<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3757314713231228019', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


Love it when an adult enters the realm of the #nevertrumpers

David Rankin
[Kevin] Williamson's hubris, hostility, hectoring, and hysteria make him an oddball dilettante. ( Or generalist, if you will. ) These traits are rarely found, certainly not as distinguishing characterisrics, in the work of personal essayists going to back to Montaigne, the inventer of the form. In the Eighteenth Century, Addison and Steele wrote elegantly and wittily about a broad range of topics. ( Williamson is to wit as a pile-driver is to a rapier. ) Victorian journals and papers regularly carried writers whose work as a whole came to be called belle-lettres. For good reasons. E. M. Forster might have been even better in the essay than in the novel. Max Beerbohn could take the mickey out of a subject without once raising his voice. ( Talk about wit! ) Nor in our own time do the best writers in the form resort to Williamon's incendiary tactics: James Agee, John McPhee, Gay Talese, Joan Didion, Malcolm Gladwell, to name a few.
Personal essayists realize that their voice is their gold. They can occasionaly be tart or even irreverent ( if done well ) but they are careful not to be off-putting. Like good conversationalists. Nor do they try, at their best, to ingratiate themselves with their readers. (Wiiliamson does that in his own way. He is a show-off. ) The personal essay is, after, a personal act between writer and reader. Going back to read attractive personal essays is not like renewing an acquaintance with an old friend but rather like seeking instruction AND diversion in a tone of voice that encourages engagement. Williamson's lack of self-knowledge is exposed when he introduces the subject of psychotherapy into his latest rant.

Ronald Sather
Williamson is hardly "hysterical" (except sometimes in the sense of "extremely funny").

If he hectors, I think it's because he cares about having a Presidential administration that would actually be better than another Democratic one (or cared - I think he's lost hope).

As for "hubris," I don't think you actually know what it means. Look it up.

David Rankin
Ronald Sather The term "hubris" has a specific meaning in Greek drama and in many subsequent literary productions almost as a stock device AND the general meaning of "arrogant." Williamson lacks the required stature to deserve the seminal meaning of the term, but more than qualifies for its more generalized usage.


9 Distinctives of the Puritans

There is some confusion among Reformed academics - theologians and church historians - as to how to define who was and who wasn't a Puritan; and whether there was any such thing as Puritans at all to begin with (some actually wonder this).

I see it this way: my observation that there is an academic approach to the faith and a spiritual warfare approach plays into this problem they have. The academic types can't see the spiritual warfare types or their approach.

The Puritans did indeed exist - in the past and today as well - and it should be added that Christians from the time of the Apostles who held these distinctives tended to be called names like 'puritan'; for instance, cathari is the Greek version of the puritan epithet, their history crazily rewritten by their murderers, like academics and popular culture today attempt to rewrite the history of the English, European, and American Puritans, if not, as mentioned, denying their existence altogether. (Look at this John Owen quote from the 1600s: “I will pass over other similar monstrous lies with the simple comment that they all pale into insignificance in comparison with the slanders that the Roman pontiffs have dreamed up against the Albigenses [Cathars], the Waldenses, and other faithful servants of Christ.” [pg. 147 of his Biblical Theology]) Here are the Puritan distinctives:

1. Bible oriented. Bible-believing, Bible-focused, Word of God valuing Christians.

2. They understood the fact and reality of supernatural regeneration by the Word and the Spirit (and overall recognized the work of the Holy Spirit Himself, especially in the foundational areas of regeneration and the preservation of the pure and whole word of God down through time, in a way that always seems to anger mainstream establishment Christianity).

3. They understood the difference between fearing the world and fearing God alone; and that when you fear God alone you don't then fear man or man's opinion of you which enables you to move in the direction of wisdom. They feared God alone.

4. They took a spiritual warfare approach to the faith. They understood and experienced the spiritual battlefield ('Faith hath a piercing eye, to see into the spiritual realm.'). For them this made biblical doctrine actual armor of God. They wanted real armor, hence they had no problem with 'hard truth' biblical doctrine (Calvinism), because it re-oriented them inwardly to being God-centered rather than man-centered or, in other words, being conformed to Christ.

5. They were practical with the faith (or "reduced to practice" the Christian faith). A soldier on a battlefield is a practical individual. Life and death is on the line constantly. For Puritans the Word of God and biblical doctrine is not merely philosophical or theoretical, but as practical as a spade, a weapon, a fox hole, or a good pair of boots. They also knew you have to practice the faith (summed up in the two great commandments of Jesus) in real time, in the traffic of one's average day, to increase understanding of the faith; i.e., to be truly conformed to the image of Christ.

6. Puritans were anti-establishment; or just by their nature outside any and all establishments. They were separated out from the world. They tend to be political targets of religious establishments and objects of mockery to the establishment.

7. Without being academic in the usual shallow ways (while still being willing to exploit any and all influences and sources of on-the-mark teaching, and being grateful for the effort to produce it, while producing it themselves as well) Puritans sought a complete understanding of the faith. They sought parts-in-relation-to-the-whole understanding of the Bible and its doctrine. They knew a Christian is to be a prophet, priest, and king (not an eternal infant in a nursery), and that the bar is raised high to be that, yet the Holy Spirit enables the Christian to meet and exceed that bar. For Puritans learning is active, and individual (we face death and our judgment, ultimately, standing solely on our own two feet).

8. They had a strong doctrine of sin and the very real wrath of God. They knew their own state. Tyndale's metaphor of the venomous snake described the Puritan understanding. We are snakes with poison in us, and we can't get the poison out of us. Only God can. And even if we don't strike with our fangs, it is nevertheless our nature to strike. So from birth, due to original and then active sin, we are by our very constitution unable to be in the Kingdom of God. It takes an act of God to change us, give us a new heart, and recognize the righteousness of Christ in us which we appropriate by faith in the life and death of Jesus Christ. In other words we can't improve ourselves enough to get into the Kingdom of God. The leopard can't change his spots. Only God can change us. And until He does, by an act of pure grace, we are children of wrath fit for the lake of fire. This stark realization Puritans came to know at an experiential level.

9. Which gets back starkly to the Bible. The word of God. Puritans knew regeneration was solely an act of God, we can't effect it. Yet the word of God, the living, quickening language of the Bible, is the wild card. God says in His Word, several times: move towards Me, and I'll move towards you. The Puritans knew we move towards God not by ritual or physical buildings, but by reading and getting understanding of the Word of God and by prayer.


I love some of the comments you see under articles

“Breitbart has no credibility outside of the most extreme conservative wing of our party."


Yeah, anyone outside of Washington D.C. globalist UniParty is "extreme" to these traitors.

In other words, Breitbart has no credibility with the D.C. political-class. And even that's a lie. They don't fear Breitbart for nothing, lol!

If Breitbart didn't have any credibility, these crap-weasel D.C. skunk-monkeys wouldn't be afraid of Breitbart.

- scott825

Martyn Lloyd-Jones

I've been reading up on Martyn Lloyd-Jones because I think he is very similar to me regarding many things of the faith. He is kind of an outcast among the mainstream too, for these reasons. So he's always been kind of off radar.

Here's one quote relevant to our times:

"A very good sign, therefore, that people are born again is that they become more acutely aware of the existence and the working of Satan than they have ever been hitherto. There is no need for Satan to busy himself very much with the unregenerate. They can be left, as it were; they are already bound; they are already in his kingdom and they cannot escape. But once people are transferred to the kingdom of God and the kingdom of light, the devil makes a new effort and in a spiritual way comes to them and attacks them. And they are aware of this other presence that is fighting for their life and for their very existence. Flesh and Spirit - the conflict is a proof of regeneration."

That's from Great Doctrines of the Bible. A sort of systematic theology.

Here is another telling quote:

"Nothing, it seems to me, is quite so strange as the way in which man by nature always objects to the doctrine of regeneration. There is nothing also, I sometimes think, that so demonstrates the depth of sin in the human heart as this objection to the doctrine of the rebirth or being born again. Read the New Testament Scriptures, and you will find that men objected to it in those days. When our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ spoke about it, He was always persecuted. People disliked Him for mentioning it. When He began to expose the depth of iniquity in the human heart and to talk about a rebirth, they invariably misunderstood Him. They disliked it then, and it has always been the same ever since. When John Wesley was truly converted, he went back to his university at Oxford and preached a sermon on this very subject; and he was hated for it. Those respectable religious people in Oxford disliked this doctrine, and they made it impossible for him to continue preaching there. The natural man, the unregenerate human heart, objected to this great and wondrous biblical doctrine of rebirth and regeneration. And it is equally true today. People sit and listen to an address or sermon on what is called the fatherhood of God or the brotherhood of man and they never object to it. When they are exhorted to live a better life, they never express any objection at all. They say that it is perfectly right, and even though they are reprimanded for not living better lives, they say that it is perfectly true and quite fair and that they could do better. But if a preacher stands before the natural man and says, “You must be born again—you must have a new life from God,”they ask, “What is this strange doctrine?” A THOUGHT TO PONDER There is nothing that so demonstrates the depth of sin in the human heart as objection to the doctrine of the rebirth." From Out of the Depths, pp. 71-72.

John Owen said something similar. The quote in the margin of my PPP blog.

I don't know everything about Jones, his eschatology, etc., so reserve the right to change my opinion...


Immortality - Boettner (rare book; at least I wasn't aware of it)

I didn't know Loraine Boettner wrote a book on death entitled Immortality. Just found that out. So I've been looking and looking for an electronic version, and it doesn't seem to exist. You can get a paperback version at Amazon, but I want the e-book version. Anyway, I did find a site or two that posted extensive sections from the book:




If you're ever contemplating death as we all do at times Boettner is his usual biblical self in bringing a lot of material together in a plain and clear style. - C.


Fox News Channel shows its new hand

For those of you who don't follow or discern such things here is the first bit of evidence the new management at Fox News Channel will take that network globally leftward.

The new management has given comic book philosopher (and Donald Trump hater) Jonah Goldberg permission (or an actual assignment) to attack Sean Hannity.

Remember, Trump and his voters (which includes myself, from the beginning) are fighting the Devil and his end time consummation movement to assert dominion over the entire planet. God is seeing who stands where. We are commanded to confront the Devil, always, everywhere. We know the end, we know the victories the Devil and his army of dhimmis will achieve; yet we also know God (and His people) have victory in the end. Personally it is not disappointing to see so many self-identified Christians taking the side of the Satanic globalist movement. That is expected and a refreshing validation of many years of attempting to show those very so-called Christians where they were falling short. I have no sympathy for the Devil or his followers. I actually have deep hatred for those who hate my God and Creator and Savior. May they reap what they deserve.

Churchianity is a false religion unto itself

A seminary professor writes this:

What moves pietism, what makes it what it is, is the quest to experience the risen Christ without the mediation of the preaching of the Word and Sacraments.

There are really three things that make churchianity dead. In this case Reformed churchianity.

1. Let's start with what is stated in the above quote. There is one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. No priest/pastor/cleric is a mediator between God and man. Churchians always want to exalt cleric and ritual above the Word and the Spirit. It is such a Romanist tendency it is almost hallucinogenic to witness that a Protestant can't see that at this point. The further two points go a ways to explain it though.

2. The Romanist fetish doctrine of infant baptism is demanded by all churchians who actually hate the doctrine and reality of supernatural regeneration by the Word and the Spirit. The Romanist churchian, in this case, will say: "God, we grant you sovereignty in creation and providence; but we are going to have to draw the line at grace. Sorry, God, but we will take care of that." OK, little churchian, you go with that. And stay spiritually dead as a door nail.

3. Demanding bibles that have the authority of God taken out of them and the authority of man (scholars) put into them. Demanding bibles that need man more than man needs the Bible. Denying the work of the Holy Spirit in shepherding and preserving the pure and whole word of God down through history. (Churchians tend to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in pretty much everything.) As long as you demand a bible that needs you (for its very 'construction') more than you need it you will never be humbled to the word of God, and thus it will never be a quickening force within you.

The cure: recognize that Christians are prophets, priests, and kings. Not eternal infants in a nursery to be lectured to by seminary graduates nine out of ten of which don't even give evidence that their balls have dropped. (And any gathering of kings will be a gathering on a battlefield. The spiritual battlefield. It is generally conceded that the Devil occupies churches as a matter of course. This is because there are no warriors of Christ to run him off.)

The cure: Regeneration is the main thing. In the depths of the horror of the Romanist tyranny the Devil called people to be baptized and experience the sacraments all day and all night, but he kept the word of God away from people upon penalty of torture and death. The Devil knows what regenerates God's elect, and it is not clerics and ritual.

The cure: read the version of the Bible you most don't want to read. Be humbled to the version of the Bible you most don't want to be humbled to. Discern resentment and pride rising up in you when a certain version of the Bible is mentioned, and engage that Bible. You know what I'm talking about.


Good article on top ten pianists of the 20th century

Can't go wrong with this list. Surprised there were names I'd never heard of. They may not have recorded much into the more modern recording era...

This probably won't help, but I'll give it a shot anyway...

All you #nevertrumpers who so look up to your elite gods and goddesses and seemingly want to don dog collars post Georgetown dinner parties just like they do and talk about books they've never really actually read all the while sipping wine onto palettes destroyed by Diet Coke addictions as they thumb through their 83rd complete reading of Lord of the Rings... Here...please, try to read this piece from Spengler. Not Oswald, but the modern day guy who calls himself Spengler. He's really smart. You should be able to tell that. Should, I say. Though you all seem to be lacking the practical/common-sense intelligence component in modern day human models; or you are compromised by having to pay your rent by committing treason at the bidding of the globalist elite.


Standing Between Egypt and the Promised Land

Why does Christianity seem progressively dead?

By that I mean: you first encounter the Bible, the new genres, the doctrine, the new reality of it, the truth of it, you read it complete, several times, you get your arms around on-the-mark doctrine, then... Then what? Then you pick up the same Bible and it seems like old ground that has been covered, with nothing left to offer. Been there, done that.

At the same time whereas before your life seemed to be somewhat alive with a sense of higher meaning, higher contact, perhaps even some events suggesting contact with higher beings, angels, then... God seems to go silent. No guidance. No communication. You pray, you plead, when in dire straights, and...nothing. Hello?

This all occurs over a many year period, but it arrives. At least for me it arrived.

So, again, why does Christianity seem progressively dead? I.e. why over time does the entire process of coming into the faith seem to lose energy, or a sense of something active and higher world about it?

The common response from the more shallow corners of Christian environments would be something like: Stop looking for a burning bosom experience, you enthusiast! Eat your crackers, drink your grape juice, you are nothing and Christianity is supposed to be ordinary!

I'll answer my own question (then, in an additional note below, I'll give a higher level answer)...

Perhaps that very feeling of being cast onto a deserted landscape, surrounded by silence, seeming silence, is the very feeling of real development going on inside a follower of Christ.

Notice that feeling of abandonment and silence in a desolate landscape is very much not the feeling one had when dead asleep (prior to regeneration) in the world where everything is a light show of illusion and empty temptation and a mindless chasing after the worthless.

It would follow that when a person wakes up to their real situation that it will seem depressing in all the common ways we think of depression. We wake up to the fact that we are in kind of a bad situation. A fallen nature within, living in a fallen world. We are seeing good and evil (mostly evil) clearly now. It's like waking up to realize you're in a prison surrounded by violent lunatics. You're now on the spiritual battlefield. Who wants to be on a battlefield, of any nature?

But you can't go back to sleep.

You're standing between Egypt and the Promised Land.

You can only go forward.

Here is the higher level answer: You can't pour new wine into old bottles. The metaphor in the Gospels is about a leather 'bottle' that holds wine and so on. But see it this way: your being (i.e. your level of being) is like a glass. It is of a certain size. Because it is of a fixed size you can only pour so much wine (knowledge/understanding) into the glass. To increase your level of understanding you have to increase the size, or capacity, of the glass. You have to increase your level of being.

So if you are taking in the Bible and doctrine over and over, non-stop, and it is getting old and seemingly less and less profitable (diminishing returns) it's because you are trying to pour new wine (understanding) into an old glass that can't take anymore new liquid. It's capacity is full.

This is why an ancient formula states: Knowledge + Being = Understanding.

It's not just knowledge, but it is knowledge plus increasing level of being that is required to increase level of understanding.

The Bible has more to give. Yet you can only hold so much until you increase the size of the glass that represents the current level of your being.

(Now I hear the shallow voice: "Oh, so you're saying that if you somehow increase your level of being - whatever that means - then you'll start seeing new things in the Bible nobody else in history has been able to see? Do you become psychic too? Ha, ha. I'm hearing New Age gnosticism!!! There's nothing new under the sun! You can't know more than the very righteous and reverend Michael Horton knows! Why would you think you could? Do you have a seminary degree??? I'm finished here!!!")

OK, getting that guy out of the way...

I think regarding the Bible and doctrine "seeing more" means seeing and understanding the BASICS at the experiential level. Because a more secular version of that ancient formula could be put: Knowledge + Experience = Understanding. But that's actually a totally different thing because experience won't necessarily raise level of being. But it doesn't hurt. One thing experience gives is new language. Any experience, say a trade, commercial fishing, bricklaying, starting a small business, gives a person a new language to use in all other areas of life. For instance. But that is getting off topic. The question here is, going back to the ancient formula as first worded above, what actually is involved in increasing level of being?

It is simply practicing the knowledge you've acquired in real time, everyday life.

If the knowledge is love your enemy you first learn what that means (and doesn't mean) and then you actually practice it in real life situations and events. It's difficult to do in real time. (It's difficult to remember to do it to begin with!) We can be assured, though, if we do make the effort to practice that teaching from the Bible in real time situations and events then it will increase our level of being. And with that increase of level of being we can then go back to the Bible and perhaps see more of the teaching that we were perhaps missing before because we simply didn't have the capacity to see it and understand it.

Love your enemy is just one thing the Bible commands us to practice. Be awake is another. It arguably comes before love your enemy. The very fact that you are practicing the knowledge of the Bible is 'seeing more' in the statement about pouring new wine into old bottles. You don't pass over that, you see more in it. At a practical, experiential level.

Using more doctrinal type language we can see that resentment is something a Christian never has any reason to indulge in (even so-called righteous anger). For a Christian gratitude for everything all the time is the great royal attitude to be cultivated. Gratitude is the opposite of resentment. Practicing this in real time will increase your level of being.

I'll stop now.


Amazing so many people who self-identify as conservative can't see this

hokkoda A close election will produce a National Review endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

Stonewall_61 Even if true, it would have no effect, right? Trump says NR is irrelevant, and nobody pays attention to it. If anybody did, Trump would not have won the nomination.

hokkoda I'm not trying to tally up the votes this or that paid-political-campaign produces in November. The useful thing about Trump, to me, has always been that he has revealed what a complete scam that Conservative Inc. has become.

This is the election where I can't really lose because I believe it to be part of a bigger political realignment taking place in the country: The Official Party of Government vs. Everyone Else.

Trump, for all his faults, has pulled back the curtain on the fraud that is our one-party political system. Many of the things nevertrump criticizes Trump for the most are things that nevertrump excuses in the likes of John Boener, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, etc. What nevertrump has always failed to grasp is that they failed because they are not credible.

If 'nevertrump' actually advanced a candidate, they'd collapse. Which is why they didn't advance a candidate.


Devil-run hierarchies

Societies seem to naturally organize themselves into a hierarchy of Devil-run activity. It is the spirit in the air doing it. People are hollow. They channel the spirit with no resistance. This explains the organization and the hidden in plain sight aspect of it. The people making up the Devil-run hierarchy are dead asleep to most all of it. They may know they are getting power or money or what have you, but that probably is about all they know. They're puppets to the spirit of the Devil.

If Satan is the power of this world currently it follows that his spirit would be powerful to organize everything into structures to carry out evil.

So silly conspiracy theory can be laughed off legitimately by even the people most involved in the power structures that naturally get organized in all societies. They don't know what they are a part of. Again, they may be awake to a sense of having power, of being above the masses in some way or another, of having access to knowledge or money or what have you that others don't have access to. They may be aware of their status as wise men, etc.; but they will still be dead asleep to the spirit organizing them, and even probably to the organization itself.

We're getting closer

We're getting closer to seeing all that is going on in the world. Getting closer just usually means seeing the obvious in a clearer light.

A priest in France has now stated that Islam worships Moloch, and that their behavior is the behavior of a people that worships a god that demands human sacrifice.

In Western Europe and America and elsewhere the same god is being worshiped, though in the pure child sacrifice way. Abortion has been exposed lately as a crazily barbaric act. Videos have not only shown the viciousness of the abortionists, but the dead-soul mocking of it that comes out of them. They laugh even.

I am not holier-than-thou towards anybody who has had or been pro-abortion. What I am saying is the practice itself carried out by the people who are dedicated to doing it is evil practiced as worship to a god-front for Satan himself. The Kingdom of Satan is fed by human death.

I'm drawing the parallel between Islam and their supporters on the left in the West. The bizarre enabling of Islamic evil that is taking place in these leftist, socialist governments has to have a common motive. It is the worship of a god like Moloch (or Molech) who demands human sacrifice. This is why Muslims murder their own (their own children even) when they don't have other victims to kill. The leftist types have had abortion to fulfill their worship needs for going on many decades now. Prior there were massive wars (WWI, WWII) and actual genocide in recent history to satisfy the demand for human sacrifice to the Kingdom of Satan.

This is powerful to see. This is seeing lines. Battle lines. Instead of just shaking our heads in a kind of resigned, abstract bewilderment towards all this lunacy and evil, or just chalking it up abstractly to the fallen state of man and of evil on this planet, we see it in simple and real terms. Practical terms. False god being worshiped. Actual deeds being carried out in worship of this false God. All false gods are fronts for Satan, ultimately. Seeing all this simply but also in practical terms. It's powerful.

The motivation of Christians who pile on Trump

It's very easy for an evil government to control people via money and promises (though more accurate to say, evil establishment-in-power because the government system can be good though the people running it be thoroughly corrupt and evil).

When I read Christians sounding just like the globalist parasites (who have been calling themselves, dishonestly, conservatives) on the subject of Trump and this election I have to assume they are as bought off by establishment money as the latter group. Because their case against Trump is cartoonishly intellectually dishonest. Trump is not an unknown individual who has just appeared on the scene. He has a long history of being in the public limelight. He's given many interviews (and even political speeches) over the years. He's written books. It's fairly easy to see who he is and what drives him. His policies are common-sense and well-within the boundaries of what our system of government is all about. His history suggests he has nothing to do with racism, bigotry, fascism, etc., all the evil buzzwords the left (and now the establishment so-called 'conservatives') are using against him.

So when I read Christians - who are otherwise at least semi-intelligent - sounding like the freaked-out globalist establishment parasites I have to assume there is a similar money motive in their dishonest, disingenuous behavior.

We know the Washington establishment has involved churches in the human trafficking that is taking place in this country (United States) with federal money. The churches are being corrupted in this manner. This is how a tyrannous establishment operates. Could they also have corrupted other Christian institutions such as seminaries and colleges? It's very possible.

It all amounts to treason. What these people are involved with is Satanic to begin with. Globalism, it's goals, what drives it, is Satanic through and through. To take part in it by selling out your own country is treason. God knows what is in their hearts. Do you think God will allow somebody He can't trust into His Kingdom? If your fellow Americans can't trust you it's not a good sign.


Rare occurance

This is a rare case of a cleric calling a spade a spade. He'll probably back off of it later, nuance it to death, but just on the face of it now it is a rare event coming from establishment Christianity.

I also find it inspired to associate Islam with a god like Moloch. When we call them Satan worshipers (which they are) it actually flatters them and their evil persona. Moloch is an old front for Satan of course, but it's much better to associate Islam with such an old front, especially one connected with human sacrifice.

This is the end

When people assert their Satanic way of life on you they are making war upon you, and you then have to make war upon them.

Moving along... This article shows that seemingly only people in Poland can see what here seemingly only a street Calvinist like myself can see: that the Devil is asserting dominion over the entire planet, and doing it rather quickly and successfully. In a total way. I believe the Devil must always be confronted, but practically speaking what can an individual do? Anyway, there is only so much real estate on this planet, and when the Devil asserts dominion of it all he is cutting off the branch he is sitting on, and God then brings His fist down upon the entire play. It probably gets very bad for likely a long time (by our desires a long time) before that happens.

Get the real, pure and whole, word of God and its sound doctrine (the actual armor of God) fused into memory, will, and understanding; and go into survival mode preeminently, but also spiritual warfare mode which includes calling other elect to the faith and building up oneself and others in the faith. Then with power running the race to the finish, with discernment and inspiration of the Spirit, under the banner of Christ, conformed to His godliness, fearing God alone.


Two long-standing questions answered

[This was an email.]

1st Question: In biblical doctrine the Bible says we will rule with Christ over his creation. Yet, the question has always been, who is the ruled in this scenario? We seem to be rulers with no one to rule. I.e. everything, every creature that dies in rebellion to God is put away in hell, or the lake of fire. Everyone else is in a glorified body. I came close to an answer awhile back, but it didn't really satisfy. Something about ruling ourselves, etc.

So I came across this article, and it at least had something new in it.

Read the whole thing (it's short and really just a set of quotes), but here is a little: "The discovery of the immensity of the universe does not diminish but actually magnifies man's role in the cosmos. For if Christ is to rule over all things and we are to reign with Him, then we will be ruling over all the galaxies, affirming Christ's Lordship over the whole universe."

2nd Question: This might actually pertain a little to the above question as well, but it's the question of why are there different races of man? The standard answer from Christian theologians is horridly politically-correct. I myself wrote a post that is horridly politically-INcorrect that said some things I'd change now after what I've found, but here is that post.

So I decided to search for classic books on the subject that were very much not mainstream. Google was zero help. Google seems to censor search queries, by the way. I've seen this a few ways lately. But anyway, I finally had to go to the Stormfront website (Aryan, etc., site), and they came through. I found references to a couple of books. One didn't have much, but another turned out to be a goldmine.

The Origin of Race and Civilization by Charles A. Weisman

Out of print.

But lo and behold I found a very well formatted pdf (basically the pdf is the original pages of the book) here.

This book has a Chapter 3 titled Race and Scripture, which is exactly what I was looking for. A politically-incorrect book on the subject just to see what those types have said. This book kind of includes the best of similar books that came before (I get that sense). The guy seems to be a real Christian, but there is one thing missing: he doesn't mention the Gospel, and ends up giving the impression that only Adamic white individuals will be saved. I don't think he means to say that, but since he never mentions doctrinal things past the Old Testament it comes across like that, but this doesn't invalidate what the book is about.

Remember, the above book is severely politically-incorrect. It will make mainstream, establishment Christians very, very outraged. It will then inspire them to mock like the devil. Wacky, they will say. Nuts. But also, "RACIST!!!!!!!" will also come out of their world-fearing mouths. Fear God alone, it is the beginning of wisdom.

The author is very good at dismantling the ways mainstream, world-fearful Christianity tries to wave off these difficult questions of race.

I've been back and forth on the pre-Adamite question, for instance. It was debated by Calvinists early on, whether any humans existed before Adam. It's a difficult question to put forward because people will jump all over the notion accusing it of this and that and seemingly presenting biblical arguments against it, including soteriological arguments, which are serious. But if you read the chapter you will see the author is very impressive in calling out the shallowness and fear and lack of reason of the critics of the argument.

I've always said I'm Young Earth Creation, just to say it's all supernatural anyway, so... But maybe not so now. I do suspect Adam is around 6,000 years ago though.

By the way, the author is not an evolutionist either. You just have to read the chapter.

The quick answer to the question, though (why are there different races) is because there aren't different races but different species of one race. This is what I was always stuck on, the fact that Asians and Blacks are SO different from whites. Not just a little, or different by a little degree, as the mainstream tried to put forward. But REALLY different. (Remember Mouravieff on this subject? a different soul even). And each species was a different, unique creation. The creation of Adam was the creation of the white species. But you have to read it. The argument is forceful by illustrations from ancient Egypt and also bringing up much regarding ancient human types that we know exist and existed. He is also good at portraying the silliness of saying such differences can be accounted for by micro evolution in a short span. Etc.

One other point on this: this is a scary subject. God obviously controls these dark races from exterminating (or trying to exterminate) the white race. We know they want to. We know they have it in them to do it. We know they've attempted it, and are attempting it today. Kline's notion of 'Pilgrim Politics' also plays a role in all this. It means we are suppose to sort of pretend that the 'nations' that surround us are just like us, and we aren't to act as if they are different. Sort of, we're in their territory, currently. Don't congregate with them, but don't make war on them based on the racial (or species) difference. This approach obviously slips and slides into worldly fear and naivete considering the nature of the world we live in. Also it slips and slides into Satanic political-correctness.

So anyway, there are different races because there have been different creations of species of humans. Blacks and Asians didn't derive from Adam and Eve. How this effects soteriology is not a difficult matter regarding orthodox doctrine. And it's NOT about evolution, as the mainstreams world-fearers always accuse. Anyway, read the book and see for yourself. - C.

ps- And it goes without saying that anyone, any race or species, if you will, or nationality or whatever can be elect and regenerated by the word and the Spirit. After the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Also, a pure Adamic white person can be cast off, or cut off, and the lowliest (however defined) can be spliced in to the branch in their place.

Establishment Christianity in Hare Krishna robes, baking cookies

It's absolutely strange how clerics today say nothing about the evil that is currently rolling over every landscape on the planet. They seem to have a spirit of Hare Krishnaism. Mixed with an academic style separation from reality.

It may be due to the typical shallowness and fecklessness one sees in people who have gone through institutions of so-called higher learning that are thoroughly marinated in cultural Marxism.

It may be that they are just churchians more than anything else. Which implies shallowness.

They don't seem to be able to set realities of sin and spiritual warfare, anti-Christ and suffering, in anything close to a historical context let alone current events. They talk about baking cookies with their wife, how cute their babies are, what's the next great conference they're going to.

One would be tempted to suspect the Beast system has made it a part of their strategy to pay off the churches. With the goal to keep Christians subdued as they go about their evil.

I think the Marxists already accomplished that regarding the churches and church leaders during the 20th century when they set up the Marxist front groups intended to target Christian churches and neutralize them by making them liberal and shallow, culturally Marxist and dead asleep. If not dead.


Horrid, odious, blood-drenched atheists

Atheists cringe when it is pointed out that they murdered upwards of 100 million people in the last 100 years. Not to mention the mere suffering they caused in innumerable evil ways.

The one thing that united the disparate factions that came together as the horrid, odious, blood-drenched Bolshevik party was their shared militant and vicious atheism.

Here is something from an historian to give a sense of the vicious evil of these God-hating atheists:

Here is a quote from Stark in "Bearing False Witness," p. 201, though he himself is quoting Alexander Yakolov, the who chaired a Russian committee after the fall of the Soviet Union investigating such matters.

"Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev was mutilated, castrated, and shot, and his corpse was left naked for the public to desecrate. Metropolitan Veniamin of St. Petersburg, in line to succeed the patriarch, was turned into a pillar of ice,; he was doused with cold water in the freezing cold. Bishop Germogen of Tobolsk...was strapped alive to the paddlewheel of a steamboat and mangled by the rotating blades. Archbishop Andronnnik of Perm...was buried alive. Archbishop Vasily was crucified and burned."

About 200,000 clergy were murdered, To quote again about what was done to priests, monks, and nuns, "[T]hey were crucified on the central doors of iconostases, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled with priestly stoles, given Communion with melted lead, and drowned in holes in the ice." Over 20,000,000 Russians were murdered at least partly because of their religion.

A lot of atheists are really God haters, and express their hatred by torturing and killing religious people.


Ha, ha, the little angry cuck nevertrumpers are sad and confused

Here's the latest public pronouncement from confused cuck Jonah Goldberg. Don't bother reading it, he's basically announcing for the 87,000th time that he has successfully gone no. 2.

Now here is a pithy comment following the brilliant cuck column:

Veritas • 11 hours ago

This author has way too high of an opinion of him self. Even if I agreed with him, which I doubt, he comes across as a condescending, overwrought, self/absorbed loon.

Unfortunately, though, he doesn't come across as that in the super bubble he lives in. In that bubble he lacks self-awareness and anybody like Veritas who can talk straight to him.

In one part of the article, by the way, he breathlessly announces that he and his fellow defeated nevertrumpers are now "anti-establishment." Um, no. People don't automatically reverse roles when a war is won (and if Trump loses to Hillary there *will* be an insurrection, and you will pay a bigger price). You're still nazis/communists/globalists/feckless-dupes-of-evil.

Now be obedient, demon. Beg us not to send you to hell.


To hell with them all

Here is a good example of how feckless and ignorant Christian clerics are of politics and the realities of liberty vs. tyranny. The stupidity on display in this discussion is alarming. The fear of the world on display in this discussion is predictable, and no less alarming. These clerics all seem to have been neutered by culturally Marxist institutions of so-called higher education; and one has to always add they seem to have had no ability or curiosity to get an alternate take on things. Overall the shallowness of these individuals and their discussion reminds one of the hollow souls currently in western Europe. Also, I have to go back to their fear of the world...the actual fear you can hear in their voices in not wanting to say anything 'incorrect' is beyond obnoxious. It's obnoxious to hear people who put themselves forward as leaders or teachers of Christians to have this shallowness and fear of the world. These feckless souls have bowed their knee to the Devil. They are worthless in Christ's army. To hell with them.


The globalist parasites lost (somebody explain it to them)

Some comments under a David French (All Hail) article at National Review Online:

- Neoconservatives are a bitter, vengeful lot.

- As a liberal - I would say they're principled. Stubborn to a fault, intolerant, but def sticking to their principles on this one.

- It is really not so much an issue of principles but rather maintaining influence and control. If Trump wins, neoconservatism will suffer a major defeat in the Republican party. They could try to go to the Democrat party from whence they came but the Democrats are in a progressive cycle and would not be interested.

- Eh, not so much sticking to principles as what Dantes said - sulking. They did a full court press against Trump, backed a failed Jeb early on because of his open border immigration policy and then reluctantly endorsed Cruz at like 11:59 pm. They've been never trumping all along and I don't think they can get out of their rut even knowing what a Clinton restoration would be like. French and some of his cohorts even deludingly thought he might be the savior of the western world until they/he realized he had nothing to offer. And that was French's last rational epiphany. The rest is just more of the anti trump same.


The Hidden Life

[From Warfield's Faith and Life .]

"If we be Christians at all, we are such only in virtue of the fact that when He died, He died for us, and we, therefore, died as sinners with His death; and that when He rose again for our justification, we rose again into newness of life with Him,—the life that we now live is a new life, from a new spring, even the Spirit of Christ which He as the risen Lord has sent down to us. This is the great fact of participation in the saving work of Christ, with all that it involves. And what we have here is an assertion that such a participation involves seizing of us bodily and lifting us to another and higher plane. We were sinners, and lived as sinners; we lived an earthly life, in the lowest sense of that word. But now we have died with Christ as sinners and can live no more as sinners; we have been raised together with Him and can live only on the plane of this new life, which is not in sin, not "in the earth," but in heaven. In a high and true sense, because we have died to sin and been raised to holiness, we have already passed out of earth to heaven. Heaven is already the sphere of our life; our "citizenship is in heaven"—we are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, and have the life appropriate thereto to live.

And now we observe, secondly, that on this fact the Apostle founds an exhortation. "If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above." The exhortation is simply to an actual life consonant with our change of state. If we have participated in Christ's death for sin and rising again for justification; so that with Him we died to sin and rose again unto holiness; live accordingly. If we have thus died as sinners, as earth born, and earth confined crawlers on this low plane, and been raised to this higher plane, even a heavenly one, of living—show in walk and conversation that the change has been a real one. It is an exhortation to us to be in life real citizens of the heavenly kingdom to which we have been transferred; to do the duties and enter into the responsibilities of our new citizenship. It is just as we might say to some newly enfranchised immigrant: You have left that country of darkness in which you were bred, where no liberty of action or of worship existed; you have been received into our free America, and have been clothed with the rights and duties of citizenship in this great Republic; now live worthily of your new citizenship; be now in life and thought no longer a serf but a freeman. So, Paul says in effect, you have passed out of the realm of sin and death, out of the merely earthly sphere; you have been made a citizen of the heavenly kingdom; do the deeds and live the life conformable to your great change."


The opposite of faith

A prominent Christian blogger has stated, in so many words, the Bible doesn't say much about atheists.

This is because the opposite of faith, or belief in God, is not atheism: it is idol worship; and the Bible says a whole lot about idol worship.

Common idols atheists worship in place of their Creator:

The planet (environmentalism)
Multiculturalism (the myth of the Noble Savage)
Centralized government power
The Devil (unwittingly, in just about any guise)

Notice I didn't list temptations (money, power, fame, sexual pleaure), but actual idols that are sacrificed to and that a sense of expiation is received in return for.

Orwellian establishment speak

'Principled Conservatism' - Talking liberty, but veering left when it matters. I.e., take part in the impotent chorus against the left, but always join the left at times when liberty actually threatens to get the upper hand.

#nevertrump are snowflakes, because principled conservatism

"Liberals and conservatives who pretend otherwise are fooling themselves, which is fine. But I wish they would stop trying to fool me."

- Star Trek philosopher and noted NRO establishment blogger Jonah Goldberg

This cuck thinks the world exists to win over his hard-to-get ass. Fucking snowflake.

Trump will win in a landslide, and establishment parasites like Goldberg, thoroughly exposed, will have to get real jobs.

If you live in the intellectual environment Jonah lives in all you have to do to be declared a genius is write a book saying communism was evil. What tipped you off? The massive, never-let-up genocide? The thousands of work/death camps? The secret police terror? The soul-crushing police states? You're a genius, man. Oh, and, as a "principled conservative" don't forget to veer left when it matters.


The Smug Style

"P.C. is the hard edge, the business end of what Emmett Rensin, on Vox.com, has called “the smug style” in American liberalism. Ever since the Democrats lost the working class, he argues, they signed their souls over to “the educated, the coastal, and the professional” classes. These overlords invented the smug style to answer the question, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” as Thomas Frank titled his 2004 book, or more generally, How could the working class vote against its own obvious (to a liberal) economic interest? The answer: “Stupid hicks don’t know what’s good for them.” In this view, conservatism is not an attractive set of arguments or principles but a form of stupidity, of unknowing. Liberalism, by contrast, is a form of shared “knowing,” based not on knowledge, exactly, but on the presumption of knowledge. Hence the smug “knowingness” of the contemporary Left, most apparent and irritating in its smug contempt for working people who have rejected it."

From here.


Peace, Love, and Genocide

What is Satan's gospel?

Peace, love, and genocide.


Roger E. Olson brain matter everywhere

There's an arrogant little theologian named Roger E. Olson. He's a committed Arminian, of course. He hates Calvinism, of course. Here, though, is a good example of how unteachable people like him can be. This is an exchange on his blog between him and guy who made a comment... (Roger Olson was complaining that he was being called "neo-orthodox" by various people.)

OLSON: "But I'm still not quite sure what "neo-orthodox" means until someone tells me."

KEITH ALLVER: "Neo-orthodoxy is a religious movement that began after World War I as a reaction against the failed ideas of liberal Protestantism. It was developed primarily by Swiss theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. Others called it “neo-orthodoxy” because they saw it as a revival of the old Reformed theology. Neo-orthodoxy differs from “old” orthodoxy in its views of the Word of God and sin.

The orthodox view holds that the Bible is the revealed Word of God, given by the inspiration of God. By inspiration, both verbal and mechanical, it is meant that the Holy Spirit was in full control of the Bible writer, by either verbally dictating everything he was writing or using the person as a tool to work through. This doctrine of inspiration comes to the logical conclusion that the original manuscripts are without error or contradiction. The Bible is the complete and sufficient revelation of God. Two passages that support this view are 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Neo-orthodoxy defines the Word of God as Jesus (John 1:1) and says that the Bible is simply man’s interpretation of the Word’s actions. Thus, the Bible is not inspired by God, and, being a human document, various parts of it may not be literally true. God spoke through “redemptive history,” and He speaks now as people “encounter” Jesus, but the Bible itself is not objective truth.

Neo-orthodoxy teaches that the Bible is a medium of revelation, while orthodoxy believes it is revelation. That means that, to the neo-orthodox theologian, revelation depends on the experience (or personal interpretation) of each individual. The Bible only “becomes” the Word of God when God uses its words to point someone to Christ. The details of the Bible are not as important as having a life-changing encounter with Jesus. Truth thus becomes a mystical experience and is not definitively stated in the Bible.

The neo-orthodox view of sin is that it is a rejection of our responsibility to treat our fellow man well. The result of sin is dehumanization, accompanied by unkindness, unforgiveness, loneliness, and a myriad of societal ills. Salvation comes to those who have a subjective encounter with Christ—no acceptance of a set of truths is necessary. Neo-orthodoxy places an emphasis on social work and our ethical responsibility to love others.

Neo-orthodoxy has influenced the less-conservative branches of Presbyterian and Lutheran churches in America, along with other denominations. While its original purpose, to provide a more biblical alternative to liberalism, is commendable, neo-orthodox teaching nevertheless carries some inherent dangers. Any time that truth is determined according to what is relevant to my experience, the possibility of relativism exists. Any doctrine that sees the Bible as a wholly human document containing errors erodes the very foundation of biblical Christianity.

We cannot truly have a life-changing “encounter” with Jesus without also believing some facts as presented in the Bible. “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). The content of our faith is the death and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

The disciples had an “encounter” with Jesus in Luke 24. The disciples initially misinterpreted the event, however: “They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost” (verse 37). It was not until Jesus informed them of the truth (that He had been bodily resurrected) that they grasped the reality of the situation. In other words, we need an encounter with Jesus, but we also need to have that encounter interpreted by the truth of God’s Word. Otherwise, experience can lead us astray.

Jude 1:3 tells us “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” The faith was entrusted to us via the Bible, the written Word of God. We must not compromise the truth that God has spoken inerrantly and fully in His Word."

OLSON: "What are your credentials for defining 'neo-orthodoxy?' ... Pleae [sic] don't use my blog to post your own essays like this. It is a place for dialogue, not sermonizing or posting one's own essays."

So basically Olson gets an answer to his question and his head explodes. And I love the "what are your credentials for defining..." Defining/redefining terms is so powerful a thing in Satan's Kingdom that only the correctly credentialed are allowed to engage in it.

Postscript: I googled some of the text and found that Keith Allver had merely pasted the definition of neo-orthodoxy from the Got Questions site here. So anyway, nothing wrong with that. He should have linked it, but Olson asked for a definition, and the guy found one and presented it. It's a very good definition of neo-orthodoxy though. Very, very good. It doesn't pull punches (though it just states the obvious), and this is why Olson's head exploded.


You don't acquiesce

When the Devil's taking over the world, asserting dominion over the entire planet, you don't, as a Christian, say, "Well, it's part of God's plan that this happen." Then acquiesce. No. The Bible tells us to confront the Devil. It's in that confrontation that God's elect are called and all God's people are sanctified. Tempered. You don't acquiesce. You don't reluctantly give no protest. You confront the Devil. Until the end.


How a minister should think of himself

I'm looking at the table of contents of a Ryle book titled Christian Leaders of the Last Century. For instance some chapter titles: George Whitefield and his Ministry; Toplady and his Ministry; John Berridge and his Ministry, etc. This is a good way to see a minister: the minister and his ministry.

What does that mean?

It obviously doesn't mean a unique Gospel associated with that particular man. Obviously, but what it can mean is this: a particular school of Christ associated with that minister.

How do you define 'school' in that sentence?

First of all you can define it by a list of books, as on-the-surface-boring, or mundane, as that may sound. Why should it be boring or mundane? Books are powerful. Great books read in a dedicated manner are obviously very, very powerful influences in the lives of human beings. Each minister should be - if he is truly educated, formally or otherwise - in possession of a body of knowledge that has a distinct tracing to certain authors, traditions, eras of history, schools, etc.

Ministers don't think in these terms, I think because the prevailing assumption is each minister (within the confines of his confession or denomination) is supposed to represent a sort of cookie cutter universal teaching to his church audience. This is losing a lot. Some ministers are apologetics oriented, some sanctification oriented, some oriented to one or another great era of Christianity (Puritan era in England or the Netherlands, or the Geneva school of Calvin's day, or what have you), maybe some are spiritual warfare oriented. This doesn't mean if you sit under an apologetics oriented minister you won't get a complete, or universal teaching of Christian doctrine, it would just be an angle towards the universal. Allow providence to direct students to one or another of the uniquely angled ministers, so to speak.

Imagine a minister who if you come into his school you specifically are made to read (and read very complete and well) Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, Boston's Human Nature in its Fourfold State, and Fisher's Catechism. That's it. Now listen carefully: you can't be simple minded or shallow about this. You can't say, "Well, that's just three random books. So what?" No, it's a work of imaginative literature, a work of history (the history of redemption via the creation, fall, regeneration, and glorification of human beings), and a work of doctrine. You see? It's balanced, for one thing. (And I'm just throwing out there this one example, there are obviously numerous good examples.)

That would be a simple school, but a worthy one. It would be a sort of school of Christian folk classic works. Not highbrow academic, though not by any means middlebrow or lowbrow either. If you came into contact with Minister A and his ministry of those three books and you completed your time there you would come away with a strong foundation. Of course the minister doesn't want people leaving his church, necessarily, and could have a further higher up three influences, and then maybe a final three influences above that, and the Holy Bible of course being involved from the start and being inexhaustible. Most well-educated ministers could present a worthy set of nine influences based on his particular unique school. What he's able to teach well and enthusiastically.

Every individual who studies a big subject (like theology) gravitates towards one or another author, book, school, era, etc., in his developing of his understanding. He will tend to be enthusiastic about teaching those particular influences to others. He will be knowledgeable of them. Of course he will have to know how to teach to begin with. How to impart understanding to other people. He's not, even though he is a Vosian, going to say, "All you newcomers here, read Vos' Biblical Theology." But he might have them read Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine. Because he's tuned in to the particular Dutch Reformed river of influence. Bavinck, Vos, Berkhof (as digest). Maybe going back to a'Brakel. Christianity has a wealth of influences that can reach beginners. We have no shortage of good books to choose from, but a powerful school will be simple and offer little choice because something has to get absorbed and understood at some point.

Complete readings of the Bible with no fear or hand-wringing from the minister worrying that nobody could possible get anything out of direct contact with the word of God unlike him and other ministers like him. That is a very wrong approach. An approach based on a shallow vanity and fear. Christians have to start with the real thing at some point in a real way. Allow the Holy Spirit to do His work. Don't be a filter between your audience and the direct word of God, the Old and New Testaments.


I'll try to articulate this strange thought...

[an email]

This may not connect at all, but watching a Euro16 soccer match, or at least casually just having it on in the background, it reminded me (the players, the whole thing) of something I'd thought and seen for many years now. How Euros, all seem to be soulless in a really troubling way. I defined it as atheism/hedonism/socialism creating soulless vessels that are either out to engage in violence, pleasure, or mocking of some kind or another. Just shallowness to their core. And today it occurred to me this is the goal of an anti-Christ movement, to create a society of people like this.

I always want to stay away from zombie analogies because it seems too easy or facile, but entire nations of zombies like this seems to be what I am seeing.

Maybe I should concisely illustrate this. I tried to envision Cristiano Ronaldo in his hotel room with his model girlfriend, and I tried to imagine what on earth two people like that, two of what has to be the most shallow, empty vessels in perhaps world history could possibly be communicating between each other. "Today I found my perfect eye shade." "My endorsement company brought me new shoes. I will wear them tonight at dance club." "My butt should be seen by the masses." "Yes, it is perfect butt. This is good life. We must think correctly nevertheless and speak the right things and all is good." "You are genius, Cristiano."

A lot of this might be Europe being (for some reason) rich as hell. No economic struggle, no inward thoughtfulness, no self-awareness. No development. ALSO, don't discount the presence in the 'air' (where the devil resides) of deathly political-correctness in all its deadly forms. That's the socialism aspect I mentioned above. The lack of real education too that happens in socialist societies. No history is learned (think about that and how that too plays a really big role in creating shallow zombies). How even soft tyrannous societies enforce lying as reality. That kills the soul.

Obviously Christianity as only a formal, outward thing, if present at all. No awareness of sin, the human condition (suffering being merely an opportunity to show fake charity and concern before getting back to the hedonism). It's not real. Not even ghastly acts of terror by Muslims can wake them up to sin and evil and a deeper awareness of reality and themselves and their condition ultimately. - C.


This is an example of doctrine as armour

[An email]

This old bit of writing is what strikes me as on-the-mark doctrine actually seeming like armour; like chain mail and swords and shields. This is about the ultimate thing, the Covenant of Redemption. You won't get a description of it like this in contemporary systematic theologies.

- C.

That link is chp. 4 of Dickson's book. Here is chp. 5 on the Covenant of Works; and chp. 6 on the Covenant of Grace.


Computer metaphor, not bad

Think of books as computer programs, and you are the computer.

Actually any influence should be seen like this, but the nature of a great book more so. It takes a long time to download a great book into your soul.

So as a computer you want programs that make you smarter and more useful. That increase your understanding and level of being.

Programs are language too, i.e. that is a good way to see them. We know that to see something new we need a language in us to enable that new seeing. Learning new words is the most basic example. Once you know the word 'ballet' you're then aware of what they do in that building over there. Until you have the word ballet it's just a blank building.

Now imagine having all the words in the dictionary.

Then there are more involved languages. Like the Homeric epics. Or the living, quickening language of the Bible.

Music, math, of course, are other kinds of language.

But great books are powerful programs to have downloaded into you. Being satisfied with lesser things that just go into the cache then get flushed out...surfacy things, is something most people are engaged in. To read a great book complete usually is accompanied with a different motivation. Something above the usual context and time frame associated with things you're commonly interested in doing. Especially if it's new ground for you.

Let me see, I could download another Hollywood movie onto my soul/hard-drive, or I could download Democracy in America. It sounds unrelated when you put it like that, and like a stark choice between fun and boring, but wouldn't you want the latter inside you? You have to download it at some point. If you sense closeness to death maybe stay with the Bible, but there are more than a handful of great book 'programs' that stand up to the seriousness of death even. I.e. books that you would not feel it silly to take into the Kingdom of God with you. Understanding is understanding. Wisdom is wisdom. A higher level of being is a higher level of being.


People want to nudge Christianity into the shade of Islam...yes, believe it

In this current debate about EFS (Eternal Functional Subordination) of the Son to the Father within the Trinity, etc., etc., one commentator at this blog wrote:

As you say, it is interesting that EFS was clearly stated in 1993 but just now causing such a big concern.

I answer that it's causing a big concern because Islam wasn't at the county line in 1993.

Here's a blog post that gives a basic overview of the debate with links.


Clerics and their churches suck because the Devil sucks

If you're following the James White ongoing saga regarding his making himself a useful idiot to the Devil here it is in a nutshell:

White's narcissism disorder forces him, when he is cornered, to retreat to the left. It's only on the left that he is able to maintain his vain self-image of never being wrong, thus giving him a continuing and unassailable platform to lecture everybody in the trolling, triumphalist style he so enjoys indulging in.

The larger observation here is the very fact that these characters exist in positions of leadership in Christian environments. It shows the extent the Devil has infiltrated and taken over churches, seminaries, and any other place where Christians are influenced.


"Post-Christian age"?

It's always struck me as naive when I hear theologians and other Christian voices saying we (America, western Europe primarily) live in a "post-Christian" or "post-biblical" age.

It's always been like this. What they're thinking back on is when more people held the same lifeview (notion of the good life and notion of right and wrong). That unity has been fractured by many, many decades now of Marxist attack in and from the foundations of our culture and civilization. Yet there has always been libertines and atheists and materialists and nihilists and all the rest by any other name. Just to use one striking example: the Puritans were always a small island of faith within a vast sea of everything we see now today. People didn't have communications and ability to traffic their sins back then, but they had ability to indulge it in layers of darkness that don't exist today...in the West, anyway...

What's really missing today is a strong school of Christ (like the Genevan school, like the Cambridge school, like the Dutch Second Reformation school). Not just a remnant, God always has His remnant, but a school of Christ. A school of Christ that always has influence in the world far beyond its numbers or size.

Some try. Unfortunately the places where Christians are educated, the universities and colleges and seminaries, are marinated in cultural Marxism. The students come out of the process unknowingly indoctrinated, viewing and treating the living, quickening word of God, for instance, like critical text theorists view and treat Shakespeare or any other text document written by man. They also come out with a subtle mocking disbelief in the supernatural. This effects their relationship to the fact and reality of supernatural regeneration by the word and the Spirit. Notice these are the two most foundational elements of the faith. The word of God and regeneration.

Never underestimate, though, effort to bring truth to people and the world. It has effect. The man who reads the King James Version cover to cover over a satellite signal looking about as uncool by the standards of our era as a person could look. It has effect. A Pink, writing alone for what he thought was a very limited audience ending up having an enormous effect in a time of famine for the truth that was lasting for the better part of a century. But the churches and seminaries and their graduates are disappointing. They have the mark of shallowness. Shallowness in their core. So easily indoctrinated in the subtle ways the Devil and his children have learned to indoctrinate. They so easily go with the current of the world. The path of least resistance. They'll talk and write about people in the past who went against the world, but as for them? That's not what they value. They value comfort, going along to get along.


Christian clerics: unfortunately some of the most naive people on the planet

If this wasn't the only reaction James White could find on the internet to his post-Orlando "flying my dhimmi flag high and proud" podcast he wouldn't have posted it. Ironic that it's the most on-the-mark critique you could read:

Thank you, James White, for teaching us

James White likes to tell people what "concerns" him and what he "approves" of. I just saw on the Yahoo homepage some headlines that James White will be very approving of!


'Cuz trolling Americans after killing them is what a religion of peace is all about, and stuff.


Ignorant Christians, you need to be taught by holy Muslims why mass murder is noble and holy and stuff.


You need to learn, you ignorant, hateful Christians, from LGBT people how to forgive and stuff. And stop being so hateful, Christians. Be like Islam, a religion of peace and love. And stuff.

At his judgment White is going to be saying: "But, Jesus, slow down, control your emotions. I know, emotions can get the better of us, but allow me to explain to you where you're not being consistent..." He continues the sentence as he's being led off with the metaphorical goats.


What should be taught in seminaries

The core of what should be taught in seminaries is threefold:

1. The Bible and biblical doctrine

2. Worldview analysis

3. The biblical psychology of the good householder who is a regenerated - though still able to sin - new man (as opposed to the common, well-known psychology of everyday sub-normal fallen man). This subject includes both knowledge and practice and could be called spiritual mindedness and godliness, in the conforming to Christ sense.

All of these core teachings should be driven down to the elemental basics, then driven further down to the experiential level.

The sources of this threefold core teaching should be (1) the pure and whole word of God and sound doctrinal teaching based within the Puritan school; (2) the best worldview writing available from the more popular, general audience level to the foundational philosophical level; (3) Ouspensky's Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution for at least the start of a basic, practical language of this esoteric subject that is unknown to academia and ignored by theologians despite being taught and commanded throughout the New Testament.

These three core areas deal with the threefold battle with the Devil, the world, and the flesh (or, our fallen nature).

This would be a real education, especially if the students entered the seminary with a balanced development of intellect, emotion, and physical ability, based on engagement with higher influences in the categories of imaginative literature, history, philosophy, art, music, science, and sacred writings; with athletics and performing arts for physical development.