<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>


Worthless churchians

I just have to comment on visiting Reformed Forum again today. Usually they have a guy named Lane Tipton on, who seems to be afraid of his own shadow in terms of veering from the Westminster Standards, and who talks more idiocy per minute than the average sports commentator; but today they had a guy talking about what Calvin thought about the sabbath. This is like high energy for this forum. We live in a time when evil and Satanic lunacy is strangling the planet, and all these churchian clerics can think of doing is arrange yet another conference or talk about the Sabbath, or have a guy defend infant baptism while sounding like a Ludwig Wittgenstein scholar. These people are worthless in Christ's army. We're all mostly worthless in Christ's army, but it's not as obvious with most of us compared to these seminary vomited clerics and scholars.


God's standard

I hesitate to write this because James White reads this blog and this post will give him a new idea that he will immediately appropriate and then twist and distort which is why we're told not to speak out of school, but I'll use this preface to innoculate the post and forge ahead.

I recently watched the interview/discussion between White and Stephen Anderson:


It was actually a good, cordial discussion, until the end when White did the classic "I'm finished here" and pulled his mike off and walked off the makeshift set. Never has that move made for good optics. You would think Anderson had just produced photos of White in a bathhouse. They actually had just disagreed about the use of the word hell in the KJV.

My quick point. The unspoken theme in the entire discussion (which was about the King James Version vs. critical text bibles) was the fact that God always has His standard for His revealed word. Just as God always has a remnant of believers in every era of the history of redemption, He always has His standard for His revealed word.

Just as atheists are ironic, unself-aware identifiers of the true religion by what they passionately attack, and by what they lack enthusiasm to attack, critical text scholars are similar regarding God's standard for His word and the Authorized, King James, Version. They attack it, mock it, mock those who value it, and they call it dangerous, etc. While at the same time they appropriate its renderings shamelessly in their own translation activities, and identify it as the standard by the fact that it is their foil in everything they do and say.

In God's providence English has become the second language of the world. That His standard for His revealed word would be in English is not surprising.

Just as God always has a remnant who have faith, He always gives this fallen world the standard for His revealed word. That standard is not the ever-shifting critical text and its ever-changing versions. That standard is the Authorized, King James, Version and the manuscripts that underlie it.

Another way of saying this is: what is the true Bible? The one your fallen nature most doesn't want to be humbled to. Atheists and critical text scholars (often the two being the same thing) give up the truth despite themselves.


The Ring

If one were to look for a central ring symbol in the fantasy novel like world and journey of the Bible and God's plan of redemption it might be this:

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Because God is acting from outside of time the first part of that ring - predestination - doesn't necessarily have to be seen in the context of our linear birth-to-death time line. It doesn't have to be constrained by that. It's God's sovereign choice still, but that choice, from our limited perception of time, can occur in higher aspects of time. A human being then can develop in a way to enter such other areas of time, making the fact and reality of predestination, monergistic though it still be, more interesting as a doctrine and reality for God's human creation.

The Bible doesn't blatantly go into higher aspects of time because it tends to explode the narrative. Also, such speculation gives room to the duller sorts (who are often professional theologians) to get everything hyper wrong, intentionally or otherwise. Usual caveat to the other types of simpletons: the foregoing has nothing to do with universalism.


Finally, on the republication of the Covenant of Works at Sinai; vindication in a published source

Over the years I've written several posts on the republication of the Covenant of Works at Sinai (i.e. what occurred on Sinai, the Mosaic Covenant) - here, and here, and here - and they have received hits because people are searching and are genuinely confused by this subject because theologians are very confusing in how they write about the subject; and because theologians that believe in infant baptism are very dishonest in how they write about the subject. They're dishonest because they never let on that their main concern in how they formulate Covenant Theology is to protect their doctrine infant baptism. Why are they so panicked to protect that doctrine to the point where they will distort doctrine? Because no matter how often and in how many ways they will deny it they see their salvation resting on the fact that they were ritually water baptized by a cleric. I.e. they believe in baptismal regeneration. We who have experienced regeneration by the word and the Spirit can understand their weakness, but not their refusal to go child-like to the word of God, and to God Himself in prayer (God says several times in his word, move towards Me, and I will move towards you, and this is done by reading his Old and New Testaments with the eyes of a child and by praying to God). They downgrade the fact and reality of supernatural, monergistic regeneration by the word and the Spirit as they downgrade the Bible itself by replacing it with constructed critical text monstrosities that replace the authority of the word of God with the authority of the word of man (scholars, academics, most of them self-identified atheists). Regarding the latter this causes them to look down upon the word of God as if it were merely one of a million text documents created by man and in effect having inherently the inner state of seeing the word of God as something that needs them more that they need it; which, needless to say, is an approach that will keep one in a state of spiritual death.

Having a clear understanding of Covenant Theology is powerful because it is the grand, overarching plan of God, or plan of redemption from one pole of eternity to the other. It presents all the parts of the Bible in a complete, unified whole and enables the believer to see their place within the great journey, or fantasy like novel, that is God's plan of redemption. It enables one to engage confidently in spiritual warfare as a pilgrim on the King's Highway making one's way to the Heavenly Jerusalem. To intentionally teach a version of this Covenant Theology that is distorted and ad hoc merely to protect a desired doctrine (infant baptism) that has no warrant in Scripture to begin with, let alone no warrant to be placed as the central concern in the plan of redemption is purely Satanic. That it's a holdover from Roman Catholicism should not surprise. Remember: the Devil knows what his great enemy is: it's the regeneration of God's elect by the word and the Spirit. Thus the Devil, in the dark days when the Roman Catholic Church had the power of the sword over Christians, called people to be baptized all day and all night, no problem; yet...he kept the word of God away from people upon penalty of torture and death. The Devil knows what regenerates, and it is not ritual water baptism.

It is under this law [the law given to Moses on Sinai] that Christ was born (Gal. 4: 4) and it is this same law (i.e. the covenant of works reaffirmed in the Old Covenant) that Christ fulfilled by his obedience (Rom. 5: 19-20) and it is the curse of this law which he endured by his death (Gal. 3: 13). Christ, therefore, accomplished the Old Covenant perfectly.

Barcellos, Richard. Recovering a Covenantal Heritage: Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology (p. 102). RBAP. Kindle Edition.

The Old Covenant, while being different from the covenant of works, reaffirmed it, not so that Israel would look for life by this means, but so that Christ would accomplish it. The Old Covenant was, therefore, not only necessary to lead to Christ but it was necessary so that he could accomplish salvation for God’s Israel.

Barcellos, Richard. Recovering a Covenantal Heritage: Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology (pp. 102-103). RBAP. Kindle Edition.

Samuel Petto explains this important point:

Indeed, I think, one great end of God in bringing Israel under this Sinai covenant, was to make way for Christ, his being born or made under the law, in order to the fulfilling of it for us. I do not see how (by any visible dispensation) Jesus Christ could have been born actually under the law, if this Sinai covenant had not been made; for the covenant of works with the first Adam being violated, it was at an end as to the promising part; it promised nothing; after once it was broken, it remained in force only as to its threatening part, it menaced death to all the sinful seed of Adam, but admitted no other into it who were without sin, either to perform the righteousness of it, or to answer the penalty; it had nothing to do with an innocent person, after broken, for it was never renewed with man again, as before: therefore, an admitting an innocent person (as Jesus Christ was) into it, must be by some kind of repetition or renewing of it, though with other intendments than at first, viz. that the guilty persons should not fulfil it for themselves, but that another, a surety, should fulfil it for them.[ 227]

Barcellos, Richard. Recovering a Covenantal Heritage: Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology (p. 103). RBAP. Kindle Edition.

This explanation from Petto demonstrates how he himself, and most of the Particular Baptists, considered that the covenant of works was reaffirmed with a different goal than at its first promulgation. The covenant of works did not provide a substitution to satisfy its righteousness; no one could obey in Adam’s place nor suffer his punishment. God, therefore, reaffirmed the covenant of works in another covenant that allowed for a righteous person to substitute himself for sinners. Not only was the Old Covenant not against the promises of God (Gal. 3: 21), but it was given specifically for the accomplishment of these promises (Gal. 3: 22-24). Without being itself a covenant of grace, the Old Covenant was given because of the covenant of grace and with a view to its accomplishment. Is this what the apostle John wanted to underline by declaring: “Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1: 16-17)? The law given by Moses was a grace to lead to the grace accomplished by Jesus Christ.

Barcellos, Richard. Recovering a Covenantal Heritage: Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology (p. 103). RBAP. Kindle Edition.

If you read these quotes (which are from an essay in that book written by Pascal Denault) in the context of my three linked posts above you'll see what the republication (not reestablishment, but republication) of the Covenant of Works at Sinai is about.

The reason paedo-baptists (those who believe in and are panicked to protect the doctrine of infant baptism) refuse to see what is written above is because they MUST maintain a parallel between circumcision and ritual water baptism (when the real parallel there is circumcision of the flesh vs. circumcision of the heart, which is regeneration by the word and the Spirit), thus they actually say that the Old Covenant the apostle Paul mentions is the Abrahamic Covenant, AND that it is of the Covenant of Grace, making Paul in effect say the New Covenant does away with the New Covenant (which logically is on a par with their other necessary ad hoc violator of the law of non-contradiction doctrine that one can be in the Covenant of Grace and not in the Covenant of Grace at the same time).

Basically, in all this they downgrade the fact and reality of the doctrine of supernatural, monergistic regeneration by the word and the Spirit, and as a by product of that they have a man-centered view of the word of God itself (accepting atheistic, scholar-constructed versions over the pure and whole, inerrant, Holy Spirit preserved received Hebrew and Greek text in sound translation, which in English is the Authorized, King James, Version; the one they tacitly recognize as the Standard in all their translating activities despite themselves).

Anyway, this downgrading of regeneration (being born again) causes their churches to be dead zones, at best shallow, at worst Satanic. Spiritually dead either way. Their standard - and very on-the-mark, except on infant baptism - theologian, Louis Berkhof, wrote a surprising essay on this that they refuse to publish, yet lo and behold it is available to their dismay on the internet for anyone to read and be pleasantly - hopefully - surprised at.


Worldviews diagramed

Using Nancy Pearcey's 5 principles of finding truth (from her book Finding Truth) I thought I'd diagram major worldviews using that template, though in shorthand. [This post to be continually updated.]


The idol: relativism

The reductionism: reducing absolute truth to man's desires and demands

The external inconsistency: if truth doesn't exist then the words on the post-modernist's employment contract are meaningless hence he shouldn't get paid, but he still thinks he should get paid

The internal inconsistency: saying there is no truth is a performative contradiction; like saying everything I say is a lie

The case for Christianity: absolute truth exists because it is anchored in the being and self-revelation of God and matches what we human beings (who are created in the image of God) know to be true in our heart and conscience.


The idol: death

The reductionism: reducing God's creation and plan of redemption down to a counterfeit system designed to produce human death and suffering as sacrifice to Satan's Kingdom.

The external inconsistency: "Islam is a religion of peace" said while copious amounts of blood are dripping from the speaker's hands, if his hands have not been cut off already, the torturer becoming the tortured which is a common pattern in Islam's hell culture

The internal inconsistency: Allah hu ahkbar! means God is greater! but greater than who or what? Because Islam's god is Satan, and a counterfeit to the Holy Trinity of the Old and New Testaments, which is the Holy Scripture Islam uses to draw reflected authority for its own so-called holy book (like the moon - a symbol of Islam - reflecting the light of the Sun), while denying the core truth of the Old and New Testaments, thus God is greater translated is Satan is greater than the God of the Old and New Testaments, which is false because Satan is a created being, created by the God of the Old and New Testaments

The case for Christianity: For a counterfeit to exist the real thing has to exist


The idol: brain matter

The reductionism: reducing All and Everything to the grey matter that makes up the human brain

The external inconsistency: the image atheists see in mirrors; often dopey images that can't be reconciled as being solely the product of brain matter

The internal inconsistency: being the best identifiers of the true religion by what they attack and what they really have no enthusiasm for attacking

The case for Christianity: if the true God, sovereign in creation, providence, and grace didn't exist then atheists wouldn't exist, and atheists exist, so...


The idol: the Triune God self-revealed in the Old and New Testaments and in history

The reductionism: God is sovereign in creation, providence, and grace

The external inconsistency: having life and consciousness by/in the logos by grace, yet being dead asleep in life indulging resentment

The internal inconsistency: having knowledge of God put in our hearts from birth and denying His existence

The case for Christianity: The Divine Origin of the Bible by B. B. Warfield


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 internally 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 (i.e. be awake to the reality and presence of God always in real time; and love your enemy as yourself, because we always target our resentment at human beings one way or another, and it's resentment, rather than gratitude, that keeps us under the power of our fallen nature), 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 tended 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, remove the venom from 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.