Paul's Passing Thoughts

ACCC Typical of Protestants Who Don’t Know What Protestantism Is, But New Calvinists Do Know What a Protestant Is; Part 2

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on December 6, 2016

tanc-vol-1The American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) confirmed a resolution on New Calvinism at its 75th Annual Convention October 18-20, 2016. The resolution was articulated by Pastor Dan Greenfield and posted here. Part one of this evaluation can be read here. What is our primary thesis? New Calvinism is a return to authentic Protestantism and is causing controversy among evangelicals because Protestants are more confused than any other religionists in the world. Greenfield’s post is low hanging fruit in regard to the issues at hand, so let’s get started. Greenfield begins his post this way:

“In September 2006, Collin Hansen reported for Christianity Today on a new religious movement of professed Christians who took a renewed interest in Reformed theology. At that time, Hansen called the movement ‘Young, Restless, Reformed’ (YRR), but later he termed it ‘New Calvinism’ and claimed that it was a ‘revival’ of biblical Christianity. By 2009, Time Magazine declared New Calvinism to be one of the ’10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now,’ and since then, the movement’s popularity has increased. All of this success seemed to validate Hansen’s claim of another spiritual awakening.”

It’s interesting to note that TANC Ministries was the first to document the true contemporary history of New Calvinism in “The Truth About New Calvinism” (TANC Publishing 2011). At first, we were the go-to source for information on the movement until further research revealed that New Calvinism is, in fact, a return to the real deal. Protestantism had indeed lost touch with its true gospel because of the integration of Americanism. Few want to hear that message and our research is now avoided like a plague accordingly.

The integration of Americanism created a contradiction between how Protestants function and their intellectual testimony. This is why New Calvinism has all but taken over the church completely in a short span of time: the church has always been functioning New Calvinism; the movement is merely recalibrating the church and syncing its function with the intellectual confession. This was somewhat explained in part 1.

But this is what evangelicals do to cover for the embarrassment of getting it wrong for over 200 years: they compartmentalize the Protestant religion into so-called “secondary issues.” You know, the whole, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” thing. Some nomenclatures are, “Reformed,” “evangelical,” “Calvinism,” 1-5 types of Calvinism, “Neo-Puritanism” which couldn’t be a bad thing because it has the word “Puritan” in it, etc., etc., etc.

Let’s get something straight: “Reformed” is, you know, the “Reformation” which produced “Protestantism” which was fathered by Luther and Calvin who fathered the Puritans who came to America and started a European church-state which incited the American Revolution resulting in Protestant Puritanism being integrated with Americanism which fathered the Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, etc., etc., etc., but it is all the same stuff when it gets right down to it. Ok, so, the Baptists disagreed with Luther and Calvin’s position on baptismal regeneration; so what? They kept the same progressive justification. So, the Congregationalists disagreed with the Puritan/Calvinist form of church government; so what? They also kept the same progressive justification gospel.

What is really going on is total confusion because Protestants have little grasp of what Protestantism really teaches. Also, Protestant history taught in Christian schools and in homeschool curriculum is rank propaganda that would even make the Chicoms blush.

So here we go with the whole well-traveled Collin Hansen historical focal point. Am I saying that Collin Hansen has supplied historical cover for Protestantism? That’s exactly what I am saying. Supposedly, New Calvinism is a contemporary movement and its father is John Piper. And gee whiz, Piper has true Reformed theology all wrong. Not so. John Piper has Reformed theology exactly right. And trust me, I say this regardless of the fact that I don’t like him at all.

In contrast, the real father of the movement is a Seventh-day Adventist theologian named Robert Brinsmead. He started a Reformed think tank dubbed The Australian Forum which was launched in 1970 and came out of the Progressive Adventist movement (which was based on Luther’s soteriology). His rediscovery of Protestantism’s progressive justification and Luther’s “alien righteousness” turned Adventism completely upside down.

The fact is, the Forum was invited to the hallowed halls of Westminster Seminary in the latter 70’s to inform the who’s who of Reformed theology about what Protestantism really is. They listened, and the rest is contemporary church history. And be sure of this: the Reformed movers and shakers are aware of this scandalous cover-up in the name of Collin Hansen’s rewriting of contemporary church history.

And why are they covering it up? Because it totally blows up “historical precedent.” Historical precedent? More than 500 years after the fact the Protestant brain trust didn’t even know what Protestantism is; an Adventist had to re-educate them. Ouch. Right, the “Scandalous Gospel” indeed.

In his article, and typical of the ongoing propaganda, Greenfield bemoans New Calvinism’s penchant for integrating popular culture with Reformed tradition. He cites the go-to guy for this, Peter Masters who pastors the famous London Metropolitan Tabernacle formally pastored by the “Prince of Preachers,” Charles Spurgeon. Ironically, Masters doesn’t have a clue in regard to what Spurgeon really believed, but John Piper certainly does.

What’s wrong with syncing present culture with original “truth”? Nothing in my book. Greenfield cites two of the most prominent issues Protestants have with Protestants who really know what Protestantism is. Like Masters, Greenfield bemoans…

It is known for being culturally progressive and flaunts itself as such. In its worship, preaching, and evangelism, New Calvinism embraces popular culture, a man-made system of customs which is incapable of bearing the weight and gravity of the Gospel. TGC authors, in particular, blog about “redemptive” elements they supposedly have found within Hollywood films, and YRR evangelists in the vein of Tim Keller (TGC cofounder) integrate pop culture in their community outreaches, hoping to gain a better hearing from their unregenerate audiences. YRR leaders also endorse “worship music” composed by modern, pop-rock hymnists and “holy hip-hoppers” / “Reformed rappers.”

This exposes Greenfield’s (and Masters’) omni-typical misunderstanding of authentic Reformed historical-redemptive hermeneutics (HRH). Most Protestants like Greenfield and Masters believe this to be an interpretive method for Bible reading and is used alongside the historical-grammatical method (HGH) with the HRH being like, you know, stuff about the gospel. Not so. According to authentic Protestant orthodoxy, HRH was demanded in interpreting reality itself. Original Protestant orthodoxy demands that ALL of reality be interpreted through redemption in the form of a metaphysical narrative written by God. And, all HGH interpretations must come to a redemptive conclusion. Of course, this goes hand in hand with predestination. All of reality is a pre-written story or narrative written by God. This is the interpretation of reality seen as a narrative written by “the force,” “the universe,” “gods,” or in this case, God Himself.

So, why not use popular culture to reach the culture? After all, whatever culture is doing was written into the script by God and is a picture of redemption to begin with. If one truly understands what it is to be Reformed, this makes perfect sense.

Secondly, Greenfield and Masters bemoan the New Calvinist hobnobbing with Catholics. Good grief; this also displays an egregious misunderstanding of church history. Neither Luther nor Calvin ever left the Catholic Church. Note, “Reformation.” They sought to reform the Church, but never left it. Note, “Protestantism.” They protested what was going on in the Church, but they never left it. Note: and this is NOT even ambiguous church history; both Protestants and Catholics claim Saint Augustine as their Doctor of Grace. You can’t even make this stuff up; Protestant pastors will rebuke Catholicism as a false gospel and also cite Augustine regarding orthodoxy in the same sermon. A child can even see the blatant contradictions. Sometimes I think the only difference between church and asylums is social etiquette.

What was the real issue that sparked the Protestant Reformation? Augustine, the undisputed Doctor of Grace for the Catholic Church was an avowed Neo-Platonist. Again, this is not ambiguous church history. The institutional church was founded on Neo-Platonism and its orthodoxy is the integration of Scripture and Platonism. Luther and Calvin were rabid followers of Augustine. In the 13th century Catholicism began to embrace the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas who integrated Aristotle’s philosophy with Scripture (Thomism). By the 16th century the tension between the two schools of theology within the Catholic Church escalated into the Protestant Reformation. The whole Protestant folklore concerning the Five Solas ect. is egregiously disingenuous on every level.

In reality, authentic Protestantism only has a problem with half of the Catholic Church; the Thomism part, and far less with its Platonist/Augustinian roots. This is what’s behind New Calvinism’s acceptance of Catholicism.

Now, in addressing Greenfield’s objection to the cultural and Catholic issues we skipped an in-between paragraph concerning “Neo-Kuyperian postmillennialism, an eschatological position which claims that God has given His Church an institutional social mandate to redeem culture and promote social justice to help usher in the kingdom.”

We will address that in the next part.


ACCC Typical of Protestants Who Don’t Know What Protestantism Is, But New Calvinists Do Know What a Protestant Is; Part 1

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on December 4, 2016

ppt-jpeg42People who know me, and happen to want to see an article posted on the TANC ministry blog only need to send me an article written by a Protestant bemoaning New Calvinism. That will do it every time. Look folks, even suicide bombers know what they believe and why they do what they do. Nothing is more uncommendable than claiming to be something and not knowing what it is.

We are greatly indebted to New Calvinism. First, its ill behavior brought attention to its claims, and proper research reveals that its claims are absolutely true. No, no, no, I do not hate New Calvinism because if not for this movement, I would still be a Protestant. Don’t get me wrong, it’s troubling that Protestants believe a false gospel; yet, they have the dubious distinction of being wrong about what they are wrong about. Few religions fit this category. Nevertheless, what New Calvinism reveals offers a grand opportunity for real revival.

The article is written by a Dan Greenfield:

“I am an undeserving sinner saved by God’s grace through Jesus Christ, a happy husband, proud father of 6 great kids, pastor of Orwell Bible Church, Executive Secretary of the American Council of Christian Churches, and member of the Ohio Bible Fellowship.”

The article is in conjunction with an edict by the ACCC denouncing New Calvinism. Right here, out of the gate, let’s take Dan’s bio and demonstrate his authentic Protestant false gospel which is also New Calvinism. Right, while denouncing New Calvinism, Dan is a New Calvinist which is also authentic Protestantism. Um, excuse me, different preferences for music and worship style doesn’t change that. This is soooooo typical of Protestants; while believing the same gospel that you believe, you are a heretic because you watch R rated movies, listen to Pink Floyd, and don’t wear a jean skirt down to your ankles.

Let’s now take Dan’s bio and demonstrate his New Calvinism that he is denouncing which is also authentic Protestantism. Dan says, “I am an undeserving sinner.” That is present tense. Ok, so, what is the biblical definition of a “sinner” in the B-I-B-L-E? Right, an unregenerate person. Dan is an unregenerate saved person. Yep, that’s orthodoxy plain and simple. We hear it all the time: “Justification is a legal declaration.” Hence, you are ONLY declared righteous while yet a “sinner.”

Let’s continue. So if Dan is still a sinner presently “saved by grace” does this mean Dan continues to need grace because he is still a sinner? Sure it does. And we hear that all the time. But hold on. What kind of grace is being spoken of here? Answer: “saved by.” So, does this mean that Dan, still a sinner who sins, and saved by grace, needs ongoing salvation for present sin? Sure it does. But would Dan also attest to once saved always saved? Probably. Is progressive salvation stated in the Protestant confessions and creeds that he claims to defend against New Calvinism? Absolutely. How can this be? Answer: because Dan, like all Protestants, is very confused.

If grace saved you because you were a sinner, and you are still a sinner, do you still need the same saving grace? Does 2+2=4? But we still sin don’t we? That won’t be answered in this first part, but it does bring up another question. If we still sin, that would be a violation of the law, right? So, is that justification “apart from the law?” No. But doesn’t the B-I-B-L-E say that we are justified apart from the law? Yes. But if Christians are not still under law (another biblical definition of a lost person) does that make us antinomians? No. We will get to all of this, but am I saying that Protestant orthodoxy defines its followers according to a biblical definition of the lost? Absolutely. And I am sure you would agree; that’s a really bad idea. Protestantism defines “under grace” as “under law” because it is a false gospel and classic justification by works. If you need ongoing grace FOR SALVATION, what do you have to do to keep the grace flowing?

Lastly, for now, and like Peter Masters, Dan disavows John Piper’s Christian Hedonism while attesting to it. Dan states that he is a sinner, and is happy about it. That’s Christian Hedonism which is based on the Protestant doctrine of Mortification and Vivification. Christian Hedonism is merely a valid twist on the Protestant doctrine of Mortification and Vivification. Praise music, non-cessationism, and joy as a confirmation of re-salvation are merely the logical outcomes of Mortification and Vivification as stated by orthodoxy.

The rest of the article written by Pastor Dan is conveniently arranged for point by point rebuttal. It is a litany of historical error and factual contradiction. That is what will be addressed moving forward.


When Will God’s People Get It? “By Their Fruits You Will Know Them” Another YRR Falls

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 7, 2016

blog-radio-logoLive link for today’s program:

When Will God’s People Get It? “By Their Fruits You Will Know Them” Another YRR Falls

This week’s Protestant leader removed from ministry for disqualifying sin is Rob Turner, the “lead teacher” of APEX which is a Reformed central authority overseeing home fellowships. This motif has become commonplace. Protestantism, which is now primarily expressed in the present-day Neo-Calvinist movement, has no testimony or message that the world would even venture to take seriously. Presently, Protestantism is surviving on what’s left of traditional credibility and the idea of salvation by church membership.

Little by little, people devoted to God are beginning to look for a real alternative. This is the subject of today’s program.


APEX announcement:



Tom Chantry Doesn’t Like the Charismatic Brand of the Reformation’s False Gospel

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on February 21, 2013

ppt-jpeg4“Chantry doesn’t like Charismatic subjective results of the same Reformed objective gospel. Therefore, he denies that they have the same gospel. That’s not true.”  

I was sent a post written by Reformed Baptist Tom Chantry. As the rats begin jumping from that sinking ship named New Calvinism, the boring side of Calvinism is trying to distance themselves from Charismatic Calvinists like CJ Mahaney. New Calvinism, which is a resurgence of authentic Calvinism, at least makes heresy a little fun with concoctions like the scream of the damned which was an ad hoc addition to the 2009 Resolved Conference hosted by the who’s who of contemporary Reformed doctrine. Usually, the tyranny and spiritual abuse that goes hand in metaphysical hand with Reformed doctrine dampens any semblance of humor, but this bunch is special; their shenanigans can bring laughter to the darkest realities. Nevertheless, Chantry bemoans the following reality in said article:

That “Reformed Charismaticism” should eventually go down this path – dragging the rest of the “New Calvinism” with it – was predictable.  Such a doctrine has no solid confession.  It pays scant attention to the means of grace.  It is not actually Reformed in any meaningful sense.

Chantry’s grammatical scare quotes indicate so-called Reformed Charismaticism on the first wise and New Calvinism isn’t “New….” on the second. He is dead wrong on the first and absolutely correct on the second.

Let’s take the second scare quote first. New Calvinism isn’t new, it’s a resurgence of the original authentic article. That would be, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. That’s a contemporary tag, but is an apt in regard to the authentic Reformed gospel. Nothing happens inside of us—grace comes from outside of us completely.

“But Paul, that’s true isn’t it? We were not saved by anything inside of us; it all came from God’s righteousness that was imputed to us. Certainly, you are not saying that we had any righteousness inside of us that aided our salvation!”

Sigh. This is where the Reformers have been pulling the wool over our eyes for the better part of 500 years. They believe that righteousness is only imputed to us positionally, and not internally. We remain the same. God does everything in both salvation and our Christian walk. Our salvation is predetermined, and our Christian walk is predetermined. All righteousness/grace remains outside of the “believer.” Hence, and don’t miss this, only the gospel is objective. We are so totally depraved that if any righteousness at all is within us, anything that we would make of it intellectually would be subjective at best. The only reality lifeline man has is the same lifeline that saves him: the gospel.

Therefore, we live by the gospel; i.e., an “objective” endeavor to obtain a deeper and deeper knowledge of our sinfulness (as believers) in order to have a deeper and deeper understanding of God’s holiness and appreciation for the depths of His sacrifice for our sin. Depending on the stripe of Reformed buffoonery, the result is a manifestation of Christ’s obedience in the Holy Spirit realm as opposed to the worldly (flesh) realm or mere wellbeing of spirit with a disregard for whatever God decides to do in our lives.

In the first case, the perfect life that Christ lived on earth is imputed to our Christian walk so that we can live by faith alone in sanctification. When Christ’s obedience is manifested in the Spirit realm, we experience it because we are in that realm, but it is not because of anything inside of us. We experience it as if we are performing the work, but it is really the manifestation of Christ in the Spirit realm.

The latter is explained well in the magnum opus of the Reformation: Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation. In that document, he clearly states that we don’t work, but rather God works as it is predetermined for our particular life. Luther stated that as we mediate on our total depravity and God’s holiness we experience death which leads to a joyful resurrection. In other words, the gateway to joy is a deeper understanding of our total depravity. This is the basis of John Piper’s Christian Hedonism in 500,000 words or less. This was also Luther’s definition of the new birth. For Luther, the new birth was progressive and not a onetime event.

John Calvin then took Luther’s concept and applied its dualism (all reality being interpreted through God’s holiness and our depravity) to the full spectrum of how religion is experienced, lived, and believed. That would be the Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion. This all survives under masterful preaching that only follows this systematized dualism, but much can be preached about God’s holiness and our sinfulness. All preaching by the likes Spurgeon et al can be parsed into this dual prism.  Missing is practical application and a true understanding of our role in the Christian walk which results in what we see today in the American church. This eventually leads to a social death and then historical resurgences that follow.

Some of what I am saying can be seen in Chantry’s rant:

One way to summarize the doctrine of divine sovereignty is this: It is God who acts, not man.  How will the lost be saved?  God must act.  How will sinful Christians overcome the “old man”?  God must act.  How will the church grow in both holiness and influence?  Again, God must act.  He is the sovereign; He is the great Actor in every aspect of our spiritual life.

Notice that “old man” is in scare quotes. They don’t believe that there is any “old man.” We don’t change—we remain empty vessels. The Bible is merely a tool for aiding us in seeing Luther’s “cross story” as opposed to our “glory story.” Again, this fleshes out in many different ways among Reformed cultists. The sacraments, along with preaching Luther’s cross story, aid us in seeing the need for constant forgiveness, what is called “deep repentance” leading to death and subsequent resurrection experienced by joy. The Christian walk is an endeavor to live by faith alone which is an experience, not a work that we do. This is why the Reformers were so exercised in regard to the book of James—James stated a salvation by faith alone while calling for believers to add works to their salvific faith. This turns Reformed theology completely on its head.

Chantry’s thesis is beyond lame. The Charismatic New Calvinists know their cuts of Reformed theology very well. CJ Mahaney’s five word gospel, “Christ died for our sins” and all reality flowing out of that is classic Reformed theology. Chantry doesn’t like Charismatic subjective results of the same Reformed objective gospel. Therefore, he denies that they have the same gospel. That’s not true. When all reality is interpreted through dualism, the results are always subjective. But the prism is the same.

That’s why Jesus said that a tree is known by its fruit. If Chantry doesn’t like the fruit he needs to change trees.



PM 8 (2)-1

Per the Usual, You Always Learn Something When You Do Dr. J’s Homework

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 20, 2010

In a recent post (, I comment on a post written by Jay Adams where he raises concerns about passive forms of sanctification running about in the church. He suggested that counselors have counselees make a list of all imperatives located in 1Corithians, and then ask themselves who the commands are directed to. Them? Or, (as he asked in a keynote address) the Holy Spirit? I just couldn’t help but to see the challenge as a homework assignment, and the results are documented in the above-mentioned post.

But as a former counselee under NANC counseling back when they were dealing with a full deck, I always learned from Dr. J’s homework that was part of the curriculum, and this assignment was certainly no exception. First of all, as would be necessary to state in the present climate, an examination of nouns, verbs, adjectives, ect., and how they relate to each other in 1Corintians would seem to indicate that all imperatives in the book are directed toward us. However, like those peasants that were “taught” by Jesus via the Sermon On the Mount, I haven’t yet taken any courses from Westminster Theological Seminary (which I am sure was located in Jerusalem at the time before Israel became the church) on *redemptive historical hermeneutics*. That could be critical because I recently heard from a counselee (being counseled by a NANC certified counseling center) that some counselors, you know, the advanced ones, are counseling people from *narrative diagrams* instead of cognitive literature. Yes, instead of instruction, the counselor drew a diagram of the counselee’s life and showed him where he was located in the diagram. Wow, Sweet dude, say amen and pass the bong.

But I learned much more than who the imperatives are directed at in the book of 1Corithians, I learned that 1Corithians does violence to Gospel Sanctification (the passive form of sanctification that I am concerned with) and its four pillars: NCT (New Covenant Theology; not all proponents of GS hold to NCT, but most do); heart theology; Christian hedonism, and redemptive historical hermeneutics. My post here will be far from a comprehensive list of examples from 1 Corinthians, but let me share some examples.

First, NCT teaches that the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) is an isolated unit symbolized by stone rather than “hearts,” (or “word” verses “Spirit”) and is indicative of all biblical imperatives, and is not applicable to the New Testament (ie., New Covenant), but was replaced by a transcendent “higher Law of Christ” that now interprets (the “apostles hermeneutic”) the Old Testament as partial revelation that was pre-designed by God for replacement. Paul’s statements in 1Corintians destroys this notion completely.

1) In 1:31, Paul makes a case for one of his points by citing Jere. 9:24, and prefaces it with the phrase “it is written.” This is the exact phrase Jesus used in Mathew 4:4 (before the New Testament was written), and said that man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Therefore, man also lives by every word in the Old Testament, including the so-called “Decalogue.”

2) Paul validates his arguments to the Corinthians by citing the Old Testament, often prefaced with “it is written” in 9:8, 9:9, 10:6, 10:7, 10:8, 10:9, 10:10, 10:11, 10;25-26, 11:16, 14:21-22, 14:34. Therefore, the OT often lends understanding to the NT and vise versa.

3) In 9:8 and 14:34, Paul calls the whole OT “the Law.” In 9:9, he calls the Pentateuch “the Law.” In 14:21, he calls Isaiah 28:11-12 “the Law.” The Ten Commandments is not “the Law” apart from the rest of Scripture, and therefore the focus of doctrine that separates its purpose from the New Covenant.

Secondly, GS teaches that all of our focus must be “change at the heart level,” resulting in obedience that is a “mere natural flow.” Paul didn’t get the memo. Paul was a strong advocate of what I believe Jay Adams calls “radical amputation.” In other words, life choices that present obstacles to sinning or an escape from sin. Said another way, change on the *outside level.* Clearly, Paul’s instruction for those who cannot control their lust was to simply get married (7:9). He also advocated obedience in regard to sexual relations to prevent temptation (7:5) By the way, I know of a specific case where adultery was the final death-blow to a marriage were depriving of intimate relations was a long standing issue. The counselor told them to disregard 1 Cor. 7:5 because what they really needed to do was get to the “heart issues.” In 10:14, Paul says to “flee” from adultery. In 11:31, Paul said to judge ourselves to prevent judgment from God in our lives. He also uses fear of judgment from God to motivate us to behave in 10:8 (sexual immorality), 10:9 (provoking God), and 10:10 (grumbling).

Also, it may be noted that Paul advocated the redirection of desires through obedience: 14:1, 14:12, 14:15, 14:18, and a strong emphasis on exertion regarding self discipline (9:25, 9:27).

Thirdly, Christian hedonism stands against obeying God from the perspective of duty, rather than pure motives supposedly marked by joy. Again, Paul didn’t get the memo. In 7:3, he commands husbands to fulfill their marital “duty” to their wives.

Fourthly, in regard to redemptive historical hermeneutics:

1) RHH teaches that the Bible is to be used sorely “in the service of the gospel.” But again, Paul didn’t get the memo. In 4:1, he refers to biblical truth as “things,” a plural noun clearly implying a multiplicity of propositional truth. Conspicuously absent is a definite article in regard to the gospel. But, in 11:2 Paul uses a definite article in regard to “teachings,” minus an object, making it a noun in plural form, and thereby implying in no uncertain terms that Scripture encompasses a multiplicity of propositional truth. If the gospel is the ne plus ultra of Scripture, how could Paul make such statements?

2) RHH teaches that the Bible is a gospel narrative that serves the same purpose for believers as well as unbelievers; it is to continually impart life to both. Micheal Horton goes to great lengths to make this point in “Christless Christianity.” So, the idea that the Bible contains truth that we receive for the purpose of salvation, and then move on to “something else,” is vehemently dismissed by advocates of RHH. But yet, Paul said in 14:22 that tongues is a sign to unbelievers, and prophesy (knowledge that edifies) “is for believers, not for unbelievers.” This shows clearly that the Bible does contain a dichotomy of truth for different uses in regard to justification and sanctification. Obviously.

3) RHH promotes an exclusive redemptive hermeneutic, but Paul displays an example of how the Bible uses various hermeneutics and states them accordingly. If no hermeneutic is stated, the plain sense of the text is assumed (“he opened His mouth and taught them”). For instance, Paul said to the Galatians in regard to part of what he wrote: “this is allegory.” We have another example of this throughout chapter 7, where Paul carefully explains the the context in which what he writes is to be interpreted.

4) RHH teaches that both Scripture and general revelation are not for the purpose of practical application, but rather to “show forth the gospel.” But Paul speaks of a practical application in 11:14,15 that, according to him, can be ascertained from nature; namely, that men should not have long hair. Many examples of this can, of course, be seen in the book of proverbs as well.

“Teachers” of our day have been laboring for some time to build a consistent theology that makes NCT, Christian hedonism, heart theology, and RHH, all fit together in application and experience. The results of this homework assignment make one thing crystal clear, at least one huge obstacle is Paul and his letter to the Corinthians.