Paul's Passing Thoughts

From the Reformation to the Third Reich: Protestantism’s Impact on Western Culture – Part 8

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on March 17, 2017

The following is part eight of a nine-part series.
Taken from John Immel’s sixth session
at the 2014 Conference on Gospel Discernment and Spiritual Tyranny
~ Edited by Andy Young

Click here for introduction
Click here for part two
Click here for part three
Click here for part four
Click here for part five
Click here for part six
Click here for part seven
Click here for conclusion

 

Christianity’s Solidarity with Socialism

There has been observation that the Founding Fathers were Christians and that a lot of the impetus for the American Revolution came from their Christian perspective.   Certainly any reading of George Washington makes it almost impossible to turn him into a deist. While it is true that many of the Founding Fathers were Christians and considered themselves Christian, they were primarily sons of the Enlightenment, and they held man as an effective, potent, rational creature.

This is in absolute defiance of historical orthodoxy. There is no way you can massage historic Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist orthodoxy into rational, competent, successful men. The practical outworking in the United States was that man’s exposure to the Dark Ages was directly centered around the Puritan doctrine, and it was that same Puritan doctrine that the Founding Fathers made an overt effort to separate from government and, in many instances, to defeat.

The reason Americans get so fussy about their right to define their own religion is not because they are emulating orthodox Christian doctrines. It is because they are children of the Enlightenment. It is the Enlightenment that told you that you had the rational capacity to read the Bible for yourself and understand it for yourself. That is entirely an Enlightenment conclusion.

And let me expand this a little further. One of the best contrasts to do is to look how Luther reasoned. He would make an assertion, and then he would stick a reference to a Bible quote. At one point in time, systematic theology was called the “queen of the sciences”, because it was this ability to be able to rattle off every scripture that was supposed to have been somehow designated to any of the main disciplines within theology.

Now if you actually look back through Bible interpretation from effectively Augustine forward, the dominant means by which the Bible was interpreted was by allegory,typology, and metaphors. It was not something that was rationalized.   It was nothing more than putting one’s finger on a verse and saying, “Because it says this, that necessarily means God means this.”

Of course, my degree was in systematic theology, and this is why I eventually abandoned systematic theology because it is really an interpretive methodology. It is not indicative of what the Bible says. The ability to take passages and verses of scripture and somehow cut and paste them together to arrive at doctrines is not reflective of audience, purpose, and intent of author.

That process of learning to identify audience and context are all concepts that came out of the Enlightenment. Once the Church lost control of the universities, men could start inquiring about the truth behind the doctrines in question that had been held for so long because the force of government could be brought to bear from descent. Men finally started to go out and do research, and the vast percentage of that research is actually very recent. Most biblical scholarship has been done probably within maybe the last 80 to 90 years.

All of these scholastic elements are born from the process of higher critical methodology, and most of the men who advanced these higher critical methods were considered outcasts by the Orthodox Church. One such individual who comes to mind is a guy by the name of Friedrich Schleiermacher.   He insisted that you have to learn to identify context, audience, speaker, and context for the writer of the book. Now here in 2014, finding some guy on the computer that can actually do a word study and start parsing out Greek verbs in an effort to recover, at least in his mind, an intent or meaning behind the text, is reflective of Enlightenment thought.

This is not the historic orthodox position, and you will notice in most of the Neo-Calvinist movement, they abhor higher critical methodology with impunity. They demagogue the moral high ground, and then they employ an interpretive methodology.   It is the manipulation of interpretive methodologies that gives them all the power to create any doctrine they want. And the moment you try to pause them and say, “Wait a minute. How can you just arbitrarily say, ‘Oh, Galatians here, Romans here and Genesis here and let’s all put this together,'” they become indignant.

Typically throughout the medieval times, other types of orthodoxy never had any ability to gain any traction because ultimately, you would be condemned for heresy and penalized by government. But in the United States those types of ministries had the opportunity to rise up. And more specifically, the men who actually carried them were either largely uneducated or not seminary-educated, which meant they were not Harvard or Yale graduates, which meant they were not indoctrinated into the Calvinist construct. They were committed to their own rational understandings of their own individual reading of the Bible. And this is crucial to understand.

The problem, however, is that such movements usually had nowhere to go because they had no intellectual framework. It turns out that that is exactly like Christianity back in the 1st century. It did not have a framework. It needed a framework, and unfortunately Christianity became attached to Platonism. Its abiding and enduring capacity is within that overarching philosophical statement. In philosophy the most consistent formulation wins, and as of right this minute in 21st century America, the only overarching full-formulation of Christian thought – and trust me, I have read thousands of pages from lots of different people – is the reformed Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist construct.

So having said all of that, let us revisit what inspired my part of this conference.

“The idea that freedom of man is a practicality is a pipe dream because he is enslaved to his own desires spiritually; hence, at the very least, indifference to political freedom on a social level. So will the New Calvinist movement cause political indifference in American society among Christians?”

That the idea of “freedom for the masses” is called a “pipe dream” is the political premise of collectivist governments. Such governments presume man’s nature precludes liberty because man can never control his impulses. Therefore, man’s true freedom is found in subordination to the state. The belief is that the state is a definer of morality, and individuals are at their highest and best when looked after by a paternalistic government.

Of course, we know where this logic leads because history gives us two absolute examples: the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany. The fundamental political premise of Augustine/Lutheran/Calvinist doctrine is that Christians are to accept whatever government comes to power. This means that Christians must submit to any thug with a gun.

Socially and politically, the most disastrous part of the current New Calvinist movement is the doctrine that demands submission to authority. They do not teach indifference. They teach an intentional servitude. Intentional servitude is far, far worse because it is a doctrine of deliberate capitulation. Such a doctrine demands that Christians presume that any man claiming authority is ordained of God. This means that it does not matter how bad the oppression gets. People must assume that righteous action is submission. “Righteous” action is therefore non-action.

Political indifference can be ignited into political fervor in a blink if social pain becomes too great. But by contrast, people choosing to be passive in the name of “righteous” action is by definition already expressed in passion.  It is simply a passion for doctrinal submission.

The Lutheran Church gutted the Christian will to resist the rise of National Socialism. To be sure, the Evangelical Church was on the forefront of ushering in Hitler’s rise to power, and this is exactly what the historic doctrine will do today here in America. It will demand that people accept any thug with a gun who acts in behalf of the people, who acts in behalf of righteousness, who acts to establish God’s kingdom, to help usher in tyranny here.

Now you know the contrast between the philosophical foundations for collectivist tyranny and individual liberty. You have seen the root ideas of Augustinian and Calvinist theology. You have seen that this ideology sees no conflict with socialist economic doctrines. This ideology sees no conflict with a totalitarian state. Germany could make no distinction between Hitler’s socialism and Luther’s Christianity. I’m going to say that again…

The German people could make no distinction between Hitler’s socialism and Luther’s Christianity.

  • Augustine, Luther, and Calvin said, “Man is nothing. The Church is everything.” The Nazis said Du bist nichts; Dein Volk ist alles. “You are nothing. The people are everything.”
  • Augustine, Luther, and Calvin denounced reason. The Third Reich denounced reason.
  • Augustine, Luther, and Calvin had a doctrine that demanded submission to church authority. Church authority demanded submission to the state. The Nazis demanded submission to the state authority.
  • Augustine, Luther, and Calvin said the only real world was the transcendent, heavenly world. The Nazis said the only real world was the transcendent world created by the German people’s state.
  • Augustine said the material world was immoral. The Nazis fought the perceived Jewish materialistic spirit within and around them.
  • Augustine, Luther, and Calvin condemned men’s private interest, which meant they condemned private property. The Nazis condemned private interest which means they condemned private property.
  • Augustine demanded sacrifice. The Nazis demanded sacrifice.
  • There were no individual rights during the Dark Ages. There were no individual rights during the rise of National Socialism.

The Church and the National Socialists agreed in the fundamentals of human existence. From metaphysics, to epistemology, to ethics, to politics, to art, the Church and the National Socialists agreed that man is corrupt and egoistic – incompetent masses. Individualism is evil – universal guilt. Dogmatism is the only acceptable intellectual standard – abolition of ambition. The highest moral virtue is self-sacrifice to the state – collective conformity. Government is synonymous with providential divine will, and evil must be banished with force of government – utopian prestige. The method is dictated good.

The Gospel According to John Immel, chapter 3:1-3

  1. All people act logically from their assumptions.
  2. It does not matter how inconsistent the ideas or insane the rationale. They will act until that logic is fulfilled.
  3. Therefore, when you see masses of people taking the same destructive actions, if you find the assumptions, you will find the cause.

I have outlaid to you all of the assumptions, and now you can understand why people take the same mass action; why 40 to 65 million Germans remained complicit with the actions that went on within Nazi Germany. They all accepted the exact same premise. They held the exact same assumptions, and they followed those assumptions to the logical conclusion. When someone says to me that the state can dispose of man’s property at will, he has conceded the premise that the state owns man totally. So if they can take your money, they can take your life. If they can take your stuff, they can stick you in an oven. The moral justification does not change.

Sacrifice is the collectivist mantra, and it ends with tyranny. Once you establish the moral standard of submission to authority, there is no argument to be made for independent action. Once you accept the premise that it is immoral to take self-appointed action, all self-appointed actions are immoral. Once you accept the premise that personal inclinations are immoral, then all inclinations are immoral, and this includes your inclination to stand against tyranny. The same argument that shuts your mouth when the preacher says something you disagree with is the same argument that keeps your mouth shut when the tyrant starts shooting people in the head.

People blithely condemn self-interest as immoral, but if self-interest is immoral, then so is self-preservation. Self-interest and self-preservation are inseparable. So if you wipe out self-interest as a moral standard, you will existentially wipe out self-preservation. If you wipe out self-preservation, how then can you justify fighting against a tyrant who seeks your destruction? If you won’t fight for your own liberty, how can you live to fight for someone else’s liberty? If you don’t hold liberty as an ideal for your own existence, how can you advocate liberty for Jews, for African-Americans, for rich white people?

Hear me now.

Tyrants know this truth. If they can talk people out of self-interest, they have talked them out of life itself. Tyrants know that if your moral standard is sacrifice, you are already dead. All they have to do is hand you the knife. You will cut your own throat seeking to be moral. National Socialist Germany showed this history. The marriage of the Third Reich with the church doctrine of self-sacrifice brought the Western world within a hair’s breadth of returning to the Dark Ages. This is no accident. The doctrines at the root are the same.

In 21st century America, we are once again rolling through a philosophical cycle that has been repeated over and over in history. We are intentionally moving towards socialism. We have bought into the lie that socialism is a kinder, gentler economic organization. America’s root philosophy is the antithesis of all collectivist ideologies. Communism, socialism, Catholicism, and Calvinism, these are all collectivist ideologies. The Founding Fathers believed in the rational, effective, motivated individual man. They organized a government around the defense of the individual. The defining shape of government was to defend the sovereign individual against all encroachments.

We are sprinting headlong down the path of despotism. The slogans have only changed in name. A century ago, a fundamental transformation was done in behalf of the volk. Hope and change were done in behalf of the German people. Now the move towards socialism is done in the name of grandma’s healthcare. Christian grandma would never dream of walking next door with a gun and demanding her neighbor pay for her doctor visit, but she will think nothing of electing a politician who will hold a gun for her. Christian grandma insists that her politics are compassion, but never mind that compassion and compulsion are mutually exclusive. Never mind that compelling someone to provide an ability or a skill or an expertise at the point of a gun is slavery. Christian grandma, and everyone else who votes with her, handed the keys of the doctor’s office to men with guns. And if they can compel doctors to work for free, they can compel people to stay away from doctors for free.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing hidden here. This is not any different than 1926. The documents have been written, and all you have to do is read. All you have to do is listen. There is nothing mysterious happening in modern American politics. History has repeatedly proven that socialist countries will slaughter millions to sustain the power of a select few. The moment you concede that seizing a man’s property is a moral government action, you have conceded that man is property of the state. The moment that man is property of the state, man can be disposed of as the state sees fit.

This is, of course, why Christians, with ever-increasing manifestation, are confronted with the abuse and tyrannies that our forefathers tried to resist. People wail about human depravity, moan that their leaders have the wrong form of church government, mumble feebly that the parishioners should pray more for their pastors, and demand that people sacrifice more in behalf of the church. The church is impotent to stop the problem because the church refuses to diagnose the problem.

I tell you the truth that the answer as to why this is happening is as easy to diagnose as the common cold, but the first thing you must do is dare to take responsibility for the content of our own minds. Mystic despots have ruled the world with portents of disaster for anyone with the ambition to challenge the traditions of power. Autocrats rely on being able to compel outcomes because no one opposes their arguments. Tyrants can only succeed when we refuse to think.

To be continued…


Click here for introduction
Click here for part two
Click here for part three
Click here for part four
Click here for part five
Click here for part six
Click here for part seven
Click here for conclusion

 

Elitism, Slavery, and the Institutional Pastor

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on February 17, 2015

“Tell me, what part of the idea that formal church membership is synonymous with being in-Christ do you not understand?” 

One of the greatest threats to American liberty in our day is the institutional church and its empowerment of the clergy. The Western institutional church founded in the 4th century is, and always has been, a political entity. Christ’s called out assembly was never an institution, but a living body driven by truth, gifts, and fellowship—not orthodoxy and authority. The true body of Christ is guided by the fellowship of agreement in His one mind and truth for the sole purpose of the Great Commission.

What the institutional church, or simply “church”, strives for is influence and control of people. What we are witnessing right now with the Neo-Calvinist movement is a big tent conglomeration of people.  This gives the institutional clergy something to bring to the table at the right time in history when power-brokering is in play.

Governments typically have one primary concern when the chips are down—the populous outnumbers the leadership. You can only kill so many people, and if you kill all of them there is no reason to have a government in the first place. This makes influence over people, and hence control, of paramount value. Already, the who’s who of the New Calvinist network can go to the government and say,

We can establish through these networks that this many people will listen to us and do what we say. Not only that, if we tell them to, they will take positive action to support the government in their endeavors as well. We have convinced them that governments are ordained of God and do His bidding no matter how wrong it may seem at the time. Now, with that said, where is our place at the table? What do we get for controlling this many people for your purposes?

John Piper et al don’t care where the New Calvinist Kool-Aid drinkers find themselves after it’s too late; they will be part of the elitist crowd that has always enjoyed a lifestyle separate from the great unwashed masses in the socialist caste systems that have always dominated human history. The ability to control a group gives you a place at the table.

And of course, the New Calvinists use the trusty mainstay of the ages to control: threat of eternal damnation. The New Calvinists are selling salvation, and business is booming. Tell me, what part of the idea that formal church membership is synonymous with being in-Christ do you not understand? What seems to be unclear about excommunication and what that means for you? Catholics have always been out of the closet on this. At least they have always known what they believe; if the local priest says you’re in—you’re in.

But American Protestants have always functioned that way while denying it until now—now they pretty much accept the idea openly after 40 years of indoctrination by the New Calvinist movement which has brought the American church back home to Calvin’s Geneva. As a young pastor years ago, I couldn’t see the obvious when Baptists who hadn’t shown up for church in years would become completely unglued upon the mere suggestion of removing them from the membership list. New Calvinists have put a stop to that nonsense.  Now you better damn-well show up every time the doors are open in order to keep your salvation.

The present-day New Calvinist network that controls Christian publishing, seminaries, local churches, etc, is primarily a political animal that is an imminent threat to American liberty. But the greater concern is the wasted lives of those called by God, individually, to run a kingdom race specifically designed for them alone.

This is the tragedy: Christians seek permission from the institutional church to fulfill our calling given to us by Christ alone, and that is who we will answer to and no one else. They have conned us into selling our calling to them for a falsely established habeas corpus.

I seriously doubt the political endeavors of the institutional church can be stopped, but individual Christians can take back their true calling to the Chief Shepherd as opposed to institutional slavery.

paul

Related:

Core Ideology’s Bloody Road to Utopia

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on February 12, 2015

PPT HandleIt doesn’t seem to make any sense. I have written on several occasions about the tacit approval of terrorism communicated by leading evangelicals in the New Calvinist movement. One such leader protested in a recent article that ISIS atrocities in Iraq were being exaggerated. Well, gee, that just isn’t fair. I have also written about the fact that many well-known evangelicals voted for President Obama. This seems perplexing.

Now, after all of the bantering back and forth between groups about school prayer, and religious groups meeting at school, etc., we find out that public schools across the nation are promoting Islam. One such report can be found here.

What’s going on? Regardless of the brutality and horrors perpetrated by Islam, people whom conservatives disagree with, but would stop way short of suggesting they support Islamic brutality, are conspicuously aloof from standing against Islam’s virus-like infiltration. It’s almost like there is something they have in common with Islam that they deem very important.

And that’s exactly the case.

Sure, liberals vehemently reject the brutality of Islam with all prejudice, but there is a more egregious enemy plaguing the earth; those who believe mankind can self-govern. This isn’t an oversimplification; liberals believe that utopia can be reached if the right mediators between truth and mankind are ruling, and the great unwashed masses are obediently following without question. All of the bloodletting is due to half-hearted endeavors. Yes, Islam is a religion of peace; there would be peace if everyone would only see that they know what’s best for the world. For another example of this, see “Democrat.”

And that my friend is the ideological tie that binds. The American principle of a government by the people and for the people is a tough nut to crack, and it requires whatever it takes. Quibbling about innocent blood is beside the point, that’s collateral damage and necessary sacrifices for the common good. Once Islam has served its purpose in helping socialism destroy self-governing, Plato’s philosopher kings can sort it all out with more bloodletting.

It’s all very ugly, and that’s “unfortunate,” but alas, that bloody road leads to utopia.

What America needs is a Patriot Party. Few conservatives really understand the true ideology of the original framers of the constitution, even fewer Republicans, and I venture to guess not a single Democrat. How bad is it? Even Rush Limbaugh doesn’t recognize the colonial Puritans for the Islamic socialist pigs that they were and has unwittingly endeared them to our children through recently published books. Moreover, and sadly, Ayn Rand, a Russian immigrant, has probably shown more understanding on this issue than anyone in the past 70 years.

We are in big, big, trouble. As an aside, that’s why I think Immel’s TANC 2012 sessions need to be viral. Really, we need to have a weekend pizza party and get a good video redo on that as well. Nevertheless, the transcripts are presently available. His three sessions really nail the big picture.

The New Calvinist Movement Poses Imminent Danger to American Society

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 26, 2014

PPT Handle“Church folk only think they are doing church when in reality they are being USED for a broader political motive.”     

While our ministry will continue to reveal the plenary doctrinal aberration of authentic Reformed soteriology, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the societal impact of New Calvinism.

Be sure of this: New Calvinism has bold political aspirations. The movement is simply a repeat of European church history trying to function under American rule of law. Right now, the movement is using a particular doctrine to gain a following, and once the following is big enough, it will make its move because it has votes to bring to the political big-boy table. In times past, the biggest sword won, but because of America, politics must replace bloodletting.

Also be sure of this: New Calvinism is about world domination, to the glory of God of course. Um, New Calvinists such as Doug Wilson and Albert Mohler have stated that in no uncertain terms.

Also note their reluctance to be critical of terrorism and such groups as ISIS. In fact, New Calvinist Joe Carter recently defended ISIS in regard to “false accusations” under the auspices of setting the record straight…because you know…we Christians should care about getting our facts straight. Yes, perhaps we should form a committee to defend career bank robbers accused of robbing a bank they didn’t rob. Indeed, one should ask Joe Carter why that is a priority, but I am afraid I already know.

Same ideology…different god.

Here is another thing you can be sure of: New Calvinists wouldn’t deem it a horrible thing if the ISIS flag eventually flies over the White House. Why? Well, their metaphysical epistemology is suffering to begin with, but the bigger element is the fact that groups like ISIS are seen as serving a possible benefaction: getting rid of Enlightenment ideology. If terrorism can serve that purpose, the New Calvinists figure they can make lemonade out of the lemons later on. BUT, New Calvinism cannot ultimately reach their utopian goals as saline fish in fresh waters—Enlightenment ideology must go, that is job one for New Calvinism. And hey, if terrorism can do that, it must be god’s will. Yet one more thing you can be sure of: New Calvinists see Enlightenment ideology as the absolute root of ALL evil.

Right now, New Calvinism is building their base; following/votes equal power. They are a political animal. If you think any of this is about God, you are simply naive.

What is prompting posts like this from moi? Because of our educational relationship with John Immel, PPT readers are beginning to understand, resulting in a mass of information being sent my way. They understand the doctrinal aberrations and the relationship to the political. This all boils down to collectivism versus individualism. Church folk only think they are doing church when in reality they are being USED for a broader political motive.

I will use a few recent examples sent to me. This one here (Article pdf) is yet another example of moral equivalency being preached from the pulpits. John Immel has a great post on that here…and here. Folks, please, there is a reason why New Calvinists are not outraged by terrorism. They share the same ideology and their forefathers practiced the exact same tactics to bring people into conformity.

This one highlights the Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic which is Platonist epistemology dressed in biblical garb (Article pdf. I have written extensively on this to the point of literal exhaustion. Platonism was the foundation of the Medieval church. Copies of the Bible were not available because rulers believed that the masses were unable to reason (see, “Catholic Church”). And, allowing the masses to reason will supposedly lead to chaos. Due to my research, I have come to believe that the Protestant Reformation was an answer to the inevitable mass distribution of the Bible to the serf populous. Trust me, the Bible is no friend of the Reformation. The Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic is specifically designed to rob God’s people of reasoning intellectually with God, and making it a Platonist epistemology instead.

New Calvinism is a political movement that is using people who think the movement is about Christian discipleship. The results speak for themselves; though New Calvinism posits “new resurgence,” it’s been “new” since 1970. While these Platonist philosophers attempt to save the world from chaos like their Marxist predecessors, in the same way, they create chaos, and then blame the same chaos  on “losing our original roots.”  New Calvinists have been firmly in control of the American church since 2006, and the results again speak for themselves. Virtually ALL anti-spiritual abuse blogs were authored post 2006.

paul

%d bloggers like this: