An Open Letter to the Board of Trustees of Southern Seminary
Paul M. Dohse
TTANC L.L.C.
PO Box 583
Xenia, Ohio 45385
To Dr. Walter Price and the Board of Trustees of Southern Seminary:
Gentlemen,
It is no surprise that truth is of low value in our day; the apostle Paul informed Timothy that in the latter days people would not tolerate sound doctrine, and we are in those days. Hence, there are no expectations in regard to this letter, but nevertheless, it is a duty to proclaim the truth.
Southern Seminary now offers academic credits for attending seminars at conferences sponsored by various organizations connected with the present-day resurgence of authentic Calvinism. Though the traditions of men and antinomianism was of primary concern as stated by Christ during His earthly ministry, the evangelical academia of our day follows the crowds in wholesale acceptance of any doctrinal name brand that sells.
This blitzkrieg of resurgent conferences targets youth specifically. The resurgence seeks to turn a whole generation of youth to this doctrine. This represents the future of the American church. Evangelicals, and its academia in particular, seem indifferent to the gravity of future accountability attached to this reality.
Our organization researches the Calvin Institutes, and the trustees of Southern Seminary would do well in following our example rather than the opinions of men like Albert Mohler. Calvin’s gospel, as stated in the Institutes, is a call to keep ourselves saved through the practice of antinomianism, and has a distinctive Gnostic application. It is works salvation by Christ plus antinomianism, and reduces obedience to only experiencing the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to the Christian life. An example of this would be on page 215 in How People Change (2006), a book written by Paul David Tripp, a speaker at the recent Cross Conference endorsed by Southern Seminary. He states the following:
When we think, desire, speak, or act in a right way, it isn’t time to pat ourselves on the back or cross it off our To Do List. Each time we do what is right, we are experiencing what Christ has supplied for us. In Chapter 11, we introduced some of the fruit Christ produces. We will expand the discussion here.
Calvin, as well as Luther, believed that all reality is interpreted through the works of Christ in the gospel, or the “objective” gospel and the imputation of those works are experienced “subjectively” in order to remove our works from sanctification. Hence, “the subjective power of an objective gospel” and other such mantras often heard among evangelicals today. This necessitates, in a manner of speaking, interpreting every verse in the Bible as a justification verse; i.e., “Biblical Theology,” a buzz word at Southern. This way of interpreting the Bible was introduced by Christian mystic Geerhardus Vos circa 1938.
Calvin also redefined the new birth as an experience of perpetual rebirth in order to keep ourselves saved by the same gospel that originally saved us. So, the new birth is not a one-time event, it is a perpetual cycle of the same repentance and new birth experience that originally saved us—that’s why we must, “preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” This is the doctrine of mortification and vivification. It is part of Calvin’s systematic theology. This is factually indisputable. The Christian life focuses on our total depravity and repentance only, leading to the experience of vivification, or a joyful experience.
Therein, the human “heart” is redefined as something that is transformed only by its increased ability to experience vivification. This is why John Piper states that joy is essential to the Christian life; if vivification is not being experienced; perpetual rebirth is not taking place:
The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith (Desiring God: p. 69).
Likewise, Southern Baptist Paul Washer states the following:
This cycle simply repeats itself throughout the Christian life. As the years pass, the Christian sees more of God and more of self, resulting in a greater and deeper brokenness. Yet, all the while, the Christian’s joy grows in equal measure because he is privy to greater and greater revelations of the love, grace, and mercy of God in the person and work of Christ. Not only this, but a greater interchange occurs in that the Christian learns to rest less and less in his own performance and more and more in the perfect work of Christ. Thus, his joy is not only increased, but it also becomes more consistent and stable (Paul Washer: The Gospel Call and True Conversion; Part 1, Chapter 1, heading – The Essential Characteristics Of Genuine Repentance, subheading – Continuing and Deepening Work of Repentance).
The new birth is redefined as a “cycle” rather than a one-time event like our physical birth. It is redefined as a perpetual rebirth experience as we focus on our saintly total depravity. We are only righteous positionally; regeneration is a mere experience of Christ’s perfect obedience to the law. This not only keeps Christians under law, but inadvertently calls for a rejoicing in our own supposed total depravity.
This is why authentic Calvinism dies a social death within Christianity every 100 years or so. God’s people eventually catch on to the fact that it is a false gospel. Lighter forms of it survive the rejection while maintaining the label. We are presently within the fifth resurgence since Calvin’s Geneva, and the trustees of Southern are mindless participants accordingly.
We had the wonderful privilege of meeting many, many young people at the recent Cross Conference where you promoted this false gospel. We realize that there will only be a remnant that loves the truth enough to reject this latest academic novelty. But this is a generation of young people capable of great things, and smart enough to know that they only need God Himself to accomplish His mission. We believe that American Christianity has become a mission field in and of itself; namely, YOUR resurgence movement, a movement that bears your name, and we are seeking to reach that remnant of God that loves His truth. This is our duty and calling. A gospel promoting a justification that is not finished cannot save.
Meanwhile, as stated by the apostle Paul, let those who teach another gospel be accursed whether they be angels or men of renown.
Because only truth saves and sanctifies,
Paul M. Dohse
John 17:17
Matthew 4:4
Albert Mohler, Nelson Mandela, and the Crusade for a New Calvinist Host
I have to think long and hard these days for something that annoys me more than Albert Mohler. His presidency at Southern Seminary is a boondoggle rivaled only by the election of Barak Obama, who is, by the way, advocated by Mohler. As the world was blessed with another week, Mohler failed not to mark his territory with an article about the passing of Nelson Mandela lest the world not know his opinion about it. Hence, the Louisville Kool-Aid drinkers who wait with bated breath for his unctions from on high are now apprised.
The article compared Nelson Mandela to George Washington. Ok, the buffoonery of that theses aside, why does Mohler meddle in this stuff? What makes the president of Southern Seminary a political player? For crying out loud, why does Mohler, Piper et al weigh in on every political tryst that comes down the pike? Why did a lot of these guys vote for Barak Obama? Answer: Calvinist history predicated by Calvinist need.
As you know, New Calvinism is the latest resurgence of authentic Reformed doctrine. Historically, authentic Calvinism dies a social death and experiences periodic resurgences in 100-year cycles. New Calvinism is the fifth resurgence since Calvin’s Geneva. Volume 2 of TTANC will document the history of these cycles and the reasons for them.
Protestantism is predicated on passive sanctification/Christian living. Therefore, in an attempt to stop the death spiral Protestantism finds itself in from time to time because it is a light form of its original lager recipe, it attempts to go back to the original recipe for a solution. The only solution in history since the Reformation that offered aggressive sanctification as a solution was the biblical counseling movement founded by Dr. Jay Adams. However, his movement was spawned in the same year that New Calvinism was born (1970), and a war ensued accordingly.
The true biblical counseling movement and its aggressive sanctification lost the war. I witnessed the movement and was involved in it firsthand when it really started
Target Publication 2015
making a radical difference in Christianity circa 1990. New Calvinism (then known as Sonship Theology), infiltrated the true biblical counseling movement through Westminster Seminary and effectively destroyed it by 2006. The high priest of this inquisition was Dr. David Powlison who was a mentoree of the father of Sonship Theology, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. I therefore assume that Powlison will one day receive his just reward for snuffing out one of the most significant revivals in church history.
There are six reasons authentic Calvinism dies:
1. Protestantism was founded on the ancient ideology of spiritual caste. As a result, the Reformation gospel integrated Neo-Platonism with the Bible and offered not just a different gospel, but an entirely different way to interpret reality. Luther, taking his cue from St. Augustine, made the cross the sum of epistemology in and of itself. Many didn’t understand this and still don’t.
In other words, the Reformers interpreted reality through a redemptive prism, while the natural tendency is to interpret reality grammatically. The former believes that creation is a narrative that points to nothing but redemption; the latter doesn’t reject the idea that redemption is referred to in some way, but also believes other things are going on, and the plain sense of words are the key to understanding reality. The redemptive view of reality relies heavily on allegory because it demands a redemptive outcome.
The Reformers actually believed, as many do today, that a grammatical interpretation of reality is synonymous with works salvation and the glory of man. This was Luther’s epistemology. New Calvinists such as Paul David Tripp and Rick Holland have said that a literal, exegetical approach to Scripture separates us from the saving works of Christ (Tripp), and makes bad theology (Holland). Salvation is therefore married to redemptive eisegesis.
Hence, as time progressed, redemptive Protestants grew fewer, and grammatical Protestants increased in number. Remember, at issue is the very interpretation of reality itself. This has resulted in the present-day reality of redemptive Calvinists and grammatical Calvinists; ie., “Old Calvinists” and “New Calvinists.” Both claim Calvin, the former unwittingly. Therefore, in the midst of these resurgences, you have Calvinists fighting Calvinists. Examples of this are ample in church history and will be detailed in TTANC2. Along with every resurgence is an antinomian controversy between Calvinists.
The first point here is that authentic Calvinism dies a social death because its contra intuitive interpretation of reality is a natural anomaly. As it dies, it is replaced with the weaker form that came from it, and a need for solutions once again arise, and the original once again presents itself as the solution: “See, we have gotten away from our roots. That’s the problem.”
2. The original calls for a perpetual revisiting of the same gospel that saved us. This simply becomes boring and people lose interest. Susan and I have recently visited New Calvinist churches that were on fire in the early 80s. They are now deader than dead. Imagine our teenage son pointing this out without any cue from Susan and me at all.
3. The doctrine does not produce spiritual growth which results in a plethora of negative issues that arise from spiritual immaturity. See Hebrews 5:11-6:8. Infants in adult bodies will eventually devour each other.
4. The spiritual tyranny that is ALWAYS part and parcel with this doctrine. Remember, it is basically a spiritual cast system that puts a high premium on control.
5. God’s people eventually figure out that it is a false doctrine.
6. Ultimately, it needs to survive by getting in bed with the government as a way to enforce its orthodoxy. If this doesn’t happen, reasons 1-5 result in its death. Everyone agrees that the Enlightenment era destroyed authentic Reformed orthodoxy because it severed church and state—first in America, and then Europe followed. When this happened, it resulted in the proliferation of cults because government force had to be replaced with various forms of manipulation and mind control.
And this is why New Calvinists such as Albert Mohler are so politically minded. Authentic Calvinism has always been a parasite that will ultimately die unless it finds a government host. Be sure of it: this is what happened to the colonial Puritans, they were kept out of the American political process when they attempted to use the American Constitution to enforce their orthodoxy. This resulted in the death of American Puritanism. Before the American Revolution, the Colonies were Puritan theocracies.
Mohler et al knows their movement will eventually die unless they can use the government to enforce it, and this is behind their liberal political leanings. It takes a collectivist government to enforce a collectivist religion. They know this; hence, “No Government is perfect.” This is why Mohler thinks that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” This is why Mohler thinks the differences between Washington and Mandela are “ironic” despite the fact that Mandela was a communist.
Frankly, I believe that this is why John Piper retired from the pastorate and made a video in Geneva that announced his future vision. New Calvinists will continue to become more and more involved in the political realm. There is an agenda to get in bed with the state in order to enforce their faith. If they don’t, history will repeat itself—they know this. They will go the way of the colonial Puritans.
This is just simply history. Calvinists will do what Calvinists have always done. Sure, grammatical Calvinists may deny this historic agenda because they don’t get it, but the authentic Calvinists do get it…
It’s about the collectivist parasite feeding from the host of individualism.
paul
Tyrant Albert Mohler Claims Evangelicals can Band Together with Mormons Against Tyranny and Proclaims Calvinism to be a Better False Gospel Than Mormonism
Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was invited to speak at Brigham Young University yesterday. This is an interfaith lecture series that focuses on common societal concerns and not doctrine. Other notable Southern Baptists have spoken there including Richard Land. Like Land, Mohler addressed the common concern of religious liberty:
Mormons and Southern Baptists may not see each other in heaven, but they might in jail, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler said in an Oct. 21 lecture at Brigham Young University (Bob Allen: SBC leader speaks at Mormon school; Associated Baptist Press,10/22/2013).
“I do not believe that we are going to heaven together, but I do believe we may go to jail together,”
the head of the flagship Southern Baptist Convention seminary told about 400 BYU students, faculty and staff in an address about religious-liberty concerns.
“I do not mean to exaggerate, but we are living in the shadow of a great moral revolution that we commonly believe will have grave and devastating human consequences.”
Land echoed the same position in regard to those who are in “doctrinal error,” but share the same societal moral values:
“When it comes to religious freedom, we all hang together or we all hang separately,”
Land told the Deseret News in a Q&A interview published Sept. 6.
“We are common targets in this. The secularists are out to circumscribe our constitutional rights.”
Whether secularism, or atheism, or any other ism, it is important to know which ism is actually a threat to our constitutional liberties. All of these isms can live peacefully with Christians, and always have historically. The question is, “What kind of ism is the ism?” Atheism grounded in individualism is no threat. Secularism grounded in individualism is no threat, and never has been. The founding fathers of our country believed in Deism for the most part and that is grounded in individualism as opposed to collectivism. Of course, they were very friendly to religious freedom. Our country was founded on such.
The antithesis to individualism, collectivism, is based on the Caste system and rejects the competence of the individual to properly interpret reality. Hence, enlightened mediators must rule the unenlightened masses, and the individual must be sacrificed for what benefits “the group.” The difference in religion is the institutional church versus the home fellowship movement. The difference in government is state as servant versus state as master.
In yet another example of an intellectual train wreck that is Albert Mohler, Mohler, a Calvinist, spoke of religious liberty at the lecture. Calvinism is an ism that is grounded in collectivism. Those two isms together encompass almost all of the tyranny that has taken place since the Dark Age. Collectivism, in and of itself, is the key to understanding 99.9999% of the present-day woes in the American church.
Furthermore, we can always count on Mohler to create an intellectual train wreck that inspires steroidal morbid curiosity. He then proceeded to tell the Mormons attending that Calvinism is a better false gospel than theirs:
This is what brings me to Brigham Young University today, I am not here because I believe we are going to heaven together. I do not believe that. I believe that salvation comes only to those who believe and trust only in Christ and in his substitutionary atonement for salvation. I believe in justification by faith alone, in Christ alone.
“Justification by faith alone” is a deceptive Calvinist bumper sticker. It requires a perpetual return to the same gospel that saved us by faith alone in order to maintain our salvation. The Christian is not free to work in sanctification because we must live by faith alone in our Christian life. Calvin believed that the Sabbath represented sanctification. Mohler, like all Calvinists that know what Calvin really believed, state that progressive salvific forgiveness can only be found in the institutional church and is mediated by pastors.
Mohler presenting himself as a protector of religious liberty is like Colonial Sanders advocating vegetarianism. Therefore, we must know our cuts of isms.
paul
Al Mohler’s Struggle with Babyology
“Of course, Mohler would not get away with teaching what Calvin believed on this in Southern Baptist circles so he came up with this formula of original sin versus sin of the body…. Isn’t it funny how babies put the all-majestic Al Mohler between a rock and a hard place?”
The fact that Al Mohler is president of the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention is testimony to the theological illiteracy of American Christians. His blog post entitled, The Salvation of the ‘Little Ones’: Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven? is one testimony among many. If error was a hornet, reading this post by Mohler would be like whacking a big hornet’s nest. But there is a reason for that: his very doctrinal foundations are flawed.
Mohler begins the article by summarizing the “errors” of others on the issue of infant salvation:
Universalism is an unbiblical heresy. The Bible clearly teaches that we are born in sin and that God will not tolerate sinners. God has made one absolute and definitive provision for our salvation through the substitutionary atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ our Lord. Salvation comes to those who believe on His name and confess him as Savior. The Bible teaches a dual destiny for the human race. The redeemed – those who are in Christ – will be raised to eternal life with the Father in Heaven. Those who have not believed in Christ and confessed Him as Lord will suffer eternal punishment in the fires of Hell. Universalism is a dangerous and unbiblical teaching. It offers a false promise and denies the Gospel.
He will then later state that infants are an exception. His main point is that salvation only comes by a confession of faith in Christ. Apparently, unless you’re a baby.
Mohler continues to build on his confusion:
The Bible reveals that we are born marked by original sin, and thus we cannot claim that infants are born in a state of innocence. Any biblical answer to the question of infant salvation must start from the understanding that infants are born with a sin nature.
So, everyone is born with an original, and we assume, condemning sin, and a confession of faith in Christ is the only solution. Grammatically, if he is going to argue that babies have a way out of this dilemma, these sentences shouldn’t be structured as concepts that have no exception. That’s my point. This guy is a highly paid communicator which is confusing reality in and of itself.
Mohler continues:
Throughout the centuries, the church has offered several different answers to this question. In the early church, Ambrose believed that baptized infants went to heaven, while unbaptized infants did not, though they received immunity from the pains of hell. His first error was believing in infant baptism, and thus in baptismal regeneration. Baptism does not save, and it is reserved for believers – not for infants. His second error was his indulgence in speculation. Scripture does not teach such a half-way position which denies infants admission to heaven, but saves them from the peril of hell. Augustine, the great theologian of the fourth century, basically agreed with Ambrose, and shared his understanding of infant baptism.
Mohler’s confusion has confusion within confusion in this paragraph. He accuses Ambrose of “speculation” and believing in baptismal regeneration, then points out that Augustine agreed with Ambrose, then calls Augustine a “great theologian”! Moreover, Mohler is a staunch Calvinist, and John Calvin held to the identical view of Ambrose and Augustine (CI 2.1.8, 4.16.1, 4.16.17). Good grief!
Mohler then gets into the meaty confusion of his argument:
Those who divide infants into the elect and non-elect seek to affirm the clear and undeniable doctrine of divine election. The Bible teaches that God elects persons to salvation from eternity, and that our salvation is all of grace. At first glance, this position appears impregnable in relation to the issue of infant salvation – a simple statement of the obvious. A second glance, however, reveals a significant evasion. What if all who die in infancy are among the elect? Do we have a biblical basis for believing that all persons who die in infancy are among the elect?
We believe that Scripture does indeed teach that all persons who die in infancy are among the elect.
So, let me get this straight: God elects babies based on looking into the future and seeing that they are going to die, and electing them accordingly, even though they are among those born with original sin. But yet, Calvinists plainly reject the notion that God elects based on foreknowledge. So apparently, God preordains the death of babies as part of His plan for election. This makes the death of babies a good thing, which is exactly the position Mohler will argue later on. However, no New Calvinist is able to fall short of making a complete train wreck out of everything. In order to clarify the fact that Mohler and Calvinists are as totally confused as they seem to be, he reiterates the theological position:
This must not be based only in our hope that it is true, but in a careful reading of the Bible. We start with the biblical affirmations we have noted already. First, the Bible reveals that we are “brought forth in iniquity,”(1) and thus bear the stain of original sin from the moment of our conception. Thus, we face squarely the sin problem. Second, we acknowledge that God is absolutely sovereign in salvation. We do not deserve salvation, and can do nothing to earn our salvation, and thus it is all of grace. Further we understand that our salvation is established by God’s election of sinners to salvation through Christ. Third, we affirm that Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the sole and sufficient Savior, and that salvation comes only on the basis of His blood atonement. Fourth, we affirm that the Bible teaches a dual eternal destiny – the redeemed to Heaven, the unredeemed to Hell.
Finally, Mohler gets to the position he takes on this issue:
What, then is our basis for claiming that all those who die in infancy are among the elect? First, the Bible teaches that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed “in the body.” That is, we will face the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of original sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer “according to what he has done,” and not for the sin of Adam. The imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt explains our inability to respond to God without regeneration, but the Bible does not teach that we will answer for Adam’s sin. We will answer for our own. But what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body? We believe not.
So, the position here is a dichotomy between original sin and sin performed in the body. Original sin and sin of the body. This position is an egregious affront to Calvinism and Reformed doctrine in general. Clever, but totally contradictory. Isn’t it funny how babies put the all-majestic Al Mohler between a rock and a hard place? You see, Calvin didn’t believe in baptismal regeneration per se. He believed in the authority of the church to forgive sins on earth, also known as the “power of the keys.” He also believed in church membership being synonymous with salvation. “In Christ” is synonymous with being “in the church.” Based on this, Calvin believed that babies who were baptized by the church were saved because the church had “loosed” their sins (absolution CI 4.1.21, 22). Of course, Mohler would not get away with teaching what Calvin believed on this in Southern Baptist circles so he came up with this formula of original sin versus sin of the body. It is also why he avoided mentioning Calvin in the post like one would avoid the plague. Let’s see how it works for us:
We believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy. Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Starting with a faulty theological premise is like the proverbial more lies to cover prior lies. The Bible in fact states that babies, “are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies,” (Psalm 58:3).
But this leads us to the second babyology problem that Mohler has. Babies, in fact, go to heaven because their consciences are not developed and they are therefore not yet, “under the law” of their heart or God’s law (Romans 2:12-16). Mohler can’t bring this up because Calvin believed that Christians remain under the law. Calvin believed that a perfect maintaining of the law had to be kept in order to secure justification. This perpetual justification is supposedly kept in place by faith alone in sanctification and preaching the gospel to ourselves every day. Or, keeping ourselves “under the gospel.” Calvin didn’t believe that grace replaces the law in justification; the law’s righteous demand still needs to be satisfied in order to maintain justification. Mohler is careful not to go there while woefully overestimating the ability of Southern Baptists to connect the dots.
Mohler concludes the post by quoting Reformers who looked favorably on the deaths of infants: “I cannot be sorry for the death of infants.” And after criticizing Ambrose for “speculation,” he cites a sermon by Charles Spurgeon, in the same post, that propagates the idea that babies who have gone to heaven are calling out the gospel to their lost parents. That’s not speculation?
Spurgeon turned this conviction into an evangelistic call. “Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too? He continued: “Mother, unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise. Father, ungodly, impenitent father, the little eyes that once looked joyously on you, look down upon you now, and the lips which scarcely learned to call you father, ere they were sealed by the silence of death, may be heard as with a still small voice, saying to you this morning, Father, must we be forever divided by the great gulf which no man can pass? Doth not nature itself put a sort of longing in your soul that you may be bound in the bundle of life with your own children?”
Problem is, Christ taught that those who will not listen to the word of God will neither be persuaded if someone came to them from the grave. How much less a beckoning from heaven by babies? Total confusion. Mohler is clearly no match for the baby issue.
Like Christ said, from the mouth of babes….
paul
Strange Life Form Named Johnathan Pritchett Found in SBC
Some guy (we think) named Johnathan Pritchett posted an article on SBC Today that suggests that words in the Bible mean what they say. Obviously, for such an article to be posted on SBC Today also implicates the involvement of otherworldly forces. Whoever this guy is (if he is of this world), he also had the audacity to question the Reformed idea that do’s and don’ts in the Bible are really a heavenly word game to demonstrate the futility of attempted obedience. For sure, such courage in the SBC must be otherworldly. I mean, we haven’t even heard of him, and he is of the youth pool as well. This is truly bizarre. Since the elder statesmen of the SBC are cowardly and mindless, where did someone this young get such brainpower? Hmmmmm. Creepy.
His t-shirt could offer a clue. I think this a cryptic sign that he is indeed from another planet. Nevertheless, if he would agree to in vitro fertilization—the SBC could be saved!
You can read the article here and judge for yourself: http://sbctoday.com/2013/02/07/the-statement-christianity-is-not-about-a-bunch-of-dos-and-donts-is-a-bit-ridiculous/
So young, yet the wisdom of Moses who said God’s word is not too difficult for us to obey (Due. 30:11-14) for life and good as opposed to death and evil (Due. 30:15).
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments