled me to put it all together. And as demonstrated in your email, good people must understand that at times they are dealing with people who view reality differently. You can’t persuade someone who doesn’t share your perception regarding how the world works.

Let’s start with you correcting my grammar. This is such a basic, and telling principle. But first, let me explain something. I am not a laymen, that’s a bad word to use and feeds a whole church worldview that must be completely dismantled for saints who want to a leave a decent legacy in this life. The Bible makes no distinction whatsoever within the body of Christ concerning vocation or so-called “bi-vocational.” I am an elder in the body of Christ, that’s my gift, and I got it from the Spirit when I was born again. And by the way, because of that, I don’t need Al Mohler or any other disgusting stuffed shirt to give me permission to practice my gift. With that said, I practice that gift as an elder of this ministry, I am going to nursing school, and my wife and I are performing more ministry in the life of others than we ever did being under the thumb of the church lie. Hence, when someone like you, a typical overpaid sycophant of the church industrial complex, who has paid staff to boot, points out one of my errors in the midst of a dizzying life effort, it is offensive, but even more offensive is the motive behind the correction.

Such a tiny little detail, but really a gargantuan principle. In the Bible, a very important truth about sin is revealed; it’s not just doing naughty things that God disapproves of, sin seeks to control others. And the Bible is very specific about how that process works. Sin crouches in hiding waiting for a reason to condemn, and when everyday mortal weakness produces the reason, or outright sin, sin pounces with condemnation. Sin really doesn’t care if it was an honest mistake or outright sin, the goal is to use condemnation to enslave. That’s why slander is often used to condemn people; if said target doesn’t produce a reason, one will be made up. It goes something like this: “See what a loser you are? Hence, you need someone like me that is better than you, smarter than you, more moral than you, to rule over your life.” For ten years I have watched this in our marriage counseling: marriage counseling is two people bringing their condemnation lists to you as a case for why one should be able to rule over the other. The diminishing of other people’s self-esteem is also critical to controlling them which is behind the doctrine of total depravity…obviously. Once you understand this dynamic, you see it everywhere, particularly when a women shares with me that her husband says things like this: “You couldn’t make it without me.” This ministry has set several women free from financial slavery and we are happy to do it.

Love makes a legitimate marriage, not some law. Staying in a situation where there is no respect or love whether a job, a church, or a marriage is typical under-law thinking. Love fulfils the law, not law-keeping for the sake of law-keeping. Recently, in a meeting with a runaway slave wife, her tyrant husband, and the tyrant’s pastor, said pastor stated that the goal of the meeting was to “maintain the marriage covenant.” I saw straight away what the pastor’s agenda was going to be: husband confesses sin; wife confesses sin; and since “Christians” are obligated to forgive each other “the way we have been forgiven” the runaway slave wife must now go back to the tyrant husband. Like the church, such husbands refuse to repent of the essence of sin; a lust to control others through condemnation. It’s no accident then that Christ didn’t “come to condemn the world, but to save it.” No accident then that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ.”

Again, this dynamic can be seen in the smallest milieus of life to the most epic examples of politics and statecraft. So, why did you correct my grammar? It goes something like this: “look at you, you are contending against men of God, men of renown (you can’t see it, but I am laughing right now), and you can’t even spell correctly!” Nice try Scott, but that doesn’t work on me. The most egregious example of this is ABWE’s public letter of response to the “Missionary Kids” who stood up to a church coverup of unspeakable crimes for something like 40 years. In quoting what the MKs had stated in a formal letter to ABWE previously, one or more “[sic]”s were included to indicate grammar corrections. You see, what had happened to the MKs was nether here nor there in light of the so-called greater church good, and leaving no attempt to regain control of the situation untried, they sought to shame the MKs by pointing out their supposed intellectual anemia. As an aside, for this reason and a book full of others; namely, our ministry’s latest publication, I believe the church to be utterly evil. And why is it evil? Because of its false gospel and skewed version of reality.

Now let’s look at that version of reality; the worldview of tyranny. It’s the oldest and only religion. All other religions flow from it; all politics flow from it. Of course, my illustration is a crassly simplistic version, but conveys the general idea. The material world and everything that can be ascertained by the five senses is evil. The invisible world and all things that cannot be ascertained by the five senses is good. The good, having grace and mercy, decided to save mankind. How all of this supposedly came about is the eschatology of philosophy and will not be included here. In doing so, the good chose those with special wisdom to lead the unwise to the good. And what is that wisdom of the wise? The knowledge that mortal man cannot know anything including reality. Wisdom is knowing that man cannot know. Believing that one can know is the height of all arrogance. Now, this doesn’t include “practical knowledge” that makes things work in the evil material world, and Luther, in the tradition of Dualism, divided that knowledge into “wisdom from above” and “wisdom from below.” Luther’s specific designation was his “Theology of the Cross” defined by the “glory story” versus the “cross story” and Christocentric philosophy which I have written on extensively and will not continue to do so here.

Supposedly, the greatest danger to the survival of mankind is mankind thinking that it has value and can know. The wise must therefore save humanity from itself. Hence, Plato’s philosopher kings, warriors, and producers. The warriors enforce the wisdom of the wise appointed by the good to save mankind. Until the Enlightenment Era produced Americanism, world history was little more than utter darkness accordingly. And what does this have to do with the rest of your email? Pretty much everything. Your email is a glaring example of what I have experience incessantly for ten years when dealing with church advocates. Regardless of what exemplifies our articles and books; ie., systematic arguments comprised of several points of persuasion, those are all summarily dismissed in exchange for some authoritative unction. In the article you write about in your email, you do not supply one counterpoint to the points made in the article. Why? Because the article uses logic and reason as a means to persuade, and the ideology of the tyrant rejects that view of reality out of hand. This is a pattern this ministry has seen over and over and over again for ten years. Salvation comes by doing one thing and one thing only: obeying the philosopher kings, or as Al Mohler states it, “those appointed by God to save his people from ignorance.” He was speaking of pastors. Therefore, dear tyrant, since you are appointed by God to save me from ignorance (because others paid for you to obtain a seminary degree and Al Mohler therefore christens you as such), why would any argument by me have any validity at all in your mind? It wouldn’t.

Like the so-called “looney left” in politics who are not looney at all and know exactly what they are doing, your lame arguments merely cover for the fact that you don’t think anyone who disagrees with you is in touch with reality. Even though I articulated the Protestant gospel in painstaking detail and backed it up with a Protestant holding a Doctorate degree in the discipline, you claim that no such gospel even exists! Does this not make my point in no uncertain terms? You go on to name the real apostates, but based on what? An objective evaluation of their doctrine? No, based strictly on your supposed God-given authority. It is also interesting to note that in our dialogue with parishioners, they respond in the exact same way; they see themselves as speaking with authority because they are repeating what their pastors tell them. Consequently, they also reject all reason out of hand.

This is my advice to all: when giving an account of the sum and substance of your life to the one who granted it to you, no one will be standing there in your defense, not even Christ. In this life, that is the only mind that can be yielded to that will make a difference. Even He seeks to persuade you, and not control you. Obviously, if Christ wanted to control you, He would. He is the only mediator between God and mankind, and when you die, His mediation role is over. “This is my Son, hear ye Him.” Read the Scriptures for yourself, what does Christ use to persuade? Over and over again; reason, period.

The apostle Paul asked rhetorically to the ekklesia at large: “What saith the Scriptures?” Not, “What saith the philosopher kings…and queens?” Christ said, “Consider carefully what you hear.” Clearly, the onus is on the individual alone. All people will stand before God as individuals and that’s where the responsibility ends.

In all life matters, identify the tyrant and avoid them. Do their offers result in you depending on them? Do they lift you up and bolster self-confidence or make you less confident? Do they advocate a forward look towards love or a backward look towards sin? Avoid them in your journey, and if they hinder your journey, defeat them, but waste no time in reasoning with them; it only delays your own journey towards God.

paul

Christianity Has a Serious Law Problem

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on June 16, 2016

TANC M2In 1983, primarily because of the investment in my life by a professing Christian, I decided that I wanted to be with God and walk with God. There was a strong sense in which I wanted to exchange the life I had for a new life—one that had hope. Even in my confusion, I think God honored my desire for this new life in Him; I think I was truly born again.

However, my relationship with the church was always an uneasy one. I always knew something wasn’t right. When I presented the evangelical canned gospel about “original sin,” I was never entirely comfortable with it. I did my duty and shared the “gospel,” but I really didn’t feel at ease with the presentation. Why? I think the video below offers a few suggestions to think about.

This whole idea that Adam broke a covenant with God and Christ came to restore the covenant doesn’t hold water and worse yet, the foundation of church is predicated on this idea. As Western followers of God, I think we know very, very little about the truth of the gospel, and for the most part only know what others want us to know for errant agendas. I think most truly born again Christians were/are confused enough to be saved by the skin of their teeth.

This is the mission focus of TANC ministries; we are striving for the laity to rise up and seize their calling to be learned disciples. It is a calling to freely pursue our individual priesthood and life more abundant. It is a call to break free from the shackles of the institutional church and its elitist scholarship. It is a call to stop funding a lie with hard earned money. It is a call to aggressive love that doesn’t wait for permission. It is a call to see God glorified in living out real truth. It is a call to a life of power without the feigning of human manipulation and slick multi-media propaganda.

I think TANC ministries has pointed out some very basic fundamentals, but there is much more work to be done; this work must be done by the collective efforts of Spirit-filled born again Christians.

Our starting point begins with a contention: justification/righteousness/salvation is by new birth—NOT law. Jesus did not come to restore a covenant; He came to make a way for man to escape his present life of death and find new life as a literal child of God. Protestantism has redefined the new birth and exchanged it with a quadity: the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the Law. It is a religion that has Jesus bowing before a throne and offering His perfect works to the Law. It is a religion that crucifies Jesus again and again at the church temple when we “offer the perfect work of Jesus in the empty hand of faith” instead of our own living sacrifice of love flowing from new creaturehood. Salvation is not a mere legal declaration; it is a state of being.

I am confident that the laity will arise in these last days and seize their true calling. And I am confident that many like the skeptic in the below video will see a truth that makes logical sense. They will inquire when they see our obedient love as living sacrifice to God Almighty; not the sharing of His glory with the law-god of manmade tradition.

We invite you to join us in this journey; an exodus from law to life.

Paul Dohse

TANC Ministries

Do you Misrepresent the Pharisees? Well Then, You Just Might Be an Antinomian

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on April 25, 2016

Originally published September 7, 2010

I heard it again yesterday in a Sunday morning message: the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the Law, but at the end of the day Jesus said that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees.  Alas, proof that we can’t be justified by keeping the Law (which no one would argue with). The pastor, in this message that is one of many in his series on The Sermon on the Mount, even said something like this: “The Pharisees’ efforts at keeping the Law wasn’t the issue, they were good at keeping the Law.” But is that true? And by the way, considering who the audience was at that church (primarily saints gathered for worship and the hearing of the word), and the fact that his topic was the role of the Law in Christian living, why was he even discussing justification in that context? Based on his view of the Pharisees and their supposed efforts to be justified by keeping the Law, one of his statements to *us* was “you don’t keep the Law by trying to keep the Law.” Hmmm, really?

We certainly are not justified by “trying” to keep the Law, but should we try to keep the Law in order to please and obey our Lord? Yes, I think so. Now, I don’t know this pastor very well, but I know him well enough to know that he wouldn’t dream of synthesizing justification and sanctification, but due to the fact that our present church culture is awash in an antinomian doctrine that does just that, are pastors propagating such a synthesis unawares? Yes, I think so. In his sermon notes, the top of the page has statements like ”Things Jesus wants us (“us” would presumably be Christians) to know about the Law.” The top part of the notes are also replete with “we” in regard to the Law, but the bottom part has statements like: “We live in the Age of Grace; salvation is not of works,” but yet, the whole message clearly regards the role of the Law in the life of a Christian. Therefore, whether unawares or otherwise, he clearly extended the relationship of the Law in regard to Justification into the realm of sanctification.

Here is where we must call on our good friend Jeff Foxworthy who developed a program for helping people who may be rednecks but don’t know it. He presents several different questions from different angles of thought, and depending on the answers to the questions, “you just might be a redneck.” Likewise, if you misrepresent the Pharisees, you just might be an antinomian without knowing it.

First of all, we can see from the very same proof text used to demonstrate the idea above that the Pharisees were not guilty of attempting to keep the Law in order to be justified:

[9] “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19,20).

So, as the reasoning goes, verse 19 indicates that “we” should revere God’s Law, but since the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the Law (an assumed interpretive criteria) we shouldn’t “try” to keep the Law because that’s what they tried to do, and our righteousness must surpass theirs because you can’t be saved by keeping the Law (and again, why are we discussing salvation in this context to begin with?). But we can see just from this text alone that this interpretation is not true. In every literal English translation that I could find, the coordinating conjunction “for” links verses 19 and 20. As we know, coordinating conjunctions join two complete ideas together and indicates the connection between the two. In all cases, the translators saw fit to translate the conjunction “for” from the Greek texts. If Jesus was contrasting the two ideas, a different conjunction would have been used like “but,” ie., the Pharisees do verse 19 really well, “but” not perfectly, therefore you need a righteousness that is perfect (this is true, but not what Christ is referring to here). No, the conjunction used is “for” which indicates “reason”(reason why): because the Pharisees were guilty of verse 19, they (the audience) were not going to enter the kingdom of heaven if they where like the Pharisees in regard to habitually breaking the Law of God and teaching others to do so. Also, I think the Lord’s reference to being the least or the greatest “in the kingdom” (verse 19) is in reference to degree and set against the example of the Pharisees who were guilty of doing (breaking the Law and teaching others to do so) habitually which was an indication that their souls were in peril. Therefore, even if the assumption regarding the Pharisees ability to obey the Law outwardly is true, it’s the wrong transition; a better transition would be “but” and would read something like this: “Christians should obey the Law ‘but’ even if you keep the law as good as the Pharisees do, it will not get you into the kingdom, so you need a righteousness that surpasses theirs.”

Granted, depending on how you diagram the sentence, you might be able to make a case either way, but is it true that the Pharisees were experts at keeping the Law outwardly? No. From other Scriptures we know that the Pharisees were guilty of verse nineteen; specifically, they replaced the Law with their own traditions. That’s why Jesus immediately launches into the whole “you have heard that it was said….but I tell you”starting in the following sentence (verse21). Not only that, Jesus says specifically in Matthew 15:1-9 that His contention with the Pharisees (and the teachers of the law as exactly referred to in verse 20) was the fact that they twisted the Scriptures according to their traditions:

[1] Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, [2]”Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”[3] Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? [4] For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ [5] But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ [6] he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: [8] ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'”

The Pharisees were not proficient at keeping God’s law outwardly. In fact, they didn’t do so at all, but rather propagated teachings that were “rules taught by men.” Therefore, the Pharisees were guilty of neglecting the true Law and teaching others to do so (Matthew 5:19). They were not the poster-children for some campaign to demonstrate the futility of Law-keeping, especially in regard to believers. In fact, Christ said their lax attitude toward the Law was indicative of those who will not enter the kingdom. For this reason the Pharisees were not the greatest in heaven as the masses supposed, but the least, if they were even in the kingdom at all. Therefore, when Christ told the crowd that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, He wasn’t talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ that the Pharisees were supposedly trying to obtain themselves for salvation (besides, they were not attempting to do that to begin with as I have demonstrated), but rather the true righteous behavior demanded of kingdom citizens. If Christ was talking about an imputed righteousness (for sanctification), why would He have not simply said so? For example: “Your righteousness must not only exceed that of the Pharisees (which wouldn’t have been hard to do anyway, and therefore by no means a profound statement by Christ), but ( a contrast conjunction) must be a righteousness that comes from God alone”…for sanctification.

If you misrepresent the Pharisees as the first century poster-children for “let go and let God theology” because they supposedly tried to keep the Law, you just might be an antinomian. But in part two, we discuss another question that may give credence to the possibility: Do you misrepresent obedience as outward alone? Well then, you just may be an antinomian.

paul

Does the Law Really Lead People to Christ by Revealing Sin Only?

Posted in Uncategorized by pptmoderator on January 16, 2016

PPT HandleOriginally published October 14, 2013

The insanely celebrated return to our Reformed roots teaches the following about the law:

We are unable to keep the law perfectly. And since a perfect keeping of the law is the standard for righteousness required to live with God forever, our inability to keep the law perfectly leads us to Christ who must keep/fulfill it for us. As Christians, we continue to use the law in this way to “preach the gospel to ourselves.” The more we use the law to show our innate sinfulness, the more we experience “vivification” (a joyful, perpetual rebirth).

The bogus idea that perfect law-keeping is justification’s standard aside, the most popular text that supposedly supports this idea is Galatians 3:24 –

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

To make that verse work, “guardian” (paidagōgos) is often translated as “tutor.” That’s a stretch. The word is better translated “protector”:

Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood (Strong’s Dictionary).

Furthermore, the Reformed gospel teaches that the law is used by the Christian for this same purpose in our Christian walk—to continually lead us closer and closer to Christ by showing forth sin. This blatantly contradicts the context of the passage:

Galatians 3:25 – But now that faith has come, we are no longer [added] under a guardian,

Reformed doctrine clearly teaches that Christians are still under the law’s purpose to show us a deeper and deeper need for Christ and His grace as we see our own sinfulness in a deeper and deeper way. In other words, for Christians, God’s word still has a redemptive purpose. This is the basis for Historic Redemptive hermeneutics. However, even in regard to the lost, the showing forth of sin is only one purpose for the law, but far from being the only one.

Primarily, the law shows forth life. This is by far the primary theme of law throughout the Scriptures. The law shows forth the wisdom of God, and the wellbeing (blessings) of those who follow it. The law is also framed in the context of promise much more than it is judgment.

This gets into the major crux of the Reformed false gospel; the fusion of justification and sanctification concepts. The blessings of law-keeping can be experienced by unbelievers and believers alike, but such cannot obtain eternal life. The point is that the law shows forth life as much as it does death. It shows both. Again, this is a constant theme throughout the Scriptures. Who will deny that unbelievers will have a higher quality of life to the degree that they follow God’s law? No, it can’t gain salvation for them, but the law brings horizontal blessings by virtue of its wisdom.

Point in case:

1Peter 3:1 – Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.

In this passage, the husband is not won over by the wife demonstrating how sinful we are and our subsequent need for Christ; she is showing forth the blessings of being a believer. These are blessings that he is also experiencing because the home is sanctified by her presence:

1Corinthians 7:14 – For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

So, there is a sense in which the unbelieving spouse is blessed by the believing one. The law not only shows forth sin, but also shows forth life. The latter is the way the law leads people to Christ just as much as the former.

paul

Connecting the Dots: Tullian Tchividjian and Luther’s Theologian of the Cross

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on June 24, 2015

TT6The Magnum Opus of the Reformation: Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation; Part 5

The Reformed community will hardly shed a tear in regard to the recent demise of Tullian Tchividjian. A consummate theologian of the cross in accordance with Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, his lack of nuance drove other Reformed leaders to distraction.

Tchividjian is the premier example of the authentic Reformed gospel applied in our day. His life and teachings will be compared to what we have learned thus far from the foundational doctrinal statement of the Reformation.

Join the discussion @ 7pm on Friday, 6/26/2015. Program link:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/falsereformation/2015/06/26/the-magnum-opus-of-the-reformation-martin-luthers-heidelberg-disputation-p5

%d bloggers like this: