Paul's Passing Thoughts

RC Sproul loved it. John MacArthur Jr. loved it, and this is a post about why double imputation is a false gospel. First, it is fundamentally false because it defines righteousness as perfect law-keeping. The apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians for the sole purpose of refuting this idea. His argument? Abraham was declared righteous 400 years before the implementation of the law through Moses. Why then, the law? Paul states that it WAS a guardian (not a “tutor”) that protected us until “faith” (Christ) came. Before Christ came, sin was imputed to the law, and then Christ came to end the law. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4, NKJV). Notice that Paul stated the following: Christ was the end of the law, FOR righteousness. Clearly, the law does not define righteousness, but John Calvin et al spilled an ocean of ink making that case.

So, what does make us righteous? Well, 1^st John is clear on that. We are righteous by God’s seed being within us. We are righteous by new birth, not perfect law-keeping by anyone. Who keeps the law is not the issue; the law is the issue. The second fatal error of Protestantism is a single perspective on the law; according to Protestantism, the role of the law is not changed by the new birth. Much more on that later in this post.

The fundamental premise of Protestantism is the idea of double imputation. Since perfect law-keeping defines righteousness, instead of God’s seed being within us (righteousness by new birth), an ongoing fulfillment of the law must be perpetually imputed to us through the “active obedience” of Christ. Our past sins were blotted out through Christ’s death (his passive obedience), but that is not enough for us to be declared righteous. We must have our sins forgiven, but we must also have perfect law-keeping added as well for us to be…and don’t miss this…”declared righteous.” Yes, in Protestantism, you are not righteous as a state of being, you are only declared righteous through Christ’s perpetual double imputation of his passive obedience and active obedience. And since “Christians” must be forgiven of “present sin” due to imperfect law-keeping, they must continue to “partake in Christ” through the “ordinary means of grace” (read, ordinary means of salvation) via Protestant church ritual. Hence, salvation is an ongoing “process” that can only be obtained by partaking in the “ordinary means of grace” found only in Protestant church membership.

It is an overt denial and redefining of the biblical new birth. More on that later, as well. Suffice to say for now that this one fatal flaw concerning a single perspective on the law (our relationship to the law is not changed via the new birth) causes Protestantism to redefine every biblical concept from Genesis to Revelation. It is a massive multi-layered error. To support its error, Protestantism must redefine the Trinity and even redefine how we read and interpret our Bibles.

The Bible is clear, Christ’s death, and nothing additional, ushered in righteousness.

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The law was nailed to the cross resulting in a circumcision of the heart without hands. Note that when we die with Christ, it necessarily leads to God resurrecting us. Also note that ALL trespasses are forgiven, not just past trespasses. This is because where there is no law, being nailed to the cross, there is NO sin: Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13, Romans 7:8. This negates the Protestant concept of “present sin” because where there is no law, being nailed to the cross, there is no sin, present or otherwise. Hence, Protestantism replaces God’s resurrection in salvation with Christ’s active obedience to the law, which by the way, is nowhere to be found in Scripture as a soteriological concept. Righteousness by new birth is replaced with the idea that, “We have the righteousness of Christ” as supplied by his passive and active obedience to a law that was ended for the sake of righteousness (Romans 10:4). Make no doubt about it, Protestantism replaces God’s circumcision without hands with Christ’s active obedience, and thereby distorts trinitarian salvation. Also…

Romans 5:18 So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Obviously, we were not made righteous by two acts, passive and active obedience, we were made righteous by Christ’s one act of obedience to the cross. Furthermore, I say “two acts” from a technical perspective, but Protestantism would imply that Christ’s active obedience would be a massive list of acts in obedience to the law for purposes of imputing righteousness. This is a morass of elementary error.

With all of this said, it doesn’t mean believers are not under any kind of law whatsoever. But, it does mean that we are no longer under the law’s condemnation and subsequent enslavement. Our freedom from enslavement to the law is not a mere “forensic declaration” based on Christ’s continued double imputation, but a state of being. Believers fall short of perfect law-keeping because we are “weak,” not enslaved. Our failure to love is a matter of the Father’s chastisement, not condemnation. The law plays a different role in the life of a born-again believer.

paul

Well, I guess it is official. After many years of thought and research, I am taking a position on predestination. Yes, for several years, I was a Calvinist, until I discovered that Calvinism is Progressive Justification and redefines the biblical new birth. So, I became skeptical of predestination because of the source, and the matter of priority; let’s get the gospel right and then worry about election. This is the focus of my book, It’s Not About Election; Why Calvinism is “Another Gospel”

How did I come to this conclusion? Some scripture is stand-alone truth. In other words, if a passage of scripture is absolutely objective in its context, all other scripture must bow to that plain meaning in order for us to claim the Bible is consistent and without error. If a Bible passage seems to contradict another passage that is plain in its meaning, the other passage that is more ambiguous needs more research. This is similar to an interpretive method called Occam’s razor:

Occam’s razor is a problem-solving principle suggesting that when faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest one—requiring the fewest assumptions—is usually correct. Often called the “law of parsimony,” it is a heuristic used in science and philosophy to cut away unnecessary complexity rather than a strict law guaranteeing truth.

Key Aspects of Occam’s Razor

Origin: Credited to 14th-century friar William of Ockham, though the idea dates back to Aristotle, who favored demonstrations using fewer postulates.

Philosophy & Science: In philosophy, it helps decide between hypotheses with equal explanatory power. In science, it is an abductive heuristic for model development, favoring theories with fewer entities or causes, famously used by Newton and Einstein.

With this being said, remember that good-old-fashioned commonsense is also a sound biblical hermeneutic.

Predestination is error because the gospel is good news. The gospel, according to the Bible, is intrinsically good news for everyone who hears it. That cannot be the case if some people are predestined to eternal damnation. In all fairness, the word euaggelion means “good message,” which could mean that it is a good message, but not necessarily for everyone. However, in many places in the Bible, this good message is also meant to be “preached,” which is the Greek word kerusso meaning “herald,” “proclaim,” and “publish.”

Hence, it is meant to be good news to all who hear it. Now, playing the devils advocate and totally overthinking the word, couldn’t the prefix, eu (good) merely mean, “holy” or of good moral character? No. Those are different Greek words:

The Greek prefix eu- (meaning good, well, or pleasant) acts specifically as an adverbial modifier indicating positive quality, ease, or correctness, unlike adjectives like agathos (morally good) or kalos (beautiful/noble). It often implies “happiness,” “abundance,” or “truth,” frequently serving as the direct opposite of the prefix dys- (bad/difficult).

Key Differences and Characteristics of the Prefix Eu-:

Adverbial Function: While eu- means “good,” it functions more accurately as “well” or “happily,” indicating how something is done or its state of being (e.g., euphemism = speaking well/pleasantly).

Opposite of Dys-: Eu- is specifically paired against dys-, emphasizing not just morality, but functional prosperity or normalcy, such as euthanasia (good/painless death) vs. dysthanasia.

Abundance and Ease: Eu- can denote something is “well-developed,” “thorough,” or “abundant,” such as eutrophic (nutrient-rich).

Meaning “True”: In scientific contexts, eu- can signify “true” or “proper,” as in eukaryote (true nucleus).

Common Eu- Words vs. Generic “Good”:

Eulogy: Good speech (praise).

Euphoria: Good/happy bearing (intense joy).

Euphony: Good sound (pleasing).

In contrast, other Greek “good” words (like agathos) usually describe a noun’s moral nature, whereas eu- focuses on the functional, pleasant, or fortunate state of the thing being described.

Notice the words with the eu prefix: eulogy, meaning praise. Euphoria, meaning elation. Euphony, a sound that pleases, like music that uplifts. From the viewpoint of heaven, the gospel is a message that is meant to bring joy to all that hear it. Luke 2: 9,10 brings these ideas together:

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Full stop. The message is a joyful message to “all people.” I am not going to bore you with more Greek words, but here, “all” means everyone and everything with no exceptions (all inclusive), and “people” means all of humanity, and Christ was born “unto” all people, or all of humanity. So, at the very least, you can totally reject the whole limited atonement thing. And as I have stated many times before, salvation is not atonement to begin with. Salvation is an ending of sin, not a mere covering. Furthermore, Christ came to end the law; so, who is born under law? Answer: everyone.

In addition, if Calvinism is wrong about the gospel, and it is, and wrong about limited atonement, and it is, it can also be wrong about predestination, and it is.

The gospel is meant to be a message of joy to everyone who hears it because it is defined that way and meant to be perceived that way by every human being that hears the message. That couldn’t be true if some people are predestined to reject it. How is it potentially good news for them? The end of WWII was joyful news to Americans and Europeans, but not the Germans. It was only bad news to the Germans because of the way they thought about the news and the things that formulated their thinking. I believe the same to be true about the gospel; people reject it because of the way life has formulated their thinking, not because God predetermined the news to be of a different substance to different people. The gospel is good news to everyone whether they receive it that way or not.

So, what about all of the Bible passages that Calvinists use to make a case for predestination? That will be the subject of the future parts to this post.

paul

An AI Overview gives us a good definition of Metaphysics, it is the foundational branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and being. Metaphysics has several different fields of study that all contribute to the comprehensive idea of metaphysics. One is Ontology, the study of reality and how it is perceived by mankind, while the study of man is Anthropology.

Hence, activities in the world are all driven by the prevailing presuppositions concerning mankind. In other words, because ideology drives all human action, what people believe about people determines the activities we experience in our world, and is documented as history.  

America is an idea that turned world history upside-down. Until America shows up in the 18^th century, the prevailing metaphysic concerning mankind follows: humanity is unable, and with that comes the supposed paramount problem with humanity; man does not know he is unable and doesn’t really understand reality. Therefore, mankind must be ruled by overseers that understand the inability of man, and through this rule can reduce evil in the world as much as possible. For the most part, these overseers were religious authorities.

But, there has always been a primary problem: disagreement between various and sundry overseers about the best way to control mankind based on different philosophies, and in most cases, the most powerful god. This disagreement is the source of ALL wars.

America came along and said, No, mankind is able. No, mankind is able to understand reality. No, the sole purpose of mankind is not to support governments or religions that rule over mankind, but rather, the sole purpose of governments is to enable people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Until this idea came along and took root, the world was dominated by religious wars such as The Crusades. Governments were primarily controlled by religious authorities and their competing beliefs that their god was the best hope for the world. And since the survival of mankind is at stake, these were beliefs worth fighting over.

Hence,  America’s separation of church and state. Yes, all people should be free to worship and follow the god of their choosing as part of their right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the god of their choosing does not have the right to rule over others regardless of the dogmatic belief that their god is the only hope for the world. Therefore, after the birth of America and its outrageous idea of Individual Self-Rule, religious wars all but vanished from history. However, the inability of man doctrine dies hard, and Communism filled the void in the 18^th century.

With all of this being said, lesser religious crusades will always take place. Many well-meaning Christians, as well as Muslims, believe that America would be much better off if they ruled over the American populous via their god’s doctrine, and pursue such goals politically. Of course, this is a rule by opiniated proxy until the god of their choice actually shows up.

Nevertheless, we must talk about a god who has, apparently, already taken control of American culture and its followers are incredulous that many have not received the memo. We are talking about the Cellphone god.

First, let’s examine the Cellphone god. The Cellphone god followers display devotion that Jesus and Alah can only dream of. Statistics tell us that Cellphone god followers check in with him, on average, every 5 minutes. And engagement time? Cellphone followers spend at least 6 hours a day intently focused on Cellphone’s illumined face, while the average American parent spends 1-3 hours a day with their children, while also engaging with Cellphone every 5 minutes. This devotion is only surpassed by followers of Moloch who sacrificed their children outright. And Cellphone gives new meaning to one’s god being “with them,” as you can bet Cellphone is always with his followers at any moment during the day.

But, the devotion doesn’t stop there. Studies show that followers of Cellphone sacrifice a significant amount of cognitive ability by passively receiving constant information that requires little, or no critical thinking. Studies show that this results in a reduction of cognitive capacity, focus, and memory. Furthermore, followers sacrifice sleep because the illumination of Cellphone’s glorious face effects melatonin and results in insomnia to various degrees. Indeed, no followers of any god are more willing to take up their cross and follow Cellphone daily.

Historically, Cellphone arrived in America circa 2000 through missionaries like The Church of Motorola. Before then, we can only assume that American culture was worse than the Dark Ages, as set against the dire need for Cellphone in our day. Virtually no one can imagine life without him. History documents the dearth of people being ignored in lieu of gazing into the glorious face of Cellphone.

So, what effect has Cellphone had on healthcare? Does any corner of American culture dare to be more important than Cellphone?

In the early days, indeed, the healthcare community discriminated against Cellphone followers. Hence, a crusade was necessary, primarily led by Gen Z. Shockingly, especially in Long-Term care (LTC), healthcare workers were forced to be separated from Cellphone for as long as 12 hours, while only being allowed to engage with Cellphone on 15-minute breaks and 30-60 minutes during lunch. A fierce crusade soon followed, and the reasoning for this discrimination by LTC was rejected with prejudice.

LTC facilities argued that engagement with Cellphone during care circumvented therapeutic communication and safety. One consideration under therapeutic communication touted by the LTC infidels was the idea that engaging with Cellphone, while also engaging with a LTC resident, was not active listening, which is an element of therapeutic communication. In addition, the LTC infidels suggested that Cellphone distraction was a safety issue and presented temptation towards Hippa violations. Also, engaging with Cellphone during care presents the appearance of diminished concern for the resident. In other words, Cellphone is more important, or equally important as set against the care for others.

Whatever the reasons were, LTC administrators and Directors of Nursing were conquered by the crusade in a relatively short time, but vestiges of conflict still remain where care is not compromised. Like the Japanese soldiers isolated on islands in the Pacific during WWII and did not receive the news that the war had ended, some in healthcare today have not received the memo, and will suffer the wrath of Gen Z.

This is because no human being, even those under our care, are more important than Cellphone. He alone is worthy of all altruistic sacrifices.

Paul M. Dohse, RN

REPOSTED FROM July 15, 2017

Presently, I am supposed to be completely out of the loop regarding TANC Ministries because I am preparing to take a state exam for medication certification. However, when perusing what Andy is up to while I am gone, I was made privy to this article by Kevin DeYoung.

I am 60 years old, and in my mind, of all the people I have been made aware of in my life to varying degrees, DeYoung is the epitome of the consummate lackey. While shockingly apt at thinking the thoughts of others, he is more likely to be hit by space junk in the pulpit than having an original thought in his own cranium case. DeYoung makes everyone a mind reader; just read Protestant orthodoxy and you are reading everything that is in his mind.

Anyway, the article is particularly rife with opportunity to further demonstrate why the Protestant Reformation was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. One may marvel at the audacity of elementary error being dressed up in such scholarly splendor.

DeYoung begins by writing, “The doctrine of limited atonement–the L in TULIP–teaches that Christ effectively redeems from every people “only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation” (Canons of Dort, II.8). As Ursinus explains in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Christ’s death was for everyone “as it respects the sufficiency of satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof.” In other words, the death of Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but it was God’s will that it should effectively redeem those and only those who were chosen from eternity and given to Christ by the Father.”

First of all, salvation is neither atonement or redemption. In the absolutely insane month of August coming up, I am actually going to add another project that Andy is going to participate in although he doesn’t know it yet. We are going to put together a video series to challenge a group of pastors who are meeting in August with the following: for crying out loud; you are pastors, please start using biblically correct words when talking about salvation.

However, though not New Covenant salvation according to the Bible, atonement is the basis of the Protestant false gospel; Jesus is a cloak (covering) for unrighteousness that denies the new birth.

And, salvation is not redemption either. Redemption is the saving of the weak/mortal body from eternal death in the resurrection, not the saving of the soul. Making salvation and redemption the same thing enables Protestantism to endorse progressive justification or “final justification.” While constantly feigning belief in present assurance, they constantly refer to “final justification” being future because, you know, that’s when it is final. Why is salvation on the installment plan so important to them? Well, if you are signed, sealed, and delivered, what do you need them for?

DeYoung continues: “The good shepherd lays his life down, not for the goats, but for the sheep (John 10:11). This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him, and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people, and John 15:13 says for his friends, and Acts 20:28 says for the church, and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride, and Ephesians 1:4 says for those chosen in Christ Jesus.”

Look, I could post on every sentence in this article, but I only have time to hit the highlights and I really don’t even have time for that. We let the likes of DeYoung assume “those” means “individuals.” Nope, in fitting with the rest of new birth justification and biblical election, more than likely, biblical election refers to groups of people and not individuals; particularly, Jews and Gentiles.

Moreover, another prime example of how Protestant scholars believe that “good grammar makes bad theology” follows here: “This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him…and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people… and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride.”

Read Ephesians 5:25. Where in the world therein does it say that the church is the bride of Christ? So, He loves the church like a bride, that doesn’t make the church His bride. When we say, “Let’s be like a tree and leave” to convey a desire to leave a certain place, does that make us a tree?

Like all Protestant ventriloquist puppets of whom DeYoung is chief, he uses presuppositions to deceive; “those” always means “individuals,” and the main point of election is the WHO and not the HOW. It’s all about who God decided to save, and not how He saved them. He saved them by sending His only Son to the cross to end the law. The Bible states that the righteous demands of the law were “nailed to the cross.”

So, who did Christ die for? Everyone born under the law. Who was born under the law? Everyone. End of discussion…and the end of so-called “limited atonement.”

But WHY are Protestants hellbent on this version of election/predestination? Because the church is a sanctuary city from the doctrine itself. It’s the paramount good cop/bad cop approach. You ever heard of John Calvin’s “power of the keys”? Whatever the Protestant elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven, or something like that. Bottom line? If the elders like you, you’re in. This ministry has documented DeYoung and other Protestants saying this in no uncertain terms. And they say it because its formal Protestant orthodoxy.

So, what is the why?

The essence of sin itself, a desire to control others.

paul