All that is gold does not glitter.

"Vatican Prepares to Control Through Civil Law" by Richard M. Bennett

2009-07-17T12:17:00.000-07:00

(The following is copied directly from Richard Bennett's website Berean Beacon, and the specific article is Vatican Prepares to Control Through Civil Law)

Dear Friend,
In mid the nineteenth century, Lord Acton one of the greatest Roman Catholic historians of described the Papacy as “the fiend skulking behind the Crucifix.”1 Acton, famous for his saying, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” clearly pinpointed Papal Rome as the academic and legal cause of the more than six hundred years of the Inquisition and other atrocities such as the St. Bartholomew’s Massacre, which began in Paris August 24 1572, and spread throughout France. Quiet, calculated, and premeditated legal agreements between Papal Rome made these horrors of history possible. In these dreadful centuries the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed that salvation was only by means of her sacramental system, and therefore of necessity, she needed a legally engineered force to silence the true Gospel. Her apostasy from the Gospel has not changed in the 193 years since the Inquisition as the Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) clearly show.
The article below is intended to stimulate an interest in history so as not to repeat its misery and to inform believers of the calm deliberate and designed civil agreements taking place between the Vatican and most nations in our own day. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” (James 1:5)
Yours in the Lord’ grace and truth,
Richard Bennett

Vatican Prepares to Control Through Civil Law
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
By Richard Bennett

The Earth Charter and the United Religions Initiative are two instrumental pieces in the international networking of movements across the world that are leading to a one world religion. Because of the Vatican’s worldwide authority through civil law and the number of Roman Catholic priests, nuns, and influential persons engaged in these movements (official sources remaining aloof), Bible believers need an informed perspective on where events are leading.

The Earth Charter
After eight years of planning, which has involved more than 25 global leaders and 100,000 people in environment, business, politics, religion, and education in 51 countries, the Earth Charter was formalized on March 15, 2000.2 It is a comprehensive document of global ethics and a political blueprint for world government. The Earth Charter process was initiated by a former Prime Minister of The Netherlands and was carried out under the direction of Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong, the Chairman of the Earth Council. The principles of the Earth Charter include built in global governance as defined by the United Nations (UN) Commission on Global Governance (1995) and other UN commissions. Something of the desire for legal power is seen in one of its statements, “In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”3

United Religions Initiative. (URI)
The philosophy behind the Earth Charter is fully incorporated into the United Religions Initiative (URI).4 URI is designed to evolve into a United Nations for Religions, with the United Religions Charter being signed on June 26, 2000, three months after the Earth Charter. URI to date has held three summit conferences, with the June 2000 conference marking the birth of a truly global organization that stands as a mother ready to embrace into her bosom all the religions of the world. While the whole emphasis is “spiritual” it is quite interesting that the desire for the same legal power club is as evident in the documents of URI as it is in the Earth Charter. For example, according to the Preamble to the Charter, URI plans a Worldwide Movement “...to support freedom of religion and spiritual expression, and the rights of all individuals and peoples as set forth in international law.”

Power through Civil Law
Control of civil law and law among European nations is what the Catholic Church thrived on through the Dark and the Middle Ages. This control was the primary underpinning of her power during the six hundred years of the Inquisition and in the growth of her religious power system generally throughout the centuries. Her ability to grow in strength and numbers is always in proportion to her legal agreements with any nation. In the nations where she has legal concordats with the civil governments, she succeeds both in holding down the Gospel and in simultaneously furthering her position as keeper of the ubiquitous, highly sensuous, and most
effective sacramental system known to modern man. The latent control mechanisms in international law that can be seen in The Earth Charter and in URI are of precisely the kind that enables Catholicism to thrive. In time past it was through legal agreements that Rome brought kings and princes to heel. Without the Gospel, Catholics through their fear of death were all their lifetime subject to her bondage, for RCC teaching both then and now is that there is no salvation outside the Church. Woe to the ruler who resisted the papal will! Subjects could be, were, and can still be released from their oaths of allegiance; whole states could be, and were placed under interdict. Since early in the 20th century under Pius XII, however, the legal strategy has become even more autocratic.

Power Refined in Concordats
A “concordat” is an international contract, which legally binds the nation involved, and the Vatican. It guarantees the Roman Catholic Church and Catholics the right of freedom of religion and worship. A concordat also secures rights such as that of defining doctrine, establishing Roman Catholic education, negotiating laws regarding property, appointing bishops, and recognizing Roman Catholic law regarding marriage and annulment. Such legal issues are agreed on in civil law between the “Holy See” (as she in her position as a sovereign state is legally called) and the other nation.
Prior to 1989, the Holy See signed international agreements primarily with European and Latin American countries. Vatican control can be seen very clearly in those nations where concordats have long been established as, for example, in Germany under the extant concordat worked out between under Pius XII and Hitler. The Vatican’s desire to maintain civil relations with other nations is now greater than ever. From 1950 to 1999, 128 concordats were signed between Rome and various states. In the course of nine years, 43 concordats were signed between the Holy See and other nations. Even nations of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa are entering juridical agreements with Rome. Moreover, the Church of Rome has much influence in
national and international laws, particularly in the nations in which she has papal nuncios as ambassadors. At present she maintains diplomatic relations with 172 countries at embassy level. According to the Catholic Almanac, papal representatives “receive from the Roman Pontiff the charge of representing him in a fixed way in the various nations or regions of the world.” “An apostolic nuncio has the diplomatic rank of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. Traditionally, because the diplomatic service of the Holy See has the longest uninterrupted
history in the world, a nuncio has precedence among diplomats in the country to which he is accredited and serves as dean of the diplomatic corps on state occasions.”5
The Vatican, desiring to maintain official diplomatic intercourse with all nations, woos Libya, all the while maintaining relations with Israel. She has had uninterrupted relations with Cuba while having great difficulties with China, Korea, and Vietnam. Some Islamic countries have failed as yet to sign agreements with the Holy See, although some of their reluctance now may be swept aside with the successful outreach to Islam through the Pope’s latest Damascus trip during which he donned white cloth slippers to enter a Muslim sanctuary. Through her many Roman Catholic representatives in government, her own direct influence as a civil power, and in particular through her concordats, Rome is now able to influence substantially civil rulers and civil policy in many nations.6 Should she gain control of the international criminal court, she would be again fulfilling the Scripture, “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.”7

Effective legal structures
To establish legal structures effective to her purposes is the goal of Rome. Understanding this, the remarks of Archbishop Martino, Rome’s permanent observer to the United Nations, bear all the more weight, “As Pope John Paul has stated, ‘Within the international community the Holy See supports every effort to establish effective juridical structures….’”8 It can be argued that the Roman system has no official position in URI and other like organizations. This is true, but the Church of Rome has always worked in such a way so as technically to keep her hands clean while having her laws and mindset implemented by others, particularly civil power. This is how she operated in the Dark and Middle Ages, particularly during the Inquisition when the civil powers in the name of civil law prosecuted millions under her murderous church law. The structure of the Roman system makes her capable not only of gaining a predominant position but also capable of maintaining the upper hand so that in fact “Holy Mother” takes all into herself. For example, “Holy Mother Church” is only one of 154 sovereign states participating in the International Criminal Court; yet she is much more. Her citizenry, whose allegiance is first to the Roman Catholic Church9, dwells within each of these nations. Many of her citizens have access to positions in the ruling structure of that nation where, as Roman Catholics, they are enjoined by the Roman Catholic Church to use their influence and position to bring that nation into line with papal desires on any issue. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) is very clear on the issue,

#899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian [i.e., Roman Catholic] doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church: Lay believers are in the front line of Church life; for them the Church is the animating principle of human society. Therefore, they in particular ought to have an ever clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope….

Due to the totalitarian nature of the Roman Catholic Church, however, none of the non Catholic citizens of other nations have positions of power within her ruling structure. Thus, although the Holy See has formal diplomatic ties with the various states, Catholic power can be brought to bear covertly against that nation which refuses to defer to her views, particularly those regarding matters of faith and morals. So it is that such power over individuals, held in place by concordats that legally guarantee the teaching, for example, of Can. 752, 333, and #882 of the Catechism (see Footnote 8), eventually can hinder the freedom of religion and worship of those the Holy See deems to be false churches.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely”
The Emperor Justinian in the sixth century was the main architect who established the foundation for Rome’s ability to impose external unity.10 Moreover, “During the ninth century, there was a concerted effort to renew society and centralize Western civilization. It is usually called the Carolingian Reform after its initiator, Charlemagne, who was crowned Roman Emperor by the pope on the feast day of Christmas in the year 800. Its intention was to stabilize the structures of Christendom, and one of its chief tools was reliance on church law.”11 The famous Hildebrand Pope Gregory VII nailed down the legal power base of papal canon law so that it became incorporated into Western civilization in the legal system of nations in the eleventh century. All this made possible the Inquisition from 1203 A.D. (in person of Pope Innocent III) until its dissolution in Spain and Portugal in 1808. The Vatican’s persecution of believers they deemed heretics, was done by legal civil means. It involved incarceration, confiscation of property, torture, internment without trial, and death. The present Pope, by means of the decree on infallibility of Vatican Council I, the 1917 adoption of the Code of Canon Law, and the revision of the Code under his authority in 1983, is able to work no less autocratically than Pope Pius XII12. Although kept in bounds presently by other forces, papal power now has become so consolidated that it is able to surpass what Hildebrand Pope Gregory VII did in his day. Then the known world was much smaller and the only international system was Rome herself and the Holy Roman Empire. Now the stage is set for a one world government. Perplexingly, many Christians simply want to escape. While some Christians are well informed and aware of the seriousness of the present move to a world religion, nonetheless, most of what is published falls in within the norms of political correctness in which Roman Catholicism is not mentioned. Many present day Evangelicals seem totally ignorant of the laws still standing in the Roman Catholic dogma. For example the statement, “The Church is to be separated from the state, and
the state from the Church.” was condemned as an error by “His Holiness, our Lord Pope Pius XI” and still is.13 The extent to which Rome claims a right to judge and impose chastening has not changed since the days of the Inquisition. In present day canon law she states, Canon 1405 (Sect.1) “It is the right of the Roman Pontiff himself alone to judge in cases mentioned in Can. 1401: 1. those who hold the highest civil office in a state....” Not for nothing, then, is the interest with which the Church of Rome involves herself in promoting the International Criminal
Court and like measures.

The power structure behind globalization
The structure of the Roman Catholic Church is a totalitarian hierarchy. It must never be forgotten that the Roman Papacy is an absolute, unlimited, tyrannical monarchy, a worldly, secular government. It has its territorial dominions; it had its court, ambassadors, detective force, legislature, jurisprudence, advocates, prison, taxes, bank, concordats, ambitious plans and policy, is more widely spread than any secular nation and entrenched in many countries. Nonetheless, the Roman Catholic Church is also very different from other secular powers. Her spiritual commerce goes hand in hand with her civil power, claiming infallibility and
international recognition.14 Ignaz von Dollinger, a leading Roman Catholic historian in Germany, warned the world in his own day regarding the tremendous power of the Roman Pontiff,

“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, “orbi,” (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the [Roman Catholic] Canonists put it —“The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.” 15

Wisdom from God needed (James 1:5)
The true believer must look to the Written Word of the Infinite All Holy, Unchangeable, All-Powerful, All Knowing, and All Wise God. The finger of God that clearly gives the Ten Commandments also gives a clear picture of the Bride of the Lamb, the true church, and a clear picture of the apostate church. Consistently in the words of Christ Jesus and of the Apostles Paul and Peter, the contrast between the true church and the apostate church is that those of the true church are few in number, those of the apostate church many. The true church is described in Scripture as the “a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars”16 For those who know the history of the true church, Revelation 12: 6 is an apt summary, “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” The apostate church is the woman who is seated upon the beast reigning “over” peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. The Scripture meticulously portrays the little flock, overcome, worn out, yet ever faithful while of the woman seated on the beast it says, “And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls.”17 Many of those who are the Bride of the Lamb have been slain by the woman drunken by the blood of the saints as the history of the Inquisition shows. The blood of the martyred saints overcame the secular Roman Empire. In contrast, Papal Rome overcame the saints, as Scripture had foretold. Likewise as stated she was to become “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.”18 No other kingdom or power has drunken so deeply of this blood as has “The Holy See”. Thus, as streams may be traced to the fountain, and rays of light to the sun, so may these prophecies be traced to the Papacy, and applied to it alone. “And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.”19 Is the Lord warning His flock to be prepared as were the Vaudois, Waldenses, Lollards, Bohemians and the faithful believers throughout the long Inquisition and Counter Reformation? The Lord’s true and righteous judgment of the Great Whore will finally come as He foretold.20 In the meantime, His power is seen as His Gospel is boldly proclaim, every individual who is saved “being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”21 The Lord calls His flock to be wise, understanding both history and the times in which they live. “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”22¨

Permission is given by the author to copy this article if it is done in its entirety without any changes.
Richard Bennett, Berean Beacon. The ministry's Internet web age is: WebPage address: www.bereanbeacon.org

1 Acton, Correspondence, 55; as quoted in Himmelfarb, Lord Acton, p. 151
2 The Earth Charter can be read on the Internet at http://www.earthcharter.org/draft/charter.htm
3 Bolding in any quotation indicates emphasis added in this report.
4 URI website is: http://www.united-religions.org
5 Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac, 2001, p. 277.
6 See Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church by John W. Robbins (USA: The Trinity Foundation, 1999) for in depth study. http://www.trinityfoundation.org
7 Revelation 17:18.
8 Catholic International August, 1998, Vol. 9, No. 8, p. 350.
9 Can. 752 “Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.” Can. 333, Sec. 3 “No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.” Code of Canon Law, Latin Eng. ed., New English Tr. (Wash. DC 20064: Canon Law Society of America, 1988) #882 “…the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always
exercise unhindered.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1994). Also, #937 and elsewhere.
10 LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Hagerstown, MD 21740: Review and Herald, 1950) Vol. I, pp. 505, 506.
11The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel, eds. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1985) p. 2.
12 John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII (NY 10014: Viking, 1999) pp. 348, 361, 371.
13 The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Tr. By Roy J. Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, revised by Karl Rahner, S. J., published in 1954 by Herder & Co, Frieburg (St. Louis 2, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1957) # 1755 title “His Holiness, our Lord Pope Pius XI”, p. 435.
14 Revelation 18:3.
15 Ignaz von Dollinger, “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich” 1871; as quoted in MacDougall, The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press) pp. 119,120.
16 Revelation 12:1.
17 Revelation 17: 4.
18 Revelation 17:6.
19 Revelation 17:9.
20 Revelation 19:2.
21 Romans 3:24.
22 Matthew 10:28.
6

"It's a Jesus Thing"

2009-07-10T10:54:00.000-07:00

To those who have trouble with the idea that you must consciously know and believe in Jesus (and repent) to go to heaven; who think that Jesus is the only way, but you don't have to know he's the only way to be following this only way; what do you do with this: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)?

And to those who have a problem with the thrust of the first sentence ("to go to heaven"), read Hebrews 11.

N. T. Wright has taken over the Vineyard movement

2009-06-24T09:39:00.000-07:00

If you want proof, listen to the current short series on Romans, entitled Living Right - Romans at the Sugarland Vineyard (the mothership of the Vineyard movement, Bert Wagonner's congregration).

And from my own experience at my congregation, N. T. Wright is liberally quoted as the greatest thing since sliced Luther.

George Eldon Ladd's The Gospel of the Kingdom

2009-06-23T22:08:00.000-07:00

I'm reading George Eldon Ladd's The Gospel of the Kingdom, at the suggestion of my pastor, after I told him my misgivings on the Vineyard movement's position on the Gospel.

So I'll journal my notes here.

In the forward, he says "The Kingdom of God was the central message of our Lord's ministry." Is this true?

Emergents = Socinians?

2009-06-18T17:46:00.001-07:00

Todd Friel says so.

He says Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Rob Bell are destroying the Gospel.

Straw Man Dichotomies

2009-06-11T17:39:00.000-07:00

My friend Brad pointed me to this article at NPR.

It's enough to make one a crabby blogger with nothing positive to say. Well, here goes. This is what I responded with:

Can you say Straw-man Dichotomy?

Stream-of-consciousness follows...

"The man who believes in a god, in a Christ coming again in glory to judge and to punish the quick and the dead," wrote Tolstoy, "cannot believe in the Christ who bade us turn the left cheek, judge not, forgive those that wrong us, and love our enemies."

Okay, so Tolstoy (and Erik Reece) pit the Sermon on the Mount against the Nicene Creed. Well, to be consistent he should also pit the Bible against the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, the same Guy Who said turn the other cheek also said to carry a sword. Hmm...

"The man who believes in salvation through faith in the redemption or the sacraments cannot devote all his powers to realizing Christ's moral teaching in his life."

Forget the sacraments for a second. What is this guy talking about?? It’s not about devoting all my powers to realizing Christ’s moral teaching. But I preach to the choir...

Having a ticket to heaven should be one of the greatest blessings and motivators in this life.

This guy sounds like a Tony Campolo / Jim Wallis Red Letter Christian (TM).

Oy, the Gospel of Thomas. Which said that all women need to become male.

Now he brings up John Dewey. He ruined American education. Gene Scott (TM) said Dewey’s responsible for the Hippie Generation.

Thanks, Brad. This was a fun rant.

just start typing

2009-06-09T22:13:00.000-07:00

been listening to Todd Friel of Wretched Radio. Very intriguing guy. Puts James White to shame in fast-talking. I like him, but I thought he came down hard on Doug Pagitt. He's introduced me to Paul Washer. Very inspiring preacher, and I feel more than a little convicted.
Also been listening to Tony Campolo. Tony really annoys me. Where's the Gospel? He wants marriage to be defined as a man and a woman, and only to happen in the Church, since it's a religious thing. But the state can have any kind of civil union they like. And the two should be kept separate. This is how Tony can have is cake and eat it too. He can uphold marriage, and appease the homosexuals, and be dogmatic about both.

Here's what I'm convicted on. 1. Ending sentences prepositions with. 2. Not witnessing. All my life I've been allergic to this term, as much so as to "accountable". But Jesus said we'd be his witnesses. The Greek for witness is marturon, or martyr. Go figure. You don't have to be a freak to witness--you can make a connection. In fact, it's *all about* making connections. But then it's *all about* bringing the conversation to a point: what are you going to do about your sin, and what are you going to do about Jesus. You can be pointed *and* friendly. You can be humble and keep control.

What does a church need to be healthy. Preach the Gospel. What about the Law? Do we need it? Well, it's a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Well, now that we're in Christ, do we still need the schoolmaster. I think so. We need to constantly get from Romans 7 to Romans 8, and the key element of Romans 7 is the Law. So the question is do we need to get *to* Romans 7, or are we already there, and just need to concentrate on Romans 8? I'm suspecting that we need to realize that in unsanctified parts of our lives, we must realize we *are* in Romans 7, and then we must agree with God quickly, and say, "So then, with my mind I am a slave to God's law, but in the flesh I am a slave to the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Tony Campolo says Richard Rohr is Evangelical

2009-05-27T09:27:00.000-07:00

And he has high praise for Ignatius Loyola's spiritual exercises.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen rocks.

2009-05-14T11:35:00.000-07:00

See his stuff at http://www.cmfnow.com/.

Tony Campolo Defines "Evangelical"

2009-05-08T14:30:00.000-07:00

From Crosscurrents, "ON EVANGELICALS AND INTERFAITH COOPERATION"

Tony Campolo: An evangelical is someone who believes the doctrines of the Apostle's Creed. That outlines exactly what we believe in detail. Secondly, an evangelical has a very high view of scripture though not necessarily inerrancy. And the third thing—we believe that salvation comes by being personally involved with a living resurrected Jesus. So I've defined evangelical in those three terms. There is a doctrinal statement, so that there is some content to what we believe. There is a source of truth, Scripture. And there is a personal relationship with Jesus.

What about salvation by grace through faith, based on the completed work of Christ, His righteousness imputed to us? Is this not central to our faith?

Invoking the Nicene Creed is how the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox organizations are brought in and considered true churches. In light of the Galatian problem, what would Paul think? Would Tony think Paul too harsh? Maybe the anathema in Galatians was one of those parts that isn't necessarily inerrant.

Sorry, Martin!

2009-04-15T22:24:00.000-07:00

I like this article about the supposed anti-semitism of Martin Luther.

Aramaic Primacy

2009-02-19T09:12:00.000-08:00

I'm intrigued by "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?", so I'm reading it as I can. It is the author's contention, as it is of the Assyrian Church of the East, that the Peshitta is the original form of the New Testament. "My words will never pass away."

N.T. Wright and the Gospel

2009-02-19T09:09:00.000-08:00

Found this on Paul Lamey's blog (http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/they-cant-both-be-wright/?referer=sphere_related_content/). Very troubling. I don't trust N.T. Wright.

"They Can't Both Be 'Wright'"

“Justification by faith is the heart of the Gospel. This is what is contained in the promise, ‘Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.’ If we fail to grasp the fact that the righteousness which justifies us is imputed and not infused or inherent, we shall find that, in substance, what we preach is a gospel of works, not a Gospel of grace” [from N. T. Wright (along with John Cheeseman, Philip Gardner, and Michael Sadgrove) in the 1972 edition of The Grace of God in the Gospel (Banner of Truth)].

“If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom . . . . To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how language works” [from N. T. Wright in the 1997 edition of What Saint Paul Really Said (Eerdmans)].

What James White needs answered by TR-only folks

2009-02-09T13:31:00.000-08:00

James White posted this on 02/03/09. "... but I also would like to invite the "Truly Reformed" out there to call the DL and defend their exaltation of the Textus Receptus. Specifically, I would like to ask them to answer the following questions:
1) When did 'the church' 'received' this text?
2) What council engaged in a study of the respective texts and determined that this is the 'one' text that most closely represents the original?
3) Which text IS the 'TR'? Can you identify a single text as THE TR? If not, why not?
4) Please explain why I should use the TR's readings of Luke 2:22, Revelation 16:5, and the final six verses of Revelation. "

I'm keeping this post as a trailmarker containing relevant questions to answer. I don't have the answers, since I'm a newbie.

But I do have some questions:
1. When did 'the church' determine the canon?
2. What council determined the canon?
3. It doesn't matter to me that any one of the several TR's has errors. It's a textual family or tradition.
4. James often uses these small examples as showstoppers for TR priority. Seems to me like you'd need to take a bigger view than just a handful of problem sections.
5. Here's an example of taking a bigger view, first raised by Burgon. The two hero texts of the Critical Text fans--Sinaiticus and Vaticanus--leave out the last 12 verses of Mark. This should be seen as a major strike against their reliability and value in anything Text Critical.

Notes on The Emotionally Healthy Church, by Peter Scazzero

2009-01-10T22:58:00.000-08:00

Random notes.

In general, I see the need for this book. Too many "spiritual" people in "spiritual" profession or callings (pastors, bible study leaders, missionaries) have split off their emotions from real life and compartmentalized their spirituality from the rest of their being. This drives people to have unhealthy lifestyles, and put up with too much and have bad boundaries.

To the italicized sentence on p. 18: "Making incarnation the top priority in order to love others well is both the climax and point of the entire book.", I wrote this note in the margin: "There's more to Spiritual Life than Incarnation. What about Redemption?" And now I'm listening to Tim Keller about redemption (his church is called Redeemer). Yes, Incarnation is a miracle, a great miracle, and one that made the following possible. But Redemption is the big miracle. Where God turns sinners into saints.

on p. 19, line 4, I underlined "the two are inseparably linked", the "two" being emotional issues and spiritual problems (meaning I agree with this).

Same page, line 7, his commitment is to Scripture. Good. Line 10, he remains committed to Sabbath-keeping. Well, when's he gonna start wearing phylacteries and sacrificing goats?

P. 22: "Jesus does call us to die to ourselves. 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me' (Mark 8:34). The problem was that we had died to the wrong things. We mistakenly thought that dying to ourselves for the sake of the Gospel meant dying to self-care, to feelings of sadness, to anger, to grief, to doubt, to struggles, to our healthy dreams and desires, and to passions we had enjoyed before our marriage." So what does it mean do die to ourselves?

He says "As go the leaders." So true.

He mentions the movie, The Apostle. Loved it. Love Robert Duvall. Is Duvall a believer?

Beginning of Chapter 3, p. 49, line 3: "Contemporary discipleship models often lift up the spiritual over the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual components of who we are. Nowhere, however, does a good biblical theology allow such a division." Now wait just a second! What about these passages?
Mat 26:41
John 3:6-8
John 4:23-24
John 6:63
Rom. 2:29
Rom. 7:6
Rom. 8:1-9 (incl. v. 4)
Rom. 8:10-17
1 Cor 2:10-16
1 Cor 3:1-3
1 Cor 5:5
1 Cor 12:4-13
2 Cor 5:5-9
Gal 3:2-9
Gal 4:29
Gal 5:16-26
Gal 6:1
Eph 1:3
And then I got tired.

P. 51. I underlined the first paragraph in the section entitled "Plato in the Church". "Where did we get the idea that spiritual maturity can be achieved apart from an integration of the emotional aspects of who we are? Where did the subtle bias that places the spiritual over the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual components of who we are come from." These two sentences are artificially put together. They are not the same issue. Why is Peter throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He's bouncing between two extremes, answering one with another. He reacts to one extreme--the unhealthy splitting off of the emotional life from spirituality, and the ensuing disastrous fallout--with another extreme--the unhealthy non-subjugation of body and soul (which includes mind and emotions) to the spirit. You can put spirit over body and soul in a healthy way, without denying the body and soul. Sheesh!

P. 52: "The only problem is that we are more than spiritual beings." Agreed. Absolutely. Amen. However, acknowledgement of this vital truth is light years different from failing to put spirt over body/soul.

That glaring hole in Codex Vaticanus

2008-12-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

So go here and tell me Mark 16:9-20 wasn't blotted out.
Dan Wallace says there's not enough room for it in the space, but I disagree. (Maybe he was referring to the space after Mark 16:8 in the Sinaiticus, I can't remember, but still there's quite a bit of space there.) He also says that the Western order has Mark last among the Gospels, which formed their own unit, so it's quite logical that the space would be there since you would start another unit on its own page. Then how do you explain Luke starting at the upper left? I think he's reaching.

Anyway, Burgon is kicking butt in my opinion, in his The Last 12 Verses of Mark.

Just got a kick out of the following marginal note, found, ironically, in the Vaticanus, at Heb. 1:3: ""Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!" Yeah, can't you keep from erasing 12 verses?

And I really love the duplicity of this image. Notice they didn't mention that the next column to the right was left completely blank, unlike any other column in the Vaticanus. Why did they show this image and not the above-mentioned one.

What fellowship has light with darkness?

2008-11-20T09:50:00.000-08:00

Christian Churches Together is such a false fellowship.

And why is the superset of my church a part of this?

And this is the spin that Rome puts on things

2008-11-10T10:56:00.001-08:00

Ever arrogant, stepping in and claiming the prize where others labored, Rome thinks it evangelized Germany. Here's her spin on "Saint" Boniface, from EWTN:
"Isolated missionary groups had penetrated central Germany in earlier times, but not until the eighth century was there a systematic effort to Christianize the vast pagan wilderness."

Let me translate that sentence: "The Culdees under the rule of Columbanus of Iona had systematically penetrated central Germany in earlier times and planted churches free of Rome's corrupting influence, but not until the eight century was there a systematic effort to Romanize the vast newly Christianized region."

I think I interpolated a little bit. Sorry. Those poor Culdees probably didn't have the proper Vulgate, either.

I think Jesus put it more succinctly: "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." (Matt. 13:32) The tree in this parable is not a good thing. Birds are not good things. They steal the Word. Mustard seeds are supposed to grow into mustard plants, not trees.

Jesus also put it like this: "But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way." (Matt. 13:25). So whose fault is it? We must not sleep.

J. A. Wylie's History Of The Scottish Nation

2008-11-10T10:46:00.000-08:00

I'm going to read this. Already read about the Culdees' work in France, noted in the previous post. Fascinating.

So Cahill's book should really be titled, "How the Scots Saved Civilization."

This is how you evangelize

2008-11-06T13:31:00.000-08:00

The Scots (aka the Irish) did it right.

Man, Rome really sucks! She'll get hers soon.

An adjustment, perhaps

2008-11-03T15:02:00.000-08:00

Just started to listen to Harold Chase of Minnesota Valley Baptist Church. He's making a good, but naturalistic, case for the Majority Text as opposed to the Textus Receptus, which is close. He cited 15-20 places where they differ, including the big one--1 John 5:7. Not even Burgon thinks 1 John 5:7 is genuine. I think he said it's not even in any of the versions (syriac, old latin, etc.), but that may have been another verse.

The same basic overarching philosophical considerations that make the TR position attractive also make the MT position attractive. As long as one gives due weight to the Versions and the early Church Teachers. But it seems the MT position avoids wild-eyed fundamentalism.

WWDJWBD?

I hit the jackpot in audio sermons.

Mark 16:9-20 are in Codices Alexandrinus and Washingtonensis

2008-10-27T13:34:00.001-07:00

Codex Alexandrinus is a 5th century uncial manuscript, discovered in 1627, 16 years after the publication of the KJV. It contains Mark 16:9-20.

Codex Washingtonensis is a 4th/5th century uncial manuscript. It contains Mark 16:9-20.

So when people tell you that the oldest and best manuscripts (i.e., Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) don't contain Mark 16:9-20, they're overstating their case.

Plus, the Peshitta (Syriac) and other old translations (e.g., Coptic, Georgian, Old Latin) have it.

Spurgeon: "Our Protestantism must protest perpetually"

2008-10-22T16:06:00.000-07:00

This is from The Spurgeon Archive:

Essence of lies, and quintessence of blasphemy, as the religion of Rome is, it nevertheless fascinates a certain order of Protestants, of whom we fear it may be truly said that "they have received a strong delusion to believe a lie, that they may be damned." Seeing that it is so, it becomes all who would preserve their fellow-immortals from destruction to be plain and earnest in their warnings. Not in a party-spirit, but for truth's sake, our Protestantism must protest perpetually. Dignitaries of the papal confederacy are just now very prominent in benevolent movements, and we may be sure that they have ends to serve other than those which strike the public eye. A priest lives only for his church; he may profess to have other objects, but this is a mere blind. Our ancient enemies have small belief in our common sense if they imagine that we shall ever be able to trust them, after having so often beheld the depths of Jesuitical cunning and duplicity. The sooner we let certain Archbishops and Cardinals know that we are aware of their designs, and will in nothing co-operate with them, the better for us and our country. Of course, we shall be howled at as bigots, but we can afford to smile at that cry, when it comes from the church which invented the Inquisition. "No peace with Rome" is the motto of reason as well as of religion.

Just How Influential are Wescott and Hort Today?

2008-10-15T13:55:00.000-07:00

Dr. James White says the current critical text, Nestle-Aland 27th Edition/UBS 4th Edition, fixes many of the errors and excesses of Wescott & Hort's critical text. Doesn't D.A. Carson admit that the current critical text is based on W&H's critical text? Or was it Metzger speaking of a previous (but similar) text?

Scrivener's Attitude

2008-10-12T21:34:00.000-07:00

From here:
Scrivener:

The Church of Christ ... has had her faults, many and grievous, but she never did nor shall fail in her duty as a faithful 'witness and keeper of Holy Writ.' 43

God's Providence has kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His Church and people.44

This might be my attitude in the whole thing.

I Just Bought a King James Bible

2008-09-26T10:39:00.000-07:00

The Defined King James Bible, to be precise.

Guess that makes me King James Only.

I'd rather be King James Only than Wescott & Hort Only.

Dr. Ian Paisley on the KJV

2008-09-26T10:10:00.000-07:00

"What is the use of God verbally inspiring the Bible if He did not preserve it verbally for all generations?" So asks Dr. Ian Paisley.

Bart Ehrman asked the same question, I believe in Misquoting Jesus.

This is the question Dr. James White, Dr. Dan Wallace, (the late) Dr. Gene Scott, and all people who hold to verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture (as I do), must answer. "What we have is good enough," is what Dan Wallace said in his recent debate with Bart Ehrman. Is it?

Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Novum Testamentum Graece

2008-09-25T08:50:00.000-07:00

So, what's a Roman Catholic Jesuit Cardinal (Martini) doing on the team of editors? Why should Protestants accept any translation based on this Greek Text? And most of the popular English versions are based on it or its predecessor.

Am I flirting with the Genetic Fallacy, or with Argumentum ad Hominem? I don't know, and I don't care. Why go to Egypt for help?

Here's the list of editors:
E. Nestle
B. Aland
K. Aland
J. Karavidopoulos
C. M. Martini: the "M." stands for Maria.

Textus Receptus, Ben Chayyim Masoretic, and King James Bible

2008-09-18T10:49:00.000-07:00

If I end up holding to the idea that God perfectly preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus Greek and the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic texts, then the following observation is quite compelling:

People, even Fundamentalists, substitute God's "Word" for His Words, when they talk about the Scriptures, and their preservation for His Saints. By this they mean, not the exact words, but close enough: the thoughts, ideas, concepts, revelation, communication, message.

How do I know what His Word is if I don't know His exact words?

Emergent Church incoherence is the end result. "The Virgin Birth just has to be true, whether it happened or not."

Either that or Bart Ehrman. One of his major complaints, voiced in Misquoting Jesus, is this: What's the point of God plenarily inspiring Scripture--where every single word is exactly what God said, and nothing is left out--if it's no longer available to us? What kind of God would hide it from 2000 years of the Church, only to be made available by the heroic restoration efforts of 20th and 21st century ivory tower NT Textual Critics? (And even they have practically given up on finding the exact words.)

Dr. James White told a KJVO caller to the Bible Answer Man broadcast that he ought not to replace truth with certainty. Wow! From James White's own lips. Tony Jones couldn't have said it better. I actually resonate with this truth, as long as the certainty you're talking about is a kind of scientific Aristotelian Evidentialist certainty, and I think that's how James White meant it. I just find it interesting, since usually James White is all about the exact meaning of words and phrases in the Scriptures, in his debates with Catholics, Mormons, JW's, Muslims, etc.

But if you've settled in your mind that the TR and the Ben Chayyim are God's exact words, then you have a certain kind of certainty, based on faith that what God said is true. Sounds circular, but bear with me. There are many places in Scripture that people use to prove God promised He'd preserve His word, not just in a cave somewhere, but in a form available to his catholic Church. Psalm 12:6-7 and Matthew 5:18 come to mind. If you can show that these Scriptures speak of Preservation, in all textual variants including the corrupt ones, then you can logically conclude that, well, the one that has been most widely available must be the incorrupt one God promised to preserve.

The Authorized Version, or King James Bible, is the most printed book in history. The New Testament part of it is based on the Textus Receptus, which is based on the Majority Texts, i.e., the most abundantly copied species of all extant manuscript variants.

This is presuppositionalism. Waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, barks like a duck--must be a duck.

Now, do the variants matter, doctrinally? Dr. D.A. Waite, a TR/Ben Chayyim (and, derivatively, KJV) advocate, says there are about 350 variants that have doctrinal implications. I must check into these.

Roman Catholicism's Unholy Trinity

2008-09-02T22:32:00.000-07:00

More and more as I listen to the local RCC radio station, I'm realizing that Roman Catholicism really has an unholy trinity, effectively speaking. Functionally, they have replaced The Real Holy Father with their counterfeit holy father they call The Pope. They have replaced Jesus the Son with a piece of bread. Actually over a trillion pieces of bread and counting. They have replaced the Holy Spirit with the so-called all-holy mother of god.

Actually, the correspondence isn't perfect. It isn't a perfect "one-to-one" and "onto" mapping, since Mary supposedly performs a lot of the things Jesus really does--like be our advocate and intercede for us. And their unholy father, in concert with the magisterium (and all the magisterial documents and Tradition thrown in), supposedly performs the function of interpreting the Scriptures for us, teaching us, and guiding us into all truth, which is actually the role the Scriptures give to the Holy Spirit. But they seem to form a group performing their own unholy perichoresis.

Actually I left one out--our other mother, the Church. But wait, I thought Mary was our mother. I'm confused. Catholics have two mommies? But maybe this concept could be folded into the pope.

Listen to Catholic Radio and tell me it's not so. All the time they spend on devotion to "our lady", on devotion to "the blessed sacrament", all the hoopla over "the holy father's" visit to Australia last month. I grew up Catholic, but it still blows my mind that they sit or kneel before a box and worship all those round wafers, thinking each one is Jesus. Unbelievable (and I mean that)!

N.T. Wright on Justfication

2008-07-14T11:04:00.000-07:00

This is what he says (in The Shape of Justification): "By 'the gospel' Paul does not mean 'justification by faith' itself. He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message, to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith itself is a second-order doctrine: to believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Rom. 5.1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table-fellowship without distinction with all other believers (Gal. 2.11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith (this, I think, is what Newman thought Protestants believed), but by believing in Jesus." (emphasis his)

This is what Paul says (in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8): "1. Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2. and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 3. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4. that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5. and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."

Wright calls Justification by Faith a "second-order doctrine." He must have missed the three little words Paul used in 1 Cor 15:3--"for our sins"--which Paul included under that which is "of first importance."

I don't think N.T. Wright handled God's word correctly here.

Bert Waggoner on Hope

2008-07-10T11:23:00.000-07:00

Berten Wagonner, head of The Vineyard USA, said, "...What is our object of hope? The eschatological community." (In Building a Community of Hope in a Despairing World).

What does he mean by this? I'll read on, but my guard is up. Where is Scripture? Where is God? I smell the worship of the Church which you find rampant in the big ecclesiastical organizations.

He then says, "the ultimate goal of history in the eschatological future is the revealing of God’s eschatological community at the consummation of the age (Revelation 21)." But Ephesians 1 says, "9. He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10. with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth...". How about 1 Cor. 15:28: "When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." Who is the primary object of our hope here?

Okay, later on he says, this: "The primary sign of the Kingdom, other than the coming of the Messiah, is the community of God." So at least he's putting Jesus in. But the message is a bit confused. Who gets the glory? In whom do we hope?

Preach the Word

2008-06-12T18:03:00.000-07:00

I just added a Shared Item--part 4 of a series of articles by Sam Storms, entitled "Why We’re Not Emergent (by two guys who should be)". This part is about the Emergent disdain for preaching.

I'm liking this guy.

Libertarian Free Will

2008-06-05T13:20:00.000-07:00

Was Frank Avenell right?
Was Joel Kleinbaum right?

Abraham faithed God and it was credited to him as righteousness

2008-06-02T13:04:00.000-07:00

For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." (Romans 4:3).

I have much to owe to Dr. Gene Scott for my understanding of the word 'faith'. However, my thinking has undergone a MAJOR SHIFT in the last 2 weeks, thanks in no small part to the unintended effect of the comments of one John Volkoff, a contributor to alt.fan.gene-scott. Dr. Scott unwaveringly taught and preached that the Greek word pisteuo, usually translated 'to believe', means Action based upon Belief, supported by Confidence. He called this the ABC's of faith, and coined a new verb for the English language--to faithe--since he saw that 'to believe' is too weak a term to translate pisteuo. However, John Volkoff, apparently someone with a reformed perspective, countered this understanding on the above-mentioned newsgroup by stating that pisteuo only refers to the BC part: Belief supported by Confidence. The Action, though always connected, is logically distinct. And we are justified by faith, which is just belief/confidence, not by something involving action.

This must have been brewing in my soul, since I took it on to study, with great importance. Remembering what Dr. Scott said about the way you understand what New Testament Greek words mean, I went to the Septuagint. Dr. Scott taught that pisteuo, or a derivative of the word, is a translation in the Septuagint of three Hebrew words: chacah (pronounced khaw-saw' with a hard 'h'), batach (pronounced baw-tach'), and 'aman (pronounced aw-man'). (Just an aside, there are at least two variants of 'aman--'emuwn and 'emuwnah--which are also relevant.) chacah means to run to a shelter, batach means to lean on a staff, and 'aman means to have the firm fixed state of mind and heart that would automatically do the two former actions. So based on this, Dr. Scott said that faith was action.

However, I looked at (what I hope are) all of the occurrences of these words in the Hebrew, and cross-referenced what they were translated to in the Septuagint and was shocked at what I found. chacah and batach, the action words, were always translated either into peitho or elpizo (in some form), and never into a form of pistis, pisteuo, or pistos. In the 100 or so occurrences or so that I found (using StudyLight.org's Interlinear Study Bible), 'aman the inner state word, was almost always translated pistis, or pisteuo, or pistos. Only once was it translated peitho (Prov. 26:25). 'emuwnah was often translated a form of pistis or pisteuo, or a form of alethia, meaning truth or truthfulness. So the upshot is that the Greek word for faith, by which we are justified, is never a translation of the Hebrew action words, only of 'aman, which is the fixed settled confidence. And forgetting that one in a hundred exception, the two categories are, logically speaking, mutually exclusive, so that one may conclude that the hebrew 'aman only translates to pistis/pisteou/pistos, and batach and chacah only translate to peitho or elpizo.

The implications of this are monumentous for me. Up until now I've believed (pun unintended, but oddly relevant) Gene Scott's explanation of the terms, but now I must beg to differ. I understand now that we're justified by 'aman, what Norman Grubb refers to as the fixed inner witness.

Now, real faith will produce all sorts of actions (see Hebrews 11, which is, as Dr. Scott always said, the only Chapter in the Bible where God eulogizes man), and is proved by them. But it precedes these actions, and is not these actions.

Justification

2008-05-09T11:07:00.000-07:00

The Father imputed Christ's righteousness to me.

I have no righteousness of my own. All the good works God has for me to do flow after this imputation.

Today, after feeling undone (Isaiah 6:5) that I was unable to witness to my family, I then re-recognized that Jesus's righteousness is mine, all of it, on the basis of His completed work on the Cross.

Thanks, James White, for the exhortation.

Reformed Theology Implications

2008-05-04T15:52:00.000-07:00

Just preach the Word. Don't rely on church growth experts. Thanks, James White, for the insight. Barna may have some great statistics, but don't let them detract you from preaching the word, even the offensive stuff.

"No one is able to come to me unless the Father draws him," says Jesus.
John 6 is full of offensive statements. Just the day before, 10,000 adults (who had just been miraculously fed) wanted to make Jesus king. He was sitting on top of the world. What potential! God could use that. Why did he have to put people off like this: "You are of your father, the Devil." It's almost as though Jesus is sabotaging His own ministry. Many a psychologizer would try to prevent Jesus from pruning like He did.

But Jesus came to do the will of the Father. John 6:37-40 "37. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
John 6:63-65: "63. It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64. But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65. And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Another logic tidbit, v. 37 is the sufficient clause, v. 44 is the necessary clause. In other words, it is necessary and sufficient that the Father draw one, in order for that one to become a faither, i.e., to come to Jesus.

James White vs. Steve Gregg Debate

2008-04-18T13:54:00.000-07:00

I just listened to the debate between James White and Steve Gregg. Very interesting. I've been on a yearlong assignment to figure out Calvinism, and this debate is pushing me closer to Calvinism. Weird--I've never been a fan of Calvin. Anyway, James White had the more cogent presentation. All Steve Gregg could offer was why each Calvinist proof-text didn't really mean what the Calvinist thought it means, in a disjointed one-off fashion (at least much more so than James White). Admittedly, one must analyze individual verses, but Steve offered no complete picture of an Arminian viewpoint.

On Day 4 all Purgatory broke loose as Steve got childish during the Q&A section. It got ugly and tense, as Steve kept interrupting James, when James was trying to give complete answers to the questions. Finally James had to regroup as he realized he wasn't interacting with a mature, friendly, debate opponent.

I guess Steve thought he'd like to see how James White would like the tables turned on him, and let someone dominate him. This became clear as someone posted some childish nonsense on Steve Gregg's forum about how James White played a heavy hand against Tim Staples back in their debate about the Papacy in 2000. Well, the two situations were different. In 2000, Tim Staples demonstrated he couldn't follow the agreed-upon rules of the debate (e.g., using the Q&A time to make rambling commentary) and it was only after a long time of enduring this nonsense that James White decided he'd had enough and locked Tim down for a little while with short yes-or-no questions. This was not the case prior to the mess on Day 4. The format was more casual, not adversarial: there was no need to be a stickler for debate rules; one could be a little loose. But when Steve asked James some questions that required time to answer, he didn't give James the required time.

Seems that in this age, people are always interrupting. For heaven's sake, at my work people talk at the same time others are talking--and this is in a two-way conversation! And you know it's really bad when people who interrupt you get interrupted. Our society is childish in this regard. We need to be quick to hear and slow to speak.

And another thing: James White is constantly being critized for dominating, or being mean, when actually he just thinks he's right and wants others to benefit from his insight. When you have good confidence that you're right, you shouldn't be tentative. Just state it. There should be no fear of being called arrogant. I guess there are too many arrogant people who are wrong and come off as though they were right, so others are turned off. But it may be equally true that many people are afraid of taking a stand and letting the world know about it. Be right (i.e., do your homework!) and don't be ashamed of it!

I wanted to post this on Steve Gregg's forum, but I was unable to register (apparently it thought I was a spambot. Weren't they Jamie Sommer's adversaries?). Oh well.

Resist Antichrist, who has landed in America

2008-04-16T17:08:00.000-07:00

We have only one Holy Father:
Isaiah 6:3 ESV And one called to another and said: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!
John 17:11 ESV And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

Only the Son is the head of the Church:
Ephesians 1:22 ESV And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,
Ephesians 4:15 ESV Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
Ephesians 5:23 ESV For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Colossians 1:18 ESV And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Colossians 2:19 ESV and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

Only the Holy Spirit can be in the place of Christ:
John 14:26 ESV But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Where the true power lies

2008-04-02T09:04:00.000-07:00

"It is written..."
"It is written..."
"It is written..."

Know scripture! Put it in your head. Live it out.

Annihilation or Conscious Eternal Torment?

2008-03-21T13:58:00.000-07:00

Okay, I'm tackling this one now. Sort of kept it on the back burner (ha ha) for a while, but I can't anymore. So I'm reading this article by Steve Scianni. I also bought a book by Greg Boyd on this topic. I need to find good works by the other side.

This may take a while to sort out. But this morning I was struck by how few Scripture verses (at least according to my Thompson Chain Reference NIV) there were to support the everlasting torment theory, and they seemed sort of flimsy, at least more flimsy than should be required to develop a whole doctrine out of.

Sola Scriptura, and let the chips fall where they may!

Hurry up and call me Patrick!

2008-03-21T10:44:00.001-07:00

We need another Patrick. Someone who's right on the money doctrinally, but doesn't get all stuck in cultural forms. An earthy person who moves in real Holy Spirit power and is able thereby to confront our enemies (see Eph. 6).

Here is Patrick's prayer (called the "Lorica", or "Patrick's Breastplate") (from Wikipedia):

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through the faith in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation.

I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with his baptism,
Through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial,
Through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension,
Through the strength of his descent for the judgment of Doom.

I arise today
Through the strength of the love of Cherubim,
In obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In prayers of patriarchs,
In predictions of prophets,
In preaching of apostles,
In faith of confessors,
In innocence of holy virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.

I arise today
Through the strength of heaven:
Light of sun,
Radiance of moon,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of wind,
Depth of sea,
Stability of earth,
Firmness of rock.

I arise today
Through God's strength to pilot me:
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's way to lie before me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in multitude.

I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul.

Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness,
Of the Creator of Creation.

...whether it happened or not.

2008-03-21T10:36:00.000-07:00

The previous post really is the Emergent mantra. How do I know? I was listening to another Emergent Podcast the other day, and the speaker, Phyllis Tickle, once again spoke the mantra. It was only later that I realized that the first time I heard it was from Diana Butler-Bass, not Phyllis Tickle. They're all saying it now.

Who are they trying to fool?

The Postmodern Creed

2008-03-07T09:41:00.000-08:00

"I believe in the Virgin Birth. It's so beautiful, it just has to be true, whether it happened or not."

Diana Butler-Bass, in her address to the Emergent Mainline conference in 2007, spoke of a meeting at an Episcopal church in Atlanta that turned into a pro-Virgin-birth / anti-Virgin-birth brawl. In the middle of the brawl, a 17-year-old kid utters this postmodern creed, and to Butler-Bass, this instantly launches him into Emergent stardom.

This is precisely why I will never be Emergent. More and more, it seems to me that Emergent and Postmodernism is built on this kind of non-logic, no-accountability, fudge-factor world view that forever tries to juxtapose the irreconcilable. It will never believe anything, never understand anything, never build anything. It only has the capacity to get away with things, mostly mischief.

Hats off to Mark Driscoll

2008-03-03T09:11:00.000-08:00

What Adam and Eve should have said to the serpent was: "This conversation is over!"

"If they knock on your door, you already gave

2008-02-29T12:06:00.000-08:00

... You don't need no more of what's ailin' ya." -- Lenny Kravitz

I was over at an Eastern Orthodox forum, and I was astounded at the volume of guilty conscience. Guilt ridden people, led by a theology that says you might as well play it safe with God and confess confess confess. A theology that says that in the end you don't know if you're going to be saved, so do all you can. It's sad.

My hope: God made me alive in Christ. I who was once an enemy of God, who was dead in trespasses and sins, have been made alive in Christ, and I have been seated in heavenly places with Him. I have the Spirit of Sonship, a guarantee of my inheritance, by which I cry, "Abba, Father!"

My foundation: The finished work of Christ on the cross, and God's vindication of Him by raising Him from the tomb after 3 days. Christ bore God's wrath, so I wouldn't have to. (Lose this at your peril, Eastern Orthodox and Emergents....) Now by faith I am connected with God and His life flows through me.

So exhort me, but don't make me go to confession before communion.

Less filling! ... Tastes great!

2008-02-25T11:10:00.000-08:00

Which is more important? Preaching the Gospel or Spreading the Kingdom?

This is a trick question, since it's not really either/or. Part of spreading the kingdom is preaching the Gospel (with words, Francis). The other part is stuff like physical healing, mental healing, and social healing. Oh, and exorcisms.

But I maintain that the Spiritual aspect of spreading the kingdom is more important than the physical aspect. In John 6, Jesus miraculously fed about 20,000 people, in a physical act of the Kingdom of God breaking into this world. However, the very next day, he said stuff like the following (vv. 26-29):

"Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.' Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'

And then during the rest of the often spiky interchange between Jesus and the people, narrated in chapter 6, Jesus continued to drive home how much more important the spiritual aspect is than the physical. "The flesh profits nothing."

Here's another thing: the people had all benefited from a tremendous miracle, and the very next day they asked Jesus for a sign! What gall! A wise man, Jay Carty, once preached that miracles are like Chinese food. You're hungry two hours later.

Here's a disclaimer: I'm big on physical outworkings of the power of God. I'm a member of a Vineyard Church, and one of my biggest peeves is Cessationism. What an abomination!

It's not: 100% effort to one and 0% to the other. I don't know if I'd even put percentages on it, because the two are inextricably linked.

Pilate Was Postmodern

2008-02-20T13:38:00.000-08:00

"For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world – to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice." -- Jesus

"What is truth?" -- Pilate

Emergent is really starting to trouble me

2008-02-20T11:40:00.000-08:00

Tony Jones, as a youth pastor, introduced his kids to the labyrinth, which is some ascetic practice.

So instead of giving them the Gospel, the power of God to salvation, he gives them this poison. Nice going, Tony.

Evangelicals and Catholics Apart

2008-02-14T13:07:00.001-08:00

This is very sad. Why, oh why, James did you do it? What got into your head? You of all people! What a betrayal!

On the one hand, in _Evangelicals & Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission_, you said, “. . . Roman teaching obscures the gospel and indeed distorts it in a tragically anti-spiritual and unpastoral manner . . .”
And, “Rome’s official doctrinal disorders, particularly on justification, merit, and the Mass-sacrifice, so obscure the gospel that were I, as a gesture of unity, invited to mass_which of course as a Protestant I am not, nor shall be_I would not feel free to accept the invitation.”
But then on the other hand, to justify your fellowship with darkness, you downplay the importance of the Justification issue, calling it "domestic differences about salvation". What is this all about? Did Paul have domestic differences with the Judaizers about salvation? No! In Galatians 1:8-9, he anathematized them, twice: "8. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9. As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" He had no common mission with them.

Then you said, in 1996:

Can conservative Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics of mainstream type join together in bearing witness to all that I have spoken of? I urge that we can, despite our known and continuing differences about the specifics of the salvation process and the place of the church in that process. . . . To be sure, fundamentalists within our three traditions are unlikely to join us in this, for it is the way of fundamentalists to follow the path of contentious orthodoxy, as if the mercy of God in Christ automatically rests on persons who are notionally correct and is just as automatically withheld from those who fall short of notional correctness on any point of substance. But this concept of, in effect, justification, not of works, but of words_words, that is, of notional soundness and precision_is near to being a cultic heresy in its own right and need not detain us further now, however much we may regret the fact that some in all our traditions are bogged down in it.

As if true evangelicals only believed in intellectual assent. James, you would criticize the Apostle Paul for being contentious. You would say to him: "Now Paul, let's not get carried away. Can't we just reason with the Judaizers, and find common ground with them? After all, we and they stand against this brutal Roman Empire, so why not stand together and thus be stronger. Let's put aside our domestic differences."

James, what were you thinking?? Why do you call it domestic differences? Haven't you read what Paul said, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14).

Thank you, Richard Bennett and your website, Berean Beacon (sermon entitled, Apostasy of New Evangelicals), for your faithful witness for the truth.

More J.P. Moreland musings

2008-01-16T15:48:00.000-08:00

From J.P. Moreland's answer to comments on the CT blog on his ETS paper, "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It":
"Does anyone seriously think that non-Christians who have never seen a Bible have no knowledge of God or the moral law?"

Which moral law?

Knowledge gained from archaeological digs is in now way the same as the knowledge of how to be saved. Archaeology (or whatever hard experimental science) will only give you interesting facts. The framework in which they are put comes from somewhere else. You won't get this framework experimentally. Neither will you get a salvation framework experimentally.

...he grounds Christian engagement on natural theology and moral law...

2008-01-03T15:16:00.000-08:00

Why is this a good thing, J. P.?

In his paper written for the ETS, "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It," Moreland is opening the door for other ultimate authorities.

You really want to bank on calling extra-biblical hypotheses about angels and demons "knowledge"? What's the basis for such knowledge? Why would you have confidence in it? We're talking scary entities here, and you want to use a different map that what God graciously provided for us. Please stick with Scripture! There's plenty of guidance there (by this I don't mean Words of Knowledge, etc., are out).

Moreland continues: "Yea, verily, and amen! Since the spiritual realm is real, one should be able to learn about it in appropriate ways outside the biblical text." You don't see the gaping hole here? Satan is the great deceiver. He can make anything look good and consistent if you go outside the protection of God's word. What's next--a scientific study of enneagrams and tarot cards? I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, but you seem to be over eager to get there. Have a care!

I realize I've said contradictory things here, but hey, it's my blog! And I'm working through what he said and refining what I think. Moreland says the problem is an over-commitment to the Scriptures, but if people were really committed to God's Word, they wouldn't park their brains at the door. I believe the problem lies elsewhere. The thing which stunts people's growth is a commitment to someone's interpretation of Scripture. If, for example, MacArthur or Warfield look askance at the miraculous gifts, I go to scripture (to which I am committed) and find that their views on the subject are not in line with Scripture. (I must say that I applaud Moreland's commitment to signs and wonders.)

As a scientist, I look at Science with a grain of salt. And this is with physical realities. Spiritual realities are much harder to pin down empirically, so the grain turns into a large boulder. But regarding the faithfulness of Scripture: Thy Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

Faith is Necessary and Sufficient

2008-01-02T16:16:00.001-08:00

This is one of the reasons why I subscribe to faith-alone:

Hebrews 11:6 says that faith is necessary: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Romans 14:23b says that faith is sufficient: "and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

Incarnation and Redemption

2007-12-19T11:10:00.001-08:00

Just heard on "Our Life in Christ", an Eastern Orthodox podcast, the following quote, "The Incarnation changes everything."

In OT typology, the servant could go free after, I believe, 7 years of service. However, if he marries and has children during that time, he can't take them with him when he goes. If he wants to be with them, he must stay as a servant. This is a picture of Christ who came into the world and purchased a family for himself (the Church). He could have lived the perfect life and not endured the Cross and gone home, and he wouldn't have known the pain of separation from God. But He didn't. He shed His blood for us, and in so doing paid the price for our ransom. Paul makes much of the Cross. Probably more than he does of the Incarnation.

"Our Life in Christ" is big on Incarnational, Sacramental theology, where, since God became Matter (not to mention also becoming Man), Matter now has a new meaning, or at least a new potential meaning. (In the East, this leads to icons and prayer ropes, and in the West it leads to Rosaries and Scapulars, but this is beside the point.)

They're big on some of the essentials of the faith--Trinitarian Theology and Christology--for which we thank God. But where is Soteriology? Seems to take a back seat, much like it did in the early Church until Augustine (who, as it seems to me, never really hit it big in the East).

I must conclude that the above quote misses the mark. The Incarnation only changes at most half of everything. Redemption changes the other half.

More On James

2007-12-17T12:27:00.000-08:00

Last week I was listening to Mitch Pacwa, a Roman Catholic priest and a Jesuit, on a podcast of his call-in radio program. Someone called up about faith or the letter of James. I forget what exactly Pacwa said about it, but it was the typical Catholic answer to salvation by faith alone. Now I remember. Pacwa took issue with Luther, who explicitly added the word 'alone' when he translated. This was meant to show that Luther was dishonest in his translation of Scripture. (Not to mention that many modern translations, NIV included, are concept-for-concept, not word-for-word, so I'm not sure why Pacwa takes issue, unless he wants to find another chance to swipe at the Great Reformer.) Luther indeed added the word 'alone' in his German translation of Paul's Letter to the Romans, chapter 3, verse 28, which in the ESV reads, "28. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Luther put the word 'alone' after the word 'faith', and Catholics rail against him for that.

My question is, "What part of 'apart from' do you not understand?" What part of "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness," (Romans 4:2-3), don't you understand?

Whenever the topic of Salvation by grace alone through faith alone is brought up with a Catholic, set your watchclock and take bets on how many seconds the discussion will get to James chapter 2, where he says, in contradiction to Paul, that man is justified by works. They place a ton of weight on this little letter as though it should drive the doctrine. Even if one took the letter as Scripture (let's get this clear--I don't, along with the early church up to the end of the 3rd century, and along with Luther), you have whole didactic chapters in multiple letters of Paul showing how you are justified through faith, and this stuff is never contradicted by the likes of, say, John and Jesus. So it would be the tail wagging the dog to say that, because of the Letter of James, you're really not justified by faith alone. The speed with which one goes to the letter of James (or to the Catholic mistranslation of Galatians 5:6--it's not "faith formed by love," but "faith expressing itself in love") smells fishy to me.
The sola-fide deniers claim to go with "the whole counsel of God", as though holding two contradictory truths together is a good habit of reason. Ever since James, people obstinately resist the Great News that we're justified by Grace Alone through Faith Alone.

How I Know the Whole System is Wrong

2007-12-07T11:33:00.000-08:00

I was listening to an mp3 of a Bible Answer Man radio program from around 1996 (#471 on James White's website: http://www.aomin.org/). They talked a bit about sola fide, and Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples threw in something from Romans 2 to justify (pardon the pun) the idea that you have to continue to do right in order to get eternal life (I think he was referring to Romans 2:6-7 "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;"). He took this out of context. Clearly, Romans 3 talks of another righteousness, another way to be right with God. Romans 3:21-22 says: "But now a righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it, a righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe...."

Later that week, when James White and Tim Staples debated sola scriptura (or maybe it was 4 years later, when they debated papal infallibility, #487 on James White's website), during Q&A, someone asked Tim Staples, roughly, "What is the Gospel? And what must I do to be saved?" Staples replied to the first question that the Gospel is all that Jesus commands us, through the Church. He replied to the second question that we must give full intellectual and willful assent to all that the Church teaches.

That's not what the Bible says. In answer to the question, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus said, in John 6:29,40 "29. The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.... 40. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Paul and Silas said, in Acts 16:31: "And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Eastern Orthodoxy Ain't All That

2007-11-28T16:20:00.001-08:00

Finally, I've found somebody saying what needs to be said to the Orthodox.
They come in with their pride and their arrogant assertion (much more soft-
spoken than the Roman Catholics, but every bit as hardened) that they are
the One True Church.

Thank you, William Webster.

Love Formed by Faith

2007-11-26T13:49:00.000-08:00

Roman Catholics and others who deny Sola Fide often misquote Galatians 5:6 ("... faith expressing itself through love.") as "faith formed by love." They have it backwards. Love is the fruit of the Spirit.

Ways to Worship the Creator Rather than the Creature

2007-11-01T15:18:00.000-07:00

1. Recognize that God is the source of life and we are just vessels passing it on.
2. Look to heaven and get a spiritual understanding. When tempted to go all ablather about physical blessings God gives, turn them back to Him in praise.
3. When someone says, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!" say, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"
4. When someone says, "Hoc est corpus meum," say "Christ's body is in heaven (exalted at the right hand of the Father), and on earth (in the Church), but not in a box. Besides, it was a Passover seder, loaded with symbolism, at which Jesus said it. He just changed the symbolism."
5. When someone says, "I would not have God for my Father if I didn't have the Church for my Mother," make sure they don't put the cart before the horse and say that in order to be saved you have to join the church. It's the other way around. And note the absence of Biblical didactic teaching on the supposed Motherhood of the Church.
6. Paul said to eagerly desire the expressions of the Spirit, especially to prophecy. But recognize that you can want these blessings too much, and if you're not expressing them in love, you're a clanging symbol. Desire communion with the Giver of the gifts, over the gifts.
7. Recognize that the tendency to canonize people isn't limited to the Catholics and Orthodox. It's a human failing, very present in Protestants as well. They just don't call it that.
8. Love God, not money. It's deceitful and offers a false sense of security.
9. Stick with Scripture. Councils (yes, even Nicea and Chalcedon), Magisteria, Pastors, Bishops, Priests, Movements, Commentaries, Synods, and Confessions, are *all* relative.
10. Trust God. Eat from the Tree of Life, and not from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Obey God and understand that His commands are for our life (point one of the Genesis 2:17 prohibition) and that pistis is greater than gnosis (point two).

N. T. Wright Seems to Be a Bit Off on Righteousification (dikaiosune)

2007-10-26T14:59:00.001-07:00

This is a bit disturbing. According to John Piper, N. T. Wright has it wrong on Righteousification (what some call Justification, from the Greek dikaiosune). Bummer.

Patrick and Augustine and Nestorius and Pelagius

2007-09-21T14:46:00.000-07:00

Kinda blows my mind that Nestorius took Pelagius under his protection for a while, until both were anathematized by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Up until now, I've been very sympathetic towards Nestorius, but I wonder now if he had Pelagian tendencies.

I wonder if Pelagius was actually only a semi-Pelagian.

I'm pretty sure Nestorius wasn't a Nestorian. Gotta go find his Bazaar of Heraclides.

While I'm at it, I wonder what Patrick thought of Pelagius, or if they met, or if they knew about each other.

What did Patrick think of Augustine?

Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?

2007-09-18T13:44:00.000-07:00

Still bugging me. I'm listening to the Church History podcast of Reformed Theological Seminary, and we've gotten to Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus. It seems that the "proper" interpretation of the events is that Nestorius was a heretic, because he believed in two persons in Christ, which we know because he opposed the term Theotokos (literally 'God-bearer', but translated 'Mother of God') used for Mary.

Let's get this straight: Mary is not Theotokos.

"But then you deny Christ's divinity!"

No. Calling Mary Theotokos makes her divine. I don't care how many Church Fathers used that term and had in the back of their mind the proper understanding of Mary as just a woman and of Jesus as the God-man. The blasphemy is written in the words up front. For Mary to "bear" God, she has to be the source of the material God is made out of, she has to feed God with spiritual food (since God is spirit) while nurturing Him in her spiritual womb or in her spiritual arms. Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, are all relationships of like kinds. They can only be used in that context. To say that "Mary is the Mother of God only means Jesus is simultaneously fully God and fully man," breaks this proper usage of the term. Only God could be the Mother of God.

You have a war of conundra here. One side says that to deny that Mary is the Mother of God logically leads to a denial of the Hypostatic union of divine and human natures in the one person of Christ. My side says that to affirm that Mary is the Mother of God logically (and with fewer logical steps) leads to the blasphemy that Mary is God.

By the way, I completely affirm the hypostatic union of divinity and humanity in the one person of Christ.

Here's what really bugs me. Why is there a 'term' in the first place? Since when did she come on the scene? Why is she that important that we should have epic arguments of her title? Why the pressure? Could it be that Semiramis/Aphrodite/Diana of the Ephesians/Ashtoreth/Artemis is trying to rear her ugly head and usurp the position that properly belongs to God?

The Catholic Fudge Factor.

2007-09-17T16:35:00.001-07:00

I got the following quotation from James White's website. Thank you, James, for your faithful defense of the Gospel!

As Karl Keating said in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, p. 275,

Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.

Stunning Nature Video

2007-06-29T15:25:00.001-07:00

James White posted this amazing video on his blog.

Sept. 2006 Prophecies by Kim Clement

2007-06-29T13:03:00.001-07:00

(This was originally posted on my alternate blogsite almost a year ago, but I'm moving it to here.)
Kim Clement: "GREAT FAVOR HAS BEEN GRANTED--INVESTMENTS WILL BRING BILLIONS INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD"

September 3rd, 2006 - San Jose, CA
In the Month of October...
"...I will praise with you if it is My name that is honored in this Nation. I will dance with you," says the Spirit of God, "for you will dance because the victory is coming to this Nation. In the month of October, I will vindicate you in a big way," says the Spirit of the Lord.

September 10th, 2006 - Hollywood, CA The Greatest Christmas
I just got a glimpse of one of the greatest Christmases that we are ever to have!!I just heard some of the bells, I just heard some of the Christmas songs and I said, "God, what is this all about?" He says, "I'm bringing a season upon the people that would believe it, that will end this year with an explosion of multiplication, multiplication of vision, multiplication of finance, multiplication of faith, multiplication of grace." I want you to know the Jesus that I serve is in this building and He's giving it to you! I wish you a Merry Christmas, I wish you a Merry Christmas, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! "Secrets," is coming into manifestation, and God is not going to be happy until He has full reign of this house and the people of God that are in this house, and if you believe that the greatest things in the world are going to take place in this place and in your house, then shout out yes!! "Prisoners are being set free; the orphans are being touched. This is going to be an unusual Christmas," says the Lord. And I cannot tell you everything, but it's the night of "Secrets," so I have to tell you what I know. All I can tell you is I saw God shaking a few territories again.
"And they will say, 'Why would it be a joyful occasion when there is death instead of life?'" God said, "You will not for once say, 'Death is a bad thing.'" This death that God is speaking about is a death that will bring great, great, great victory to this Nation in their minds and in their thinking.
For this is the Word of the Lord, "Terror has come to this Nation. Terrorists have dictated since 2001, the fear that people have. And the terrorists have enjoyed it, but they have never been successful to do another thing except exploitation of the peoples' minds." God said, "My people will not be corrected under this type of control. I want you to know something--there will never EVER be a successful attack in this Nation because I have seen something in the hearts of the prophetic people." "As long as the prophets stay alive, as long as the prophets declare the high praise of God, I will chain your enemies. I will chain your enemies," says the Lord. "And I will cause them to bow their knee. Listen. You say, 'What about oil?' Oil will be plentiful. We're not talking about oil."
Watch the Big E
God said, "Watch the BIG E. You must listen. For the investments will bring hundreds of millions and billions into the Kingdom of God. I'm about to reveal it to My prophets, therefore, get ready, because those that said, 'I am poor,' you will say, 'I am rich.' And those that said, 'I am weak,' you shall say, 'I am strong.'" For God says, "Watch now, watch now as I show you one of the men that have controlled the power of the internet and controlled the power of computers. I will show him something and it shall be a sign to you," says the Lord of Hosts. "PC, PC," God said, "please listen to Me: I will reveal it to him. It shall be a revelation. They shall say, 'But how can an ungodly man, not a man of God get so much truth?' You know why? Because he's the controller of the marketplace and he's made billions of dollars."
Now God said, "This is about to be shared with My people, for the wealth of the unrighteous is about to be released into the bosom of the righteous. It's already started to happen, but it's going to be done in a double portion manner, and if you want that to happen, be wise as serpents and I'll show you what to do, for it's a day of victory that's coming," says the Lord! Something is going to happen in this Nation before the end of this year that is monumental. Get ready for the acceleration of your life, for what you have seen is about to come to pass.

September 15th, 2006 - Loveland, CO
I Am Looking for a Place to Rest My FeetThis is the end of a season of mourning, fear, disaster, and setbacks. A season of great favor has entered into the universe and into the earth, and into time and into space. God has been searching for a place to rest His feet. Even as Noah sent out the dove, he could not find a place to rest his feet.
God said, "I have hovered and looked for men who would be Kingdom thinkers. I have listened to the garbage of many within religious circles discussing small things. I am searching the earth for men who will not be accustomed to small things--men and women that shall shake nations. This is what I look for. I am searching for a place to rest My feet. Great favor has been granted at this time."
Two Signs Shall I Give You
And God said, "A sign shall be this--two signs shall I give you: one shall be the death of a leader who shall rapidly deteriorate in Korea." For God said, "I will take both North and South, and make it one. Kim, your days are numbered," says the Lord. "I'm speaking of the Prime Minister of North Korea." God said, "Enough is enough. I want a sound to come," and God said, "I will do it."
"But the other shall be the stepping down of a Prime Minister of the Lion of the Nation of Great Britain. For when he does this," says the Lord, "it shall be a sign, not because he stepped down; a sign that something shall advance, something shall advance out of Great Britain.
Something shall advance," says the Spirit of God, "from the United States. And I will take them, and I will make them to be one sound and one voice, a very unusual revival, a very unusual breakthrough shall take place," says the Lord. "And there shall be an acceleration on the oil crisis and suddenly, there shall be an acceleration and discoveries shall be made one after the other."
And God said, "Your energy crisis shall slowly come to an end, for I am going to bring prosperity upon the Body of Christ and upon those who have waited, and said, 'God, I want You to lay upon me that blessing that You promised through Daniel, that blessing that You promised through Joseph, the blessing that You promised through Isaiah, and the blessing that You promised through the prophets of old." I'm standing at this day where the Kingdom of God is about to advance upon the earth.Jerusalem, I Am Watching Over You
"Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, I stand and I watch over you. And they say, 'There is no peace in Jerusalem.'" But God said, "I have placed something very powerful and something very spontaneous there that shall reach the ends of the earth." God said, "This is no small thing, and I will not be mocked by man as if to say I cannot use the soil of Zion and I cannot use the soil of Jerusalem, and I cannot move in the Middle East."
"Watch Me place the sound of Christ right in the middle of Israel, and right through them I shall bring forth a great evangelism," says the Lord. "The Lion is about to arise," and God says, "you hear what I say to you tonight, that this massive move of evangelism shall reach into your children and your grandchildren."
God said, "There is coming upon the earth an acceleration of deliverance, an acceleration of evangelism, and acceleration of the working of miracles." For God said, "The gift that is going to come to the fore, is the working of miracles." God said, "What you could not acquire shall be acquired easily. What you struggled to do, shall be done quickly and rapidly and easily," says the Lord. "Let Me tell you, I have not watched man in vain, I have looked at their hearts, and now there shall be an acceleration." "I will bring gold from Edom. I will bring oil from Edom. I will bring it from the ungodly and the unrighteous," says the Lord. "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, I am watching over you, and from there many shall see, but also," God says, "in many other portions of the earth, and the satellites shall glow, and they shall sing my praises," says the Lord. "Listen to Me, a move of the Spirit is about to take place that will do something to every family in the earth," says the Lord. "Get ready, I'm raising up the prophets and the prophetic voices throughout the earth. Rejoice, oh people of God. This is your day of acceleration!"

By Kim ClementProphetic Image Expressionshttp://www.kimclement.com/

Jesus in a box?

2007-06-01T10:43:00.001-07:00

Can you get any more idolatrous than this? How to Get the Most Out of Mass

Nestorians are alive and well (thank God).

2007-05-31T18:34:00.001-07:00

Here is an account of a visit to a Nestorian Church in India, from a monk from The Prayer Foundation.

Dig a little deeper

2007-05-17T15:31:00.001-07:00

Thank God for James White.

Here's an example of how Roman Catholics can twist the truth.

And here's an example of how to set them straight.

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

2007-05-04T11:58:00.001-07:00

The head of the Evangelical Theological Society sold out to Rome.

Here's James White's article.

For further proof, here's Jimmy Akin's article.

Things are heating up. Rome is ever so sly, but the God will get the final word.

5 Reasons Why Catholic is not Christian

2007-02-22T10:22:00.000-08:00

Got this from Ian Paisley. How can you argue against it? Why would you want to?

"Here stand I..."

Mary, So-called Mediatrix of All Graces

2007-02-08T16:35:00.000-08:00

Found this on EWTN.

Here's an excerpt:

"The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said, of Mary: '... in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.'"

Can anyone continue to deny that the Roman Catholic Church puts Mary in our face for us to worship? They can talk out of both sides of their mouths and say they don't worship her, but give me a break! And they capitalize the 'M' in mother. This is worship language.

You say Drogheda, I say 1641.

2007-02-08T13:42:00.000-08:00

Did you ever read about this in high school history?

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=deliverance7

My father he was orange and me mother she was green.

2007-02-08T13:21:00.000-08:00

I thought they were equally to blame.

I guess not.

Catholicism in the Movies

2007-02-02T09:39:00.000-08:00

I have always had the subconscious impression that the great movies are pushing a Catholic worldview. This article, by Richard A. Blake, S.J., from the Woodstock Theological Center explains it.

In an unrelated (or is it?) note, David Lynch is noted in the article as a great Catholic filmmaker. He and fellow Catholic, Charlie Sheen, are two of the first Hollywooders to "come out" in saying 9/11 was an inside job.

I-Thou

2007-01-11T13:15:00.000-08:00

I'm coming to believe that Objectivity can be a very subjective game, and that Subjectivity can be very objective, if you have the right Subject.

Bono

2006-12-27T21:46:00.000-08:00

This about sums it up for me.

Bilderbergers

2006-12-13T14:42:00.000-08:00

Here is the list of people who want to rule the world.

They should read Psalm 2, if they know what's good for them.

Rick Warren is a member of the CFR

2006-12-07T12:44:00.000-08:00

Is he a wolf in sheep's clothing? This revelation by Joseph Farah has severely soured my opinion of him.

How is this different from King Asa of Israel allying himself with Aram (which by the way is the old Biblical name for Syria), rather than trusting in God?

Rick, leave that organization!

Kim Clement

2006-12-04T15:51:00.000-08:00

Is he a prophet?

http://kimclement.com/

Will the Real Knights Hospitallers please stand up?

2006-11-29T16:29:00.000-08:00

I believe it's these guys:

http://www.knightshospitallers.org/main.htm

But really, it's anyone who carries out the spirit of the Order, which is Christian Service:

PRO FIDE, PRO UTILITATE HOMINUM
"FOR THE FAITH AND IN THE SERVICE OF HUMANITY"

Agenda 21 -- "Sustainable Development" or Human Culling?

2006-11-22T12:04:00.000-08:00

This is what the UN says: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm.

But this is what concerned people are saying:

http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/

Who's right? You decide.

Jones Report

2006-11-15T16:04:00.000-08:00

Alex Jones's news. http://jonesreport.com/

What are they doing in the woods of Monte Rio?

2006-11-14T13:01:00.000-08:00

BOHEMIAN GROVE EXPOSED!

Bob Marley: Died Christian? (The Prayer Foundation)

2006-10-17T10:02:00.000-07:00

This is cool!
Bob Marley: Died Christian? (Article on The Prayer Foundation website)

Michelle Malkin: 9/11 pledge: "I will not submit"

2006-09-16T22:56:00.000-07:00

This says "lan astaslem," which is Arabic for "I will not surrender/I will not submit." I got it from Michelle Malkin's blog.
Michelle Malkin: 9/11 pledge: "I will not submit"
Very inspiring.

By the way, what's with all the Shriners' red fez hats that have the Islamic scimitar/crescent and star? In fact, they even have the word Islam written on them. I saw a bunch of them at a 4th of July parade of all things. Well, lan astaslem.

Understanding Christ: Discourse on The Faith

2005-10-18T20:40:00.000-07:00

Here is a blog created by my Brother-in-Christ: Understanding Christ: Discourse on The Faith.

More on James

2005-10-11T13:13:00.000-07:00

And another thing about the Epistle of James: it wasn't accepted into the Scriptures until the 4th Century AD. Think about it: for 250 years there were letters and stories circulating that Christians took as their Scriptures, every bit as inspired as the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. But we have no record of anyone--Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, the Muratorian Canon, or Origen--accepting James as Scripture. Check it out at http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml. These people either shaped, or reflected the shape of, the early Church. Maybe they recognized that James and Paul don't mix.

If they didn't consider it part of Scripture, why should we?

Notes from Norman

2005-09-02T08:51:00.000-07:00

Notes from Norman: "God Only
by Norman P. Grubb

We do not find ourselves as the liberated, spontaneous new selves until we have first disappeared to reappear! We have to know ourselves - of course, by the INNER KNOWING OF THE SPIRIT, as replaced I's. It is I yet not I it is He! It really is He in place of me and yet here I still am! What a paradox! I turn up again all right, but only on the other side of a fixed conscious replacement. And it is the coming short of this replacement realization--OR INDEED OPPOSITION TO IT-- that blocks us right the way through from that TOTAL 'SEEING THROUGH' which goes on to seeing HIM ONLY, not only in the personal but in the universal."

Norman Grubb on Smoking

2005-07-26T15:24:00.000-07:00

"What about the Smoking Habit?" says it all regarding Christ being formed in us.

Notes from Norman

2005-07-26T15:21:00.000-07:00

Norman Grubb is a genius. Here's a sample.

Where has he been all my life?

Yay! Someone else had this thought, too!

2005-04-04T16:24:00.000-07:00

I thought I was the only person who had this idea. Hooray!

Terri Schiavo is Being Murdered before our Eyes

2005-03-24T16:15:00.000-08:00

And Governor Jeb Bush could stop it. Why hasn't he already done so?

If Eisenhower in 1957 could call in 1,000 paratroopers and 10,000 National Guardsmen to Little Rock to allow nine black students to enter Little Rock High School, why can't George Bush send people in to reinsert the feeding tube. Are the Bushes all talk and no action?

Michael Spencer: I Just Couldn't Look Away: The Crazed, Cranky, Captivating Christianity of Dr. Gene Scott

2005-03-11T21:25:00.000-08:00

Thanks, Michael, for a moving Eulogy.
Michael Spencer: I Just Couldn't Look Away: The Crazed, Cranky, Captivating Christianity of Dr. Gene Scott

Bob & Kelsey's Adoption

2005-03-08T20:12:00.000-08:00

May God bless my friends Bob & Kelsey and their soon-to-be-adopted baby.Bob & Kelsey's Adoption: "Rec'd Employement Verif. - notarized
Wrote Family Desc. - B & K
Ordered Birth Certs. - B & K
Ordered Marriage Cert. "

Dr. Gene Scott Went Home

2005-02-21T20:55:00.000-08:00

I feel like the Earth's pole just shifted, at 4:30 today. The man has been my teacher, and the Body of Christ has benefited from him in ways few can imagine. I'm sure he's having a great time now! Thank you, Dr. Scott, for all your years of service to us and to God. And God bless and comfort Melissa Scott.

President Bush, what are you saying??

2005-02-14T12:47:00.000-08:00

In President Bush's Second Inaugural Address, he praises "the words of the Koran" as character-building and society-building. Is this the same Koran that says to slaughter and subdue the Infidels (i.e., any non-Muslim)? The same Koran whose lone prophet was a pedophile, rapist, terrorist, etc.?

LENT - The 40 days of Weeping for Tammuz

2005-02-09T10:12:00.000-08:00

I just saw someone with ash on his forehead.

Repeat after me: "Lent is not found in the Bible."

And why does this 40 day period, which is supposed to commemorate Christ fasting and being tempted in the wilderness, culminate in the Passion/Resurrection? What happened to Jesus's other 3.5 years of ministry?

This is an excellent compilation of the stupid roots of Lent. The things we put up with...
LENT - The 40 days of Weeping for Tammuz

Ante-Nicene Fathers

2005-02-02T07:39:00.000-08:00

This moved me today:
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I: "And what had become of the disciples who were the first-fruits of the apostolic ministry? St. Paul had said, 'The same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.' How was this injunction realized? St. Peter's touching words come to mind, 'I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.' Was this endeavour successfully carried out? To these natural and pious inquiries, the Apostolic Fathers, though we have a few specimens only of their fidelity, give an emphatic reply. If the cold-hearted and critical find no charm in the simple, childlike faith which they exhibit, ennobled though it be by heroic devotion to the Master, we need not marvel. Such would probably object: 'They teach me nothing; I do not relish their multiplied citations from Scripture.' The answer is, 'If you are familiar with Scripture, you owe it largely to these primitive witnesses to its Canon and its spirit. By their testimony we detect what is spurious, and we identify what is real. Is it nothing to find that your Bible is their Bible, your faith their faith, your Saviour their Saviour, your God their God? 'Let us reflect also, that, when copies of the entire Scriptures were rare and costly, these citations were 'words fitly spoken,-apples of gold in pictures of silver.' We are taught by them also that they obeyed the apostles precept, 'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing,' etc. Thus they reflect the apostolic care that men should be raised up able to teach others also. "

Are We in The Matrix Already?

2005-01-28T16:32:00.000-08:00

I used to think Lincoln was my favorite President, but now I'm not so sure. Is everything we learned wrong?
The Greatest Presidential Reflection Since Lincoln? by Thomas DiLorenzo

Morning Star Ministries Special Bulletin #43 - The True Heroes of Liberty

2005-01-27T13:40:00.000-08:00

For those who think George Bush is stupid...

Special Bulletin #43 - The True Heroes of Liberty