The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 11; “The Total Depravity of the Saints?” By Guest Writer Jess Keller
As I sat in church, in corporate prayer to our Sovereign Lord, the words from the preacher’s lips bespoke the idea of the total depravity of believers. “We don’t love you, Lord.” “What?! – we don’t?! I do, I do, I do!” I screamed in my head. There was more along those lines, like ‘we don’t do as you command.’ Is this His church? Is this how we praise and worship Him? Since when are we to be of the mindset that “[g]race will NEVER be amazing, until [our] sin is amazing first.”[1]
When preachers teach believers “…that the very BEST things we’ve ever done—the most pious, most religious, most holy, most selfless acts of obedience, with the purest motives we could possibly muster on our best days, if rightly accounted for, would be in the debit column of our lives, NOT the credit column,”[2] how are we to “…go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28: 19-20).
The idea of the “total depravity of the saints” is creeping into our churches and denying the intrinsic value of the Holy Spirit in our individual lives and the life of His church. “New Calvinist Paul David Tripp describes Christians as “dead” on page 64 of How People Change (2006) and states: ‘When you are dead, you can’t do anything.’ On the same page and the one following, he describes Christians as God’s enemies, fools, not only unable to please God, but lacking the knowhow even if we wanted to (which is a blatant contradiction to what Scripture states), alienated, guilty, and rebellious sinners.”[3]
Is total depravity of the saints simply a pessimistic view of Christian life since “the flesh is weak” as opposed to an optimistic focus on “the Spirit is willing”? (Matthew 26:41). Both are true, yet where is the balance? What should the Christian mindset be? Dead in sin? No. “So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11). “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24). “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own….” (1 Corinthians 6:19).
Good news, believers — we’re alive! And since we are partakers of His divine nature, can we make an effort to keep from falling? Yes. In 2 Peter 1:5-11, we’re commanded to. And, “whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him” (John 14:21).
[1] Jean F. Larroux, III, What Is So Wrong About Loving What Is Right?, www.sherwood.org/knots/, posted in Comments, September 26, 2011.
[2] Jean F. Larroux, III, Please hear what I’m NOT saying…, www.sherwood.org/knots/, posted February 28, 2011.
[3] Paul M. Dohse, Sr., The Truth About New Calvinism, Bookman Unlimited, 2011, 1st ed.
The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 10; Jean, Jean, Jean, The Pharisees Were Not Even Good Pharisees—They Were Antinomians Like You
The first sentence of Jean Larroux’s testimony on southwood.org states the following:
““I have worked very hard at being a Pharisee (and was quite successful) and now work very hard at trying to rest in Grace.”
The New Calvinist Bible of Choice, the ESV, quotes Jesus as saying that his contention was with people who relax the law (Matthew 5:19). Sounds like Larroux strives for plenty of “rest” and relaxation. In context, Jesus was speaking of the Pharisees. Jean has it backwards, he has never been a Pharisee, but he is now. Read more here: Jean Larroux III and the Pharisees
The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 9; Let’s Just Get This Part Out of the Way Right Now
Lord willing, in following parts, I will further explain the movement that drives Jean Larroux’s theology and vision. I will clearly show that his doctrine was concocted by a Reformed Seventh-day Adventist who is now an atheist. The theology came out of the Progressive Adventism movement. By the way, it is doubtful, like in the case of many other New Calvinists, that Larroux knows the history and foundation of what he is following. I will also show that this doctrine has been known by other names such as Gospel Sanctification and Sonship theology. This information is the culmination of almost five years of research.
The founders of the doctrine believed they rediscovered the heart of the Reformation: The Centrality of the Objective Gospel. They began a crusade to save the church, seeing themselves as modern-day Reformers. The movement began in the early 70’s. This is what Southwood parishioners must come to grips with, Larroux thinks he is part of a movement that is saving the church from this present “subjective, synergistic Dark Age.”
This movement plays for keeps, and most American parishioners would not be willing to engage in the kind of no holds barred combat that this bunch is willing to engage in. The faint of heart need not apply, and most parishioners know that they will be on their own if they take a stand. One of the repeated mistakes made by leaders and elders in the face of this movement is resigning in protest, allowing the insurgents to solidify their power base. Though elders who do not join with them suffer persecution, they must hold their ground. A mixture of sitting elders for/against is a great hindrance in regard to taking over a ministry. The problem is, the sitting elders against usually can’t figure out where in the world these guys are coming from. How do you contend against something you don’t understand? That’s where this ministry comes into play. Sitting elders who understand the movement’s history, doctrine, and character would be a gargantuan obstacle to the orchestrated takeover. Nevertheless, a good thing will take place here; Southwood parishioners will at least understand why the takeover happened which is rarely the case otherwise.
The leaders of this movement have no truth to stand on, so they must resort to neutralizing dissenters via character assignation and other means. The best information I have right now shows that the Southwood elders are at work digging up all the dirt on me they can find. According to what Larroux says on Southwood’s website, the bigger the sinner, the more Christ is glorified, but trust me, I will be the exception. This is the usual protocol for the movement, so let’s just get this part out of the way.
My run-in with New Calvinists happened at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. I had been a member there for about twenty years and was an elder for around five. I stepped aside as an elder because though my marriage had no serious problems, I did not believe it was a marriage that exemplified the high standards of eldership. It was my decision.
At some point, I began to realize something wasn’t right. This resulted in many, many, hours of discussion with the Clearcreek elders. Also, one elder, Chad Bresson, is a key person in the movement’s early developments. Bottom line: without the many hours of interaction with these elders I would not have been able to connect all of the dots. In fact, I know that for certain.
Though I had a few years to go before I got the full picture, I figured out enough while I was there to become a threat to their plan of feeding the congregation the New Calvinist elephant a bit at a time. No slander or behavior of any sort was withheld in order to neutralize me, including criminal activity. Remember, they are out to save the church at any cost. My missionary son-in-law and daughter stood with me. One church that belonged to the same fellowship of churches as Clearcreek threatened to destroy their ministry if they continued to stand with me. By the way, that church admitted that Clearcreek was wrong, but explained to me that I should be willing to sacrifice the truth for the sake of unity.
I will now share the following links to tell my side of the story.
For any and all additional disclosure, including court documents, email me at pmd@inbox.com
paul
Susan Dohse: My Response to Southwood Elder Bill Nash
Dear Friends,
Take care how you regard comments from men such as Bill Nash. We are commanded in God’s Word to judge one another, and also to judge not. This reply is written not to judge whether Mr. Nash is a believer trying to live by the principles of God’s Word, but it is written to judge his comments he posted about my husband, Paul.
Perhaps Mr. Nash spoke from a youthful naiveté, marked by inexperience and immaturity, because he certainly did not speak from knowledge. Notice how Mr. Nash resorted to name calling, the usage of snide comments, and inappropriate inferences, and then closes his temper tantrum with trite, hippy-like clichés. Members of Southwood should take note of this elder’s words, actions, and attitudes.
Bill Nash will be referenced by his last name for the remainder of this post because the title Mr. connotes a title for a gentleman, which I do not consider this man to be.
There are four areas I would like to address:
a) First: Nash has no true regard for truth or for obeying God’s Word. This concerns me, and should concern the members of Southwood as it is noted that he is an elder in that church. Scripture commands us to put away lying (Ephesians 4:25, 29, 31), corrupt communication, and evil speaking. Rather than approaching his disagreements with my husband’s doctrinal positions with tact, and respect, he chose to post lies, gossip, and evil speech. He chose to rely upon the gossip passed on by a William Plott. Nash should investigate truth for himself. Such sites as eldersresolution.com would give him the truth about Clear Creek Chapel, and the site thetruthaboutnewcalvinism.com would help him learn about the movement trying to take over his church.
b) Second: My husband has never lived in the basement at his mother’s house, or any basement anywhere. This statement, meant to cause guffaws is rude, crude, and accusatory. It also smacks of disrespect for my precious mother-in-law. Our family lives in a church. Yes, friends, we live in a church. There is a wonderful story behind the how and why we live here, but that is for later blog postings. Our family room was the platform from which the Word of God was preached when our home was originally Calvary Baptist Church. I am blessed to say that the Word of God is still taught on that ‘platform’ while we are around the dinner table, enjoying Family Fun Night, or while Paul is helping our son with his home schooling. Nash made this statement to infer that my husband is clandestine, a conspirator, and an uneducated man. Paul is not the pastor of a church at this present time; he is the pastor of our home, which is a greater calling. He has pastored in the past as an elder, has performed the job of pulpit supply in other churches, and has attended seminary and college. Friends, people who make statements as Nash do not desire to learn truth; they would rather rely upon gossip, hearsay, and their own convoluted opinions to shape their body of belief. Consider this:
If Nash spews forth statements such as he posted on my husband’s blog just because a godly man, my husband, provoked him to study God’s Word ,and to learn and practice discernment, it makes me wonder what he spews forth to the church members he shepherds. Mmmmm. Perhaps members of his church should take note of what this man’s words, actions, and attitudes truly reflect.
c) Third: My husband has NEVER said or written anything derogatory or negative about the beloved Apostle Paul. Why would he? The apostle was an instrument used by God to write, teach, and preach the inspired Word of God. If Nash has truly read and studied articles from my Paul’s blog, he would take note that the apostle is quoted frequently and heavily in defense of the truth. To lump the apostle with John Piper, Tim Keller, Bryan Chappell, and even Billy Graham is appalling, for what fellowship has light (the apostle Paul) with darkness?
d) Fourth: Why does Nash degrade the role of layman? All of us believing pew sitters are laymen. All laymen (believers) are commanded to be discerners of the Word, and actively discerning what man teaches and purports to be truth. This is not a scriptural suggestion, but a command. To infer that my husband is just a “layman” reveals Nash’s belief that only church leaders and seminarians are privy to understanding the Word of God. Don’t you find this attitude offensive and degrading? You should.
In closing, the technical term used for my husband, “nut job”, cracks me up. I prefer the term taken from the writings of the Apostle Paul in Titus 2:14b: ‘a peculiar person’ zealous of good works. Nash, I exhort you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to ask your church and my husband for forgiveness for your posting of lies, degrading words, and the spreading of gossip.
Proudly signed,
Mrs. Paul Dohse (Susan)
The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 8 correction; The New Calvinist Indicative / Imperative Hermeneutic
Chapter 12: The Truth About New Calvinism; Its History, Doctrine, and Character
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
18 comments