<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>


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.



Anybody self-identifying as a Christian, especially one in any kind of position of leadership, self-appointed or not, who tells you there is error in the Bible is a devil, pure and simple.

They will usually disdain any notion of the supernatural in the preservation of the books and words of the Bible; as well as show contempt, by their silence, on any involvement of the Holy Spirit in preservation of the Bible.

They'll demand that you tell them what extant manuscript represents the Bible without error. Tell them that all manuscripts have to be edited. The reformers did this. But there is a difference between editing a similar stream of manuscripts vs. constructing a manuscript from diverse sources.

That editing process, that refining process, done over centuries, not reliant on one set of men or school of philosophy that's in the air at any given time, is guided by the provident hand of the Holy Spirit Himself. He guides the process and the outcome to where you will have the Bible, pure and whole, that you can actually hold in your hand.

That process for the English Bible culminated in the AV 1611, the pure and whole Word of God, the foundation of the faith, hated by devils the world over.


Journal of American Greatness

This blog is considered a pretty good collection of intellectuals who understand and support Donald Trump. They don't think he's a perfect candidate, but they're on board. They're critical of the current conservative pundit/intelligentsia (think National Review Online types) who they consider to be a bit shallow. Anyway, read the link at the top Who Are We? and Our Mission Statement. Ironically their mission statement was National Review's mission statement when that magazine first got started. It has deviated a bit.


You have to read this

[an email]

You can't read articles like this enough. It's happening all over the western world:

It's all different takes, or variations, on the same theme. This article (and the Noonan excerpts it quotes) gets at it pretty darn well. - C.


My advice for people who go through a seminary

Here is some advice for people who go through a seminary (advice which even can be taken after the fact of graduating from a seminary even long ago):

Always have in your mind 7 books that most influenced you for the better and taught you the most during your seminary education. Determine what those 7 books would be and keep them in memory, and even revisit them with complete readings now and then. The books should be of an elemental nature to the subject matter learned in a seminary.

A book, for instance, like Machen's Christianity and Liberalism. This book is a good example of what I'm getting at. I hear that it is a book often assigned to students in their first year in more conservative Reformed type seminaries, which is good. Yet the mind of seminary graduates typically would think of this book as too "beginnerish" or too simple to be something to put on the list of 7 books I'm talking about. Wrong. It's just the type of influence and subject matter that needs to be remembered and revisited.

Unfortunately it would be typical of a seminary graduate to populate such a list as I'm talking about with the most 'erudite', academic, nuanced pieces crap books they could think of. Books "lay people" might not even have heard the existence of. No, this is not about making a list of 7 books that if other seminary graduates saw it they wouldn't laugh at you or think you were simple (simple, by the way, or 'plain' to use the biblical word, is a great virtue in the Christian faith).

Yes, you can choose a book like Vos' Pauline Eschatology even though it defeats "lay people" because it's got so much damn Greek in it. That's OK. That wouldn't be pretentious. You didn't labor through See It and Say It In Biblical Greek, Vol. 1 and half of Vol. 2 to not get any reward for your efforts.

For another example...was there, for instance, an essay or book by Warfield that really taught you something basic about the faith or arguing for the faith? A book such as Revelation and Inspiration? Put it on your 7 book list and remember it. Carry it with you in your memory. Read it again every now and then.

Your 7 book list doesn't have to be populated with major, classic works. There could be a simple essay or article or intro to another book. Packer's Intro to Owen's Death of Death In the Death of Christ, for instance. Or whatever you encountered going through a seminary (notice I don't say seminary without an 'a' or 'in' in front of it? We are not English. We are in a hospital. We are not in hospital (some of you are inhospitable). And we don't say am-ih-ter, Camden Bucey, we say am-ih-CHUR.

Anyway, with your 7 book list carried around with you in your memory you will have the best, the basics, of your seminary education remaining with you.

Loraine Boettner on the Trinity

Loraine Boettner on the Trinity is a very interesting and unique read. I find Boettner on anything to be uniquely clear and valuable as a teacher of difficult, hard doctrine. I encountered him early on when I was learning Reformed theology, and I'm thankful I did. I tended to gravitate toward sources like him though, and there is no reason not to go back and revisit such on-the-mark sources we've learned the basics from in the past every now and then.

This one also is his classic work: Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. It is clear and strong and sets everything in bright sunlight.


Meditate the Bible

MEDITATE THE BIBLE. After reading it 7 times complete (dedicated cover-to-cover readings), time to meditate it. I'll figure out how that goes as I go along. I've done it with the Psalms some, on walks, reading verses on my phone. I actually think it will just be a matter of pausing and pondering verses, passages, whole chapters, books. Meditating upon Scripture at different scale. Envisioning people, pondering places, focusing on things, recreating events, contemplating ideas. There's definitely room also for deeper vision, which is hard for anyone to describe.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1 2 3 4

1 Samuel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

2 Samuel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 Kings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

2 Kings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 Chronicles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

2 Chronicles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Song of Solomon
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 2 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 Corinthians
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

2 Corinthians
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 Thessalonians
1 2 3 4 5

2 Thessalonians
1 2 3

1 Timothy
1 2 3 4 5 6

2 Timothy
1 2 3 4

1 2 3


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 2 3 4 5

1 Peter
1 2 3 4 5

2 Peter
1 2 3

1 John
1 2 3 4 5

2 John

3 John


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


Step back, cucks, adults taking over

In the last couple of days some very interesting articles on the Trump phenomenon have appeared. Basically they've shown the fake "principled" conservatives (cucks) up as viciously stupid and corrupt, and the articles have put the Trump thing in an accurate historical context. Here's one.

Here's another.

And here is another take-down by David Horowitz who is a rare neocon showing common-sense in this whole matter (unlike in the Diana West matter, but that's another thing).

More of this please.

Worth watching to the end. A rare exhibit of what needs to be done. Some Germans actually have their genitalia left.





An email on Packer's great article the Plan of God

That Packer essay that I linked (below) on the Plan of God is not run-of-the-mill. It bears repeated reading. Especially if you are having difficulty and doubting faith. It's a deep-themed biblical article. A true overview of the faith, yet surprising in what he focuses on. I have it in my read again and again folder. - C.

On May 25, 2016, at 2:31 AM, c. t. wrote:

I've sent this before, but Packer is unusually lucid when writing on such a topic. Worth having handy anyway:



Understanding the powerful level of experiential understanding of doctrine

Recovering Experimental Religion
Sherman Isbell

Experimental religion, which once was a vital part of the Reformed tradition of preaching and spirituality, has in a large measure been lost sight of in our day. Even use of the term experimental in connection with religion is no longer customary, it being more commonly associated with the natural sciences, where a method of probing and investigation leads to an understanding of reality. The older Reformed writers used the word to indicate that we not only read and confess what Scripture teaches, but also are enabled by the Holy Spirit in our own experience to prove and enter into those truths. The propositions of Scripture are true regardless of our experience of them. But in those who belong to Christ, there is a work of the Holy Spirit to persuade them of those truths, so that they taste and feel the power of them in their own souls. To tremble when we discern our guilt before God, and to be driven to seek covering in the blood of Christ, is to gain an experimental knowledge of realities revealed in Scripture. Such experiences are not like the groping of the heathen, who reflect on the mystery of their own hearts, trying to understand themselves, and pondering what God might be like and how he might relate to the world. Experimental religion in the Reformed tradition entails an experience which arises from being confronted with the testimony of Scripture, and in which the prime mover is God the Holy Spirit, driving home to heart and conscience the truths of the Word of God. John Elias, preaching in Wales in the early nineteenth century, describes such experiences of biblical truth: “To have an experimental knowledge of something means to try it, to possess it, and to enjoy it ourselves. You must not merely read or hear about it. . . . You may read many a sweet chapter about Christ, and no doubt you have heard many a faithful sermon about Him, and yet, you may be without a saving knowledge of Christ. But an experimental knowledge of Him is to prove, see, and feel what you have read and heard about Him.”

Anthony Burgess, a member of the Westminster Assembly, speaks of the knowledge that a man may acquire about foreign countries by looking at a map. But map knowledge cannot compare with actually going to the country, climbing its mountains, swimming in its rivers, and walking the streets of its towns. “Or as the Queen of Sheba, who had heard rumors of Solomon’s wisdom, when she came to have an experimental knowledge of it, then she was astonished, and said, All that she had heard was nothing to that which she saw. . . .But how is it to be feared, that many have seen godliness but in the map only, they never had experience of the thing itself. How many are there that talk of conversion or repentance, as men do of bringing forth a child, who never had the experience of the throbs and pains that then are endured. Paul, what a long time did he live in a road of religious duties, but when he came to have an experimental work upon him, he died, whereas he was alive before, that is, he became sensible of the
damnable and dangerous estate he was in, whereas he had great confidence of his good life and salvation before. And thus it is with every man that hath gotten experimental knowledge; alas (saith he) I was alive once, I thought myself somebody, when I could pray, write sermons, dispute so understandingly, but now I see I did not know what that faith was, or godliness was, that I did argue so much about, I never knew anything of God, or of his gracious works till now, will that soul say.”

There is a memorable passage in which J.C. Ryle presses on his readers the distance between belief that there is forgiveness and the believing reception of that forgiveness. “You believe perhaps, there is forgiveness of sins. You believe that Christ died for sinners, and that he offers a pardon to the most ungodly. But are you forgiven yourself? . . . What does it avail the sick man that the doctor offers him a medicine, if he only looks at it, and does not swallow it down? Except you lay hold for your own soul, you will be as surely lost as if there was no forgiveness at all. . . . There must be actual business between you and Christ.”

Therefore we preach not only what Christ once did in his death and resurrection to accomplish our redemption, namely what he did outside of us, but also how Christ now works within our hearts by his Holy Spirit to apply that redemption. The Spirit brings us to appreciate Christ as the pearl of great price. He puts down the opposition of our hearts and carries us forward in repentance. In the resulting conflict, struggle and upheaval in our experience, the Spirit progressively conforms us to Christ. All of this touches the realm of our conscience, our desires and choices, our affections, joys and sorrows, and things felt and experientially known.

Full article in PDF here.

Thomas Boston's Human Nature In its Fourfold State, for the record, is a classic work of experiential doctrine.


Clerics still bowing the knee to the devil

Again, it is striking - if not, unfortunately surprising - to see so many self-identified Reformed Christians reacting to Trump like neo-cons who took out a third mortgage the day before Trump announced his candidacy.

They obviously have no discernment for good and evil. They don't understand the world or how the devil operates in the world.

They're also obviously (and fecklessly) indoctrinated by the cultural Marxism of the day.

They seem to have no defense on the spiritual battlefield.

This is what thinking ritual water baptism regenerates and/or treating the Bible like a critical text theorist does to a person.

Both cut one off from the Spirit and truth of God's revelation.

List of 'great divides'

This is an email based on that last post. It's got a good list, so...



The article linked is short and well worth reading. It reminds that amidst the seemingly multi-various splash of parts there is a simple whole. The Great Divide mentioned in the article, which I excerpted, is a very good one to know. I made a list of these 'divides' long ago. I even called them divides. Such as the Creator/creation divide. OK, I'll look right now for it ---------

Here it is:

+ + + + + + +

The 4 Great Divides & Two Great Practices:

I. Worshiping the creation rather than the Creator

II. Seeing Jesus as merely a great teacher rather than Lord and Savior

III. Thinking one can be justified and made righteous by one's own works rather than by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ in His life and on the cross (self-righteousness and self-justification vs. the righteousness of Christ and justification by faith alone in Christ)

IV. A Personal vs. an Impersonal Universe

[and now add the linked article great divide above, though #3 above might get at that]

Two Great Practices:

Act now as if you're in the Kingdom of God now, with gratitude always for everything, and God can trust you.

Do the two conscious shocks [that is Work, or Fourth Way language, Ouspensky side of the school] as the means to being in covenant with God.

+ + + + + + +

See? I even called them 'Great Divides'... - C.

Simple, yet clarifying

To be specific, this determinative high ground is one’s theology of God, man, and salvation. This is the highest of all thought, and it divides all doctrine into two schools. Historically, these two ways of thinking about God and His saving grace have been called by various names. Some have identified them as Augustinianism and Pelagianism. Others have named them Calvinism and Arminianism. Still others have defined them as Reformed and Catholic, while others have used the terms predestination and free will. But by whatever name, these streams are determined by the Continental Divide of theology.

That's from this article.

I came to see doctrine as armor of God. Calvinism, the doctrines of grace, the five solas, is the real armor of God.

Seeing that in the perspective of the 'Great Divide' that article speaks of is clarifying. The Bible ultimately is simple like that. The Devil, for instance, goes by many names and guises, but it all is simply evil vs. God's good. Two kingdoms, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Satan. And you're either God-centered or you're man-centered.


I know what this person is talking about

"I have experienced a "full" sleep paralysis episode (with entities) and its no "walk in the park"..."

That is part of a comment on the PuritanBoard on the subject of whether there is alien life on other planets. I think the best answer is there is a lot of demonic activity that can manifest to our senses in various ways, but it has to be pointed out (and nobody at the PuritanBoard pointed this out): since about 2010 there have been over a billion cell phones with easy to activate and use cameras everywhere in the world, and no one has captured images or video of UFOs or anything of a similar nature. In fact, in seems that such sightings, or claims of such sightings, have decreased with the ubiquitous presence of cell phone cameras (add dashboard cameras as well which constantly film a large swathe of sky).

As for full sleep paralysis (with entities)... I like that he said "with entities" because in my case I could only refer to them as that as well.

Full sleep paralysis can happen when you have been awake for an unusual number of hours (40 hours in my case), and then lie down flat on your back. What happens is your body goes into a normal sleep mode, yet your mind is still awake. It is a terrifying experience. You try to scream for help ("mom!!!" in my case, even though I was living in a distant city in my 20s), but your mouth doesn't move because your body is in full paralysis. What I saw when in that state was numerous 'beings' looming over me as if I was being operated on by several doctors. They were in white with faces that had no real characteristics to describe them other than they all seemed to look the same. I was struggling the whole time to come out of the paralysis, and finally did. I wasn't frightened after-the-fact, i.e. I didn't think there were 'beings' in the room or anything like that. Once I had physical control back it was all over.

This happened at a time when I was in an interval going from semi-aggressive non-Christian to reading the Bible and becoming a Christian. I was in conflict with the few people who knew me in that locale and who were angry I was drifting into the Christian realm. For instance, one person who had been in my apartment (actually a section of an old Victorian house) had snatched at a covered book and opened it to find a Bible like they'd caught me in a crime.

Over the years I concluded that what I saw were demons (define demons as you will...fallen angels, the souls of dead giants, whatever). I also experienced good angels in a car wreck that I was saved from. I didn't see any beings during that event, though it was no less real.

Christians need to check themselves when they feel a strong desire to debunk such testimonies because it usually is evidence of a lack of belief in the supernatural in general. Naturalism (materialism, ultimately atheism) can infect one without us realizing it since it is everywhere around us.


Why did God create evil?

I like hard doctrine. Biblically on-the-mark hard doctrine. It is the armor of God. This is hard doctrine. Scroll down to page 10. It is only two and a half pages long.


The soul of Europe

Just read an article in which Pope Francis was quoted as referring to Brussels as "the soul of Europe."

A comment under the article: "So Brussels is the 'soul of Europe'. Must be a coincidence that it is over 25% Muslim now."

J. I. Packer defines the Puritans

J. I. Packer, defining the Puritans (taken from Beeke's Meet the Puritans):

"By a definitive embodiment of New Testament Christianity I mean a body of beliefs and a style of life that combined on the grand scale the Trinitarian objectivism of the Fathers, the knowledge of self and sin set forth by Augustine, the knowledge of Christ, of the cross, and of justification by faith that the magisterial Reformers had and shared, and the universal Christian passion for the glory of God in the worshiping life of the Church, with the insight into regeneration, sanctification, and the inner life of the self that was the Puritans’ distinctive contribution. I mean a body of beliefs and a style of life that was intensely practical, experiential, conscientious, determined, vigorous, hopeful, hardworking, and visionary in its struggle to achieve and maintain sanctity in all circumstances, walks of life, personal states, relationships, and life activities, and to establish that sanctity everywhere..."


This is pointedly shallow

"Racism is nothing more than collective narcissism: I love my group above all others because I love myself." —Michael Horton


Open Letter to Anti-Trump Christian Conservatives

So you think of yourself as a Christian conservative, and you also really hate this whole Trump thing. You can't stand that so many stupid people could so stupidly vote for such a stupid person; and it all makes you want to punch a whole in the wall, but your mom would get angry if you did that, so you refrain and just sit in the middle of the floor fuming. Why just the other day you heard that Louis C. K. is against Trump, and he's a successful comedian and stuff, and those guys are like really smart and almost like wise men in our society and stuff; and yet Trump succeeds.

You're angry, we Trump supporters understand. Why can't we just see clearly like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher and stuff? I mean, the entire Democrat party is mocking Trump too, and stuff. We understand. The Pope, you scream. The Pope! Even he hates Trump! Yes, we understand you're confused. We understand.

It's like this, #antiTrump bumpkins. We are voting for a guy who will punch you in the face. Yes. You, even. People like you who run up multi-trillion dollar deficits. People like you who allow Muslim Brotherhood to sit in the Pentagon and draw up rules of engagement designed to get our troops killed and injured. People like you who fear the world and man to the degree that you'll allow the world to rape our nation with your support for Satanic open border ideology and your obsequiousness to political-correctness.

The list could go on, but what's the point. You have no discernment for good and evil.

Run along now, #antiTrump bumpkin. I hear your mom calling you. /ct