Paul's Passing Thoughts

My Reply to Linda: Yes, I Am a Christian, But Not Sure You Are

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on April 19, 2017

ppt-jpeg4Originally published December 15, 2015

I no longer have patience for the evangelical regurgitation of orthodox talking points. Protestants don’t own their own faith that they have seen in the Bible with their own study.  What they think they see and understand is what Protestant academics have told them, including the idea that only they have authority to tell them what to believe. So, what is wrong with church? Church is wrong with church because it is predicated on a false gospel. That’s right, the Protestant Reformation was a false reformation founded on a false gospel. And this is why Dr. James White and others have refused to debate me publicly; the Protestant gospel as stated in its orthodoxy is the biblical definition of a lost person…under law as opposed to under grace.

Martin Luther and John Calvin et al proffered a gospel that is under law, but that is supposedly OK because Jesus keeps/kept the law for us, and that obedience is imputed to our Christian status. This is a perpetual covering of sin, or sometimes referred to as “atonement,” but not an ENDING of sin that requires no further justification. Hence, we must “preach the gospel to ourselves every day” to “keep ourselves in the love of God” (CJ Mahaney) etc.  White and others know that this is a simple matter of theological math, and do not intend to address it until enough people catch on. The only case they can make presently is for a historical-redemptive interpretation of Scripture that interprets every verse as a justification verse. Sanctification is defined as progressive justification via Protestant talking points.

One day in my personal Facebook account I noticed the following comment to me by a “Linda”:

“Are you a Christian Paul? And secondly do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? That would be my two questions for you. Romans says, ‘There is none righteous, no not one.’ That includes you and me. This doesn’t mean that we never do a kind act or good deed. It means that we don’t and can’t do enough of them to be declared ‘RIGHTEOUS’ by God. We could never do enough good deeds and kind acts to get us into heaven. Therefore we need the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us in order to go to heaven. God imputes this kind of righteousness to those who believe and accept HIS son Jesus and his shed blood as atonement for their sins and their UNrighteousness. We are part of God’s family by adoption. Nothing can make us righteous enough to go to heaven. The righteousness that is applied to our never dying soul can only come from Christ. The ‘part and parcel’ of our own being is puny compared with what God demands. In one place in scripture our puny ‘part and parcel’ is described as ‘filthy rags.’ So our own human effort at righteousness is from our flesh. Our flesh is not saved from sin and unrighteousness. Only our soul is. We are not capable of learning and loving enough to be declared righteous enough for heaven. We could learn and love enough to help another person with a kind act or good deed. But that does not fit our soul for heaven. I don’t understand your third question……’Christ imputing sin’ ????”

Her comment was in reply to previous comments I had made in regard to a post. She was replying to a comment I made regarding her initial comment.

“I am a never dying soul whom Christ died and rose for, approved of by God because I have HIS righteousness. Just by learning and loving we are different. Better means ‘improved in some way.’ Not hard questions for me.”

Here is my reply.

“Linda, where does the Bible say you have the righteousness of Christ? That’s the first question. The second: Are we only approved of God because we ONLY have the righteousness of Christ and none of our own? What about the new birth? If we are literally born of God and now part of His lineage, would that not make us righteous? Do you mean to say that we have a righteousness LIKE Christ’s because we are a member of the same family, or ONLY His righteousness and none that is part and parcel with our own being? Are we truly righteous, or only declared righteous? Third question: was Christ’s role in salvation an imputation of sin AND righteousness, or just sin? On the one hand, you seem to state that we only have the righteousness of Christ, but on the other, you say we learn and love. How exactly do we learn and love if we ourselves are not righteous people? So, I am not trying to be a jerk here, I am simply resolute that Christians should have a clear definition of who they are. Yes, I know exactly what the Reformers believed about our identity, but I would like to see your clarification.”

This is the extreme Protestant cognitive dissonance resulting in the train wreck we call “church” that I no longer have patience for. People who are serious about following Christ need to take their true gospel and leave the institutional church for home fellowship networks. The institutional church is part and parcel with the authority that demands a denial of the obvious. Authority has replaced truth. Nevertheless, I do believe evangelicals will have to eventually address their under law gospel.

I will make this as simple as possible as I am weary of addressing it. Much, much, thanks to Andy Young who is helping to carry the water on this as well. Linda’s response is pretty much the Protestant gospel talking points that we hear often, and pregnant with cognitive dissonance. All in all, her answers to my questions are, “NO.” Please start by noting that. This is where we discuss another disservice the Reformers performed: adding chapters and verses to the Bible. This circumvents the need to read all of Scripture in context. You can form a theological argument by using John Immel’s pet peeve: Scripture stacking. Basically, Linda is using the same verses to argue for the same Protestant talking points that she has received from Protestant academics. As a result, if one examines her statements, the blatant contradictions are stunning.

Where to start? ALL of our works are filthy rags (Isiah 64:6), yet, we can do some stuff that is good? So, “all” doesn’t really mean “all”? Per the usual, Protestants profess a double false gospel because they don’t rightly understand the gospel taught by the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther. In fact, Luther taught that EVERY deed of man is evil, even those that appear good because man’s “good” deeds always have a flawed motive. Calvin taught the same. Hence, if one believes that we can do a good deed, that is “mortal sin” and cannot be forgiven by the church. But, if one believes that every work we do, even works that appear good, are actually evil, all of our sin can be forgiven by revisiting the same gospel that saved us, and that revisitation is only valid under the auspices and oversight of the clergy. This is Luther, this is Calvin, this is the Protestant gospel. I have documented this backwards and forwards as those who follow TANC Ministries know.

Now, for the Protestant part of this that Linda got right, and in fact a mainstay of Protestantism, but still a false gospel. Luther and Calvin orthodoxy already condemns her to hell, but they would agree with her making the law the standard for justification. Biblically, there is NO law in justification. The Bible testifies about justification, but law and justification are mutually exclusive. It doesn’t matter who keeps the law, there is no law in justification. What determines justification is the new birth. The law is strictly for love in the Christian life. Again, the law informs us about justification, and here is the information: law is not the standard for justification, the new birth is. The apostle Paul wrote the epistle of Galatians to make this very point. Again, I predict that folks are going to start catching on to this in the future and the who’s who of evangelicalism are going to have to make a defense; good luck to them as that attempt will be interesting. The Protestant under-law-gospel, also stated by Linda, has Christ fulfilling God’s “demands” in our stead when God’s only demand regarding justification is that we be born again.

In order to make the law the standard for justification, the Reformers resorted to Saint Augustine’s Neo-Platonism, which later became Gnosticism and wreaked havoc on the first century church. We see this in Linda’s talking points about “the flesh.” ALL of our works come from where? Right, the flesh which, like the Reformers, she deems as inherently evil. That’s Gnosticism. The Bible teaches that our bodies, or members, are “weak” not inherently evil. When the Bible speaks of the “desires of the flesh” and the “deeds of the flesh,” that speaks of when our members are used for sinful purposes. Obviously, if Linda would stop long enough to read her own Bible with her own understanding given to her by God, she would see that our body, or “flesh,” can also be used for holy purposes (Romans 12:1 among many other passages). And, what is more obvious than the fact that our bodies are declared to be the temple of God? Actually, a word study reveals that the Holy of Holies is being referred to.

This brings us to Linda’s Protestant confusion in regard to the difference between salvation and redemption. The former is the saving of the soul, the latter is the saving of the mortal body which can be used for evil or good depending on which desires we are obeying. Christians, through the new birth, have the ability to obey the desires of the Spirit stated in the Bible and the ability to say “no” to evil desires that remain part of the body’s weakness and mortality. Because Christ ended the law through the new birth, sin has been stripped of its ability to enslave and condemn. If Christ obeys the law for us, we are still under it and enslaved to sin. The old us that died with Christ violated the whole law with every sin; the new us that was raised with Christ fulfills the whole law with one act of love. Christ didn’t come to obey the law for us—He came to END the law. Christ didn’t come to cover our sin—He came to END our sin.

A book could be written here, but time won’t allow it; nevertheless, let’s address Linda’s confusion, typical among Protestants, in regard to gift and reward. We cannot birth ourselves, but we can obtain the baptism of the Spirit by faith alone in “the promise” (see Galatians chapter 3). Once the gift is received, it is ours to utilize by loving God and others. Exercising the gift is not taking credit for the gift. The Bible states that God would be unjust to forget our good works and service to the saints (Hebrews 6:10). “Unjust”? Yes, because as those literally born of Him (1 John chapter 3), and literally a part of His literal family, our reward is due us as siblings working for the Father. As a slave to the former master, we could only earn death wages—now we can earn true reward. Read the Parable of the Talents and see what the outcome is for those who fear and want to give God back only what was given and nothing more. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the new birth.

As a policy, I don’t judge the salvation of others. I believe that there are Protestants who are confused enough about Protestantism to be saved. So, yes Linda, I am saved, but I find your assurance that you are saved indicative of your confusion. Protestant orthodoxy CLEARLY states that the motor of sanctification moving justification forward is doubt of salvation because being under condemnation is part and parcel with being under law…the standard for justification according to Protestantism. In Calvin’s words, if “Christians” are not still under condemnation, what further need is there for Christ and His righteousness?

So Linda, I am saved, but I recommend that you start thinking for yourself. All of the Protestant academics you trust will not stand in your stead at the judgment. You will be standing there alone.

And you better have more than a covering with sin underneath it, you better be a literal child of God before Him.

paul

The Science of Debating a Calvinist; What You Must Know, Part 3

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on June 26, 2016

paul-and-susan

Today 6/26/2016 Live @ 4:00 pm. Live Program Link: 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/falsereformation/2016/06/26/the-science-of-debating-a-calvinist-what-you-must-know-part-3

Sometime prior to the airing on 5/28/2016, I took part in a pre-recorded Q and A with Reformed theologian Dr. James White. This was hosted by Justin Brierley of the UK radio show “Unbelievable” on Premier Christian radio.

The host rightly identified our contention with the Protestant Reformation: the false gospel of progressive justification. During the Q and A, Dr. James White used deceptive communication techniques common among Reformed scholars.

The purpose of this program is to identify those techniques, and the substance of his false gospel.

Prior to the Q and A, the host and James White were presented with the following memo:

7 Yes or No Questions For James White

Also, the program transcript: J. White processed vid (2)

TANC Ministries 6/7/2016.

Other notes for part 3:

blogs-thegospelcoalition-org

bruce Russell

My Reply to Linda: Yes, I Am a Christian, But Not Sure You Are

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on December 15, 2015

ppt-jpeg4I am presently in the process of eliminating my personal Face Book account. A ministry account will be maintained for the TANC blog, Paul’s Passing Thoughts .com, and overseen by Pearl the PPT moderator. I recommend people befriend that account if they want to stay connected to our ministry.

The reason is simple: I no longer have patience for the evangelical regurgitation of orthodox talking points. Protestants don’t own their own faith that they have seen in the Bible with their own study.  What they think they see and understand is what Protestant academics have told them, including the idea that they have authority to tell them what to believe. So, what is wrong with church? Church is wrong with church because it is predicated on a false gospel. That’s right, the Protestant Reformation was a false reformation founded on a false gospel. And this is why Dr. James White and others have refused to debate me publicly; the Protestant gospel as stated in its orthodoxy is the biblical definition of a lost person…under law as opposed to under grace.

Martin Luther and John Calvin et al proffered a gospel that is under law, but that is supposedly OK because Jesus keeps/kept the law for us and that obedience is imputed to our Christian status. This is a perpetual covering of sin, or sometimes referred to as “atonement,” but not an ENDING of sin that requires no further justification. Hence, we must “preach the gospel to ourselves every day” to “keep ourselves in the love of God” (CJ Mahaney) etc. White and others know that this is a simple matter of theological math, and do not intend to address it until enough people catch on. The only case they can make presently is for a historical-redemptive interpretation of Scripture that interprets every verse as a justification verse. Sanctification is defined as progressive justification via Protestant talking points.

So, while in the process of eliminating my personal Face Book account, I noticed a comment to me by a “Linda.” It follows:

“Are you a Christian Paul? And secondly do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? That would be my two questions for you. Romans says, ‘There is none righteous, no not one.’ That includes you and me. This doesn’t mean that we never do a kind act or good deed. It means that we don’t and can’t do enough of them to be declared ‘RIGHTEOUS’ by God. We could never do enough good deeds and kind acts to get us into heaven. Therefore we need the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us in order to go to heaven. God imputes this kind of righteousness to those who believe and accept HIS son Jesus and his shed blood as atonement for their sins and their UNrighteousness. We are part of God’s family by adoption. Nothing can make us righteous enough to go to heaven. The righteousness that is applied to our never dying soul can only come from Christ. The ‘part and parcel’ of our own being is puny compared with what God demands. In one place in scripture our puny ‘part and parcel’ is described as ‘filthy rags.’ So our own human effort at righteousness is from our flesh. Our flesh is not saved from sin and unrighteousness. Only our soul is. We are not capable of learning and loving enough to be declared righteous enough for heaven. We could learn and love enough to help another person with a kind act or good deed. But that does not fit our soul for heaven. I don’t understand your third question……’Christ imputing sin’ ????”

Her comment was in reply to previous comments made in regard to a post. She was replying to a comment I made regarding her initial comment. Her initial comment follows, and afterward my reply:

“I am a never dying soul whom Christ died and rose for, approved of by God because I have HIS righteousness. Just by learning and loving we are different. Better means ‘improved in some way.’ Not hard questions for me.”

“Linda, where does the Bible say you have the righteousness of Christ? That’s the first question. The second: Are we only approved of God because we ONLY have the righteousness of Christ and none of our own? What about the new birth? If we are literally born of God and now part of His lineage, would that not make us righteous? Do you mean to say that we have a righteousness LIKE Christ’s because we are a member of the same family, or ONLY His righteousness and none that is part and parcel with our own being? Are we truly righteous, or only declared righteous? Third question: was Christ’s role in salvation an imputation of sin AND righteousness, or just sin? On the one hand, you seem to state that we only have the righteousness of Christ, but on the other, you say we learn and love. How exactly do we learn and love if we ourselves are not righteous people? So, I am not trying to be a jerk here, I am simply resolute that Christians should have a clear definition of who they are. Yes, I know exactly what the Reformers believed about our identity, but I would like to see your clarification.”

This is the extreme Protestant cognitive dissonance resulting in the train wreck we call “church” that I no longer have patience for. People who are serious about following Christ need to take their true gospel and leave the institutional church for home fellowship networks. The institutional church is part and parcel with the authority that demands a denial of the obvious. Authority has replaced truth. Nevertheless, I do believe evangelicals will have to eventually address their under law gospel.

I will make this as simple as possible as I am weary of addressing it. Much, much, thanks to Andy Young who is helping to carry the water on this as well. Linda’s response is pretty much the Protestant gospel talking points that we hear often, and pregnant with cognitive dissonance. All in all, her answers to my questions are, “NO.” Please start by noting that. This is where we discuss another disservice the Reformers performed: adding chapters and verses to the Bible. This circumvents the need to read all of Scripture in context. You can form a theological argument by using John Immel’s pet peeve: Scripture stacking. Basically, Linda is using the same verses to argue for the same Protestant talking points that she has received from Protestant academics. As a result, if one examines her statements, the blatant contradictions are stunning.

Where to start? ALL of our works are filthy rags (Isiah 64:6), yet, we can do some stuff that is good? So, “all” doesn’t really mean “all”? Per the usual, Protestants profess a double false gospel because they don’t rightly understand the gospel taught by the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther. In fact, Luther taught that EVERY deed of man is evil, even those that appear good because man’s “good” deeds always have a flawed motive. Calvin taught the same. Hence, if one believes that we can do a good deed, that is “mortal sin” and cannot be forgiven by the church. But, if one believes that every work we do, even works that appear good, are actually evil, all of our sin can be forgiven by revisiting the same gospel that saved us, and that revisitation is only valid under the auspices and oversight of the clergy. This is Luther, this is Calvin, this is the Protestant gospel. I have documented this backwards and forwards as those who follow TANC Ministries know.

Now, for the Protestant part of this that Linda got right, and in fact a mainstay of Protestantism, but still a false gospel. Luther and Calvin orthodoxy already condemns her to hell, but they would agree with her making the law the standard for justification. Biblically, there is NO law in justification. The Bible testifies about justification, but law and justification are mutually exclusive. It doesn’t matter who keeps the law, there is no law in justification. What determines justification is the new birth. The law is strictly for love in the Christian life. Again, the law informs us about justification, and here is the information: law is not the standard for justification, the new birth is. The apostle Paul wrote the epistle of Galatians to make this very point. Again, I predict that folks are going to start catching on to this in the future and the who’s who of evangelicalism are going to have to make a defense; good luck to them as that attempt will be interesting. The Protestant under-law-gospel, also stated by Linda, has Christ fulfilling God’s “demands” in our stead when God’s only demand regarding justification is that we be born again.

In order to make the law the standard for justification, the Reformers resorted to Saint Augustine’s Neo-Platonism, which later became Gnosticism and wreaked havoc on the first century church. We see this in Linda’s talking points about “the flesh.” ALL of our works come from where? Right, the flesh which, like the Reformers, she deems as inherently evil. That’s Gnosticism. The Bible teaches that our bodies, or members, are “weak” not inherently evil. When the Bible speaks of the “desires of the flesh” and the “deeds of the flesh,” that speaks of when our members are used for sinful purposes. Obviously, if Linda would stop long enough to read her own Bible with her own understanding given to her by God, she would see that our body, or “flesh,” can also be used for holy purposes (Romans 12:1 among many other passages). And, what is more obvious than the fact that our bodies are declared to be the temple of God? Actually, a word study reveals that the Holy of Holies is being referred to.

This brings us to Linda’s Protestant confusion in regard to the difference between salvation and redemption. The former is the saving of the soul, the latter is the saving of the mortal body which can be used for evil or good depending on which desires we are obeying. Christians, through the new birth, have the ability to obey the desires of the Spirit stated in the Bible and the ability to say “no” to evil desires that remain part of the body’s weakness and mortality. Because Christ ended the law through the new birth, sin has been stripped of its ability to enslave and condemn. If Christ obeys the law for us, we are still under it and enslaved to sin. The old us that died with Christ violated the whole law with every sin; the new us that was raised with Christ fulfills the whole law with one act of love. Christ didn’t come to obey the law for us—He came to END the law. Christ didn’t come to cover our sin—He came to END our sin.

A book could be written here, but time won’t allow it; nevertheless, let’s address Linda’s confusion, typical among Protestants, in regard to gift and reward. We cannot birth ourselves, but we can obtain the baptism of the Spirit by faith alone in “the promise” (see Galatians chapter 3). Once the gift is received, it is ours to utilize by loving God and others. Exercising the gift is not taking credit for the gift. The Bible states that God would be unjust to forget our good works and service to the saints (Hebrews 6:10). “Unjust”? Yes, because as those literally born of Him (1John chapter 3), and literally a part of His literal family, our reward is due us as siblings working for the Father. As a slave to the former master, we could only earn death wages—now we can earn true reward. Read the Parable of the Talents and see what the outcome is for those who fear and want to give God back only what was given and nothing more. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the new birth.

As a policy, I don’t judge the salvation of others. I believe that there are Protestants who are confused enough about Protestantism to be saved. So, yes Linda, I am saved, but I find your assurance that you are saved indicative of your confusion. Protestant orthodoxy CLEARLY states that the motor of sanctification moving justification forward is doubt of salvation because being under condemnation is part and parcel with being under law…the standard for justification according to Protestantism. In Calvin’s words, if “Christians” are not still under condemnation, what further need is there for Christ and His righteousness?

So Linda, I am saved, but I recommend that you start thinking for yourself. All of the Protestant academics you trust will not stand in your stead at the judgment. You will be standing there alone.

And you better have more than a covering with sin underneath it, you better be a literal child of God before Him.

paul

Dr. James White (Calvinist) and Dr. David Allen (Arminian) Keep the Christian Herd Calm While Vying for the Mutton

Posted in Uncategorized by pptmoderator on October 10, 2014

PPT Handle

Originally published December 5, 2013

“Based on the Calvin Institutes 4.1.21,22 alone, how could Dr. Allen say, ‘I do not consider it to be outside the boundaries of orthodox Christianity.’ Does this speak to the condition of American seminaries in general; the brain trust thereof are this clueless? I think it does. Christians are paying thousands of dollars to be educated by theological morons.”

There may be something to Socrates’ theory of intuitive knowledge. I have always suspected that the church is crippled by spiritual caste, but today’s events revealed to me that Protestantism is spiritual caste on steroids. I knew it, but now I really know it. Now I see it clearly.

I have been perplexed for some time over the Arminian/Calvinism debate that Christians never seem to tire of. The reason this is perplexing to me follows: Calvinism is clearly a false gospel. For four years, I tenaciously mapped the history and doctrine of New Calvinism. New Calvinists claim that they are returning authentic Calvinism to the church, a claim that I planned on addressing in volume two of The Truth About New Calvinism. In preparation for volume two, I consulted with church historian John Immel. When I showed him my New Calvinist map, he in essence said, “Yes, that looks an awful lot like what Luther and Calvin believed. I would read the Calvin Institutes.”

And that I did. To my utter shock, I learned that the Calvin Institutes are no more or no less than the New Calvinist playbook. I also learned some other interesting things about Calvinism. In the Calvin Institutes 4.1.21,22, Calvin states in no uncertain terms that Christians need a daily re-forgiveness of sins in order to remain saved, and that forgiveness can only be found in the institutional church under the authority of pastors. He also wrote that pastors are granted authority to forgive sins of condemnation by proxy. Truly, the Institutes are chock full of anti-biblical ideas and outright heresy.

Election versus freewill; Calvinism has been hiding behind this silly debate for more than 500 years while Calvinism is a conspicuous false gospel A-Z. The other day, I was sent some videos that pertained to Dr. James White’s objection to this year’s John 3:16 Conference. Here is what the Baptist Press said about the conference:

While stressing that the discussion between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention is a family matter, speakers at the 2013 John 3:16 Conference outlined the differences between the two views and what they believe to be the issues hindering unity among Southern Baptists.

Frank Cox, pastor of North Metro Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Ga., which hosted the conference on March 21-22, told attendees that the event would help them “engage in the conversation going on across the nation and the Southern Baptist Convention.”

When I saw Dr. White’s critique of the conference, and other videos that in fact showed the ignorance that was on display at the conference and thereby making White look good, I decided to venture back into the arena of public debate. I contacted White’s ministry, Alpha and Omega, and received this reply:

Paul,

1. Could you please direct me to any of your published work on the subject?

2. Could you provide me with your credentials (training, degrees, etc.).

3. What work of Dr. White are you familiar with? Please list his books and debates that you have watched, read and perhaps even commented on.

4. I would especially be interested in any publications or sermons where you exegete, at the very least, Genesis 50:15-21, John 6:37-45, Romans 1-3 and all of Romans 9.

The following was my reply:

1. Yes, until 2012, I was the only author to publish a book on the contemporary history and doctrine of the Neo-Calvinist movement. In 2012, a work by Dr. Robert R. Congdon cited my book six times, and referred to it indirectly in several other places. Reviews of my book can be found at The Truth About New Calvinism .com. Volume 2 is in process, and the only book to date that documents the resurgences of authentic Reformed doctrine since Calvin’s oversight of Geneva. It also documents the antinomian controversies between redemptive historical Calvinists and grammatical historical Calvinists. Furthermore, the book will document the specific influences of Neo-Platonism on Calvin’s theology.

I am the only contemporary author to write a book that challenges the Reformation’s justification by faith alone as a works salvation: False Reformation: Four Tenets of Calvin and Luther’s False Gospel, TANC Publishing 2012. It focuses on progressive justification, the fusion of justification and sanctification, Calvin and Luther’s view of the new birth, their methods of interpretation, and the total depravity of the saints. It does not address the doctrine of election as that subject gets the cart before the horse in regard to soteriology.

Besides, it is my contention that Calvinists don’t really believe in election to begin with. They believe election enters you into a faith alone race in which you have to persevere by faith alone in order to keep yourself saved. In essence, a perpetual re-salvation through the process of mortification and vivification that makes the Christian life an experience, and not a work. This leads to an ambiguity regarding assurance that was an Augustinian hallmark. Everyone stands in one last judgment waiting to see if they lived the Christian life by faith alone adequately enough to avert “making sanctification the ground of our justification.”

I have also written a book (“Pictures of Calvinism”) that addresses the Reformed doctrine of the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us and its supposed application to life.

In addition, I have done research for the Institute of Nouthetic Studies and The Journal of Modern Ministry in response to their requests.

2. Credentials other than being Spirit-filled? Sure. I was a proponent of Reformed theology for 20 years, and a Reformed pastor for five. I was a pastor in Dallas TX, and am presently a pastor in Xenia, Ohio. For whatever it is worth, I have attended several Bible colleges and plan to obtain a degree sometime next year. I am also a certified biblical counselor.

3. I have watched several of Dr. White’s debates via video. The one that incited my goal here was in regard to the John 3:16 Conference. Though public debate is not my forte, I am compelled because Dr. White is right: their arguments against Calvinism are utterly pathetic.

4. I am presently preaching through the book of Romans, and the first eight chapters are published: “The Gospel: Clarification in Confusing Times.” You can peruse the archives here: https://paulspassingthoughts.com/the-potters-house/  We are in chapter 12.

In backing out of the debate, here was their excuse coming from the president of Alpha and Omega:

Paul,

Thank you but I don’t believe that we would have an interest in a debate at this time. Your focus of work seems to be in the area of Calvin and the history of the Reformation which is not something that we have ever pursued as a primary debate topic. Further, we do scholarly work here and after having been accused of ‘picking the low hanging fruit’ on numerous occasions by arminians we have simply raised the bar for the qualifications of our opponents. When you can show me that you have formal training in Greek, Hebrew and Systematic Theology at the very least I will be happy to reconsider whether we could find a topic of interest in common. Further, such a debate would need a primary focus on the scriptures with history being secondary for us to have any interest.

Blessings,

Rich Pierce

Alpha and Omega Ministries

Let me make a point here Mr. and Mrs. Average Joe parishioner. When you go to your pastors with a concern, in the vast majority of circumstances, this is how they see you: unknowledgeable in systematic theology, Greek, and Hebrew, and uncertified by a Protestant philosopher king institution. While they put on their I am really concerned and respect your spiritual intellect look, they are thinking, “Dude, just shut up and tithe your ten percent—you’re clueless.”

By the way, while these guys claim no interest in history, it would do them some good to know that the father of Reformation doctrine, St. Augustine, was not the least bit studied in Hebrew or Greek. And certification? He was a Catholic till the end. Would James White refuse a debate with St. Augustine based on academic credentials?

While I was waiting for the White camp to respond, I sent this email to one of the Arminian philosopher kings who spoke at the John 3:16 conference:

Dr Allen,

Greetings. My name is Paul Dohse and I work with a nonprofit LLC that researches Reformed theology and the Neo-Calvinist movement in particular. I published the first book on New Calvinism in 2011, and that book culminated four years of research. The only other work published on this subject followed a year later, and was written by Dr. Robert Congdon. He cited our work (“The Truth About New Calvinism” volume 1) extensively in his book, “New Calvinism’s Upside-Down Gospel.”

I have also published the first outright challenge to Calvin’s soteriology in “False Reformation: Four Tenets of Luther and Calvin’s Egregious False Gospel.” The book contends that Calvin propagated progressive justification, a denial of the new birth, the idea that justification is predicated on a perpetual perfect keeping of the law by Christ in the believers stead (a law that can give life for justification), and the idea that Christians must keep themselves saved by preaching the gospel to themselves every day.

In light of this, I would like to interview you in regard to your comments during the John 3:16 conference Q&A; specifically, to a couple of young men arguing for separation from Calvinists in the SBC. My blog usually conducts these interviews by videotaping me talking to the participants over the telephone, preferably a landline.

Thank you for your consideration,

Paul M. Dohse

TTANC LLC

Here was his response:

Paul,

Thank you for the invitation, but I must respectfully decline. While I strongly disagree with many aspects of Calvinism, I do not consider it to be outside the boundaries of orthodox Christianity (hyper-Calvinism excepted).

Sincerely,

David L. Allen, Ph.D.

Dean  |  School of Theology

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Let us ponder the possibilities:

1. None of these people have ever read the Calvin Institutes while holding conferences and posing as experts on the subject.

2. They know what Calvin believed, but they don’t want to spook the herd for financial reasons.

Based on the Calvin Institutes 4.1.21,22 alone, how could Dr. Allen say, “I do not consider it to be outside the boundaries of orthodox Christianity.” Does this speak to the condition of American seminaries in general; the brain trust thereof are this clueless? I think it does. Christians are paying thousands of dollars to be educated by theological morons.

Moreover, on the Arminian side, it is the same. Notice how Dr. Allen summarily dismissed my assertions about Calvinism without a shred of curiosity. Why? See the Alpha and Omega Ministries reply—same reason. So, likewise, even if you are a theologically accomplished layperson, and you have a discussion with one of these Arminian guys, the result is the same:

While they put on their I am really concerned and respect your spiritual intellect look, they are thinking, “Dude, just shut up and tithe your ten percent—you’re clueless.”

Be not deceived, whether Calvinist or Arminian, they both have the same goal: don’t spook the herd. It is a spiritual caste system rivaled by none. Rather than teaching you theology, they banter back and forth to keep you confused, and controllable.

“After all,” says their fears, “if the herd can understand theology, what would they need us for?”

paul

PPT Response to Accusation by Alpha & Omega Ministries

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on January 10, 2014

Paul,

Your false blog title from December 6 was just brought to my attention. I am the one who answered your debate request and Dr. White never saw it. I explained why and was polite about it. I also left the door open for something in the future if your situation changes. To claim that “Dr. James White Backs Down From Public Debate’ is dishonest. I call on you to correct your article to reflect the truth of our exchange as well as my explanation for your lack of qualifications as well as my explanation for the need for having such standards.

Blessings,

Rich Pierce

Alpha and Omega Ministries

Rich,

Words mean things. You are an authorized spokesperson for James White. You backed down from the debate in his stead. Let me demonstrate that: who did I offend? Who did I supposedly misrepresent? But yet, who is contacting me? See what I mean?

And in regard to dishonesty, let’s talk about that. Rich, we both know why James won’t debate me; there are things in the Calvin Institutes that he can’t defend in public. Calvin would be exposed for the heretic that he truly was. My lack of Hebrew and Greek isn’t the issue, the fact that I don’t get into all of the election/freewill nonsense and focus on the theological math of Calvin’s gospel is the issue. Dr. White defending Calvin’s well documented Gnosticism would also be interesting.

Calvinism is a false gospel.

Paul Dohse

%d bloggers like this: