<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\07514792577\46blogName\75PLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\46publishMode\75PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\46navbarType\75BLUE\46layoutType\75CLASSIC\46searchRoot\75//electofgod.blogspot.com/search\46blogLocale\75en\46v\0752\46homepageUrl\75http://electofgod.blogspot.com/\46vt\0757601018325433937574', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


Political comment of the year

This was written in the comments section of a Ben Shapiro article. Shapiro, in the article, is suggesting how the Republican establishment can end run voters and get rid of Donald Trump.

Ben, ya gotta abandon the anti-Trump attitude, it's clouding your judgment to the bigger picture. Yes, he's uncouth and runs his mouth, but he's the ONLY one talking to the base, saying the same things we've been saying in private for MANY MANY years. The others can't even be bothered to mouth the platitudes. "We can't build a wall! We can't deport millions! We can't separate families! We can't repeal Obamacare! We can't can't can't!" Then what the hell are you running for if you won't do the Peoples' bidding? We went to the moon and back in less than a decade, we can build a damn wall like the Chinese did millenia ago with manual labor or that Israel or Saudi Arabia are doing. All this ahistorical analysis of things that we can't do ignores the things that we WILL do, and far more violently, when the economic system tips over.

So - elect the uncouth guy who will build a wall and deport the hostile invaders to save our nation, our posterity, our culture, and our Constitution; or elect the "nice" polished politician that literally married an illegal alien and speaks Spanish at home. Or the bought and paid for hispanic from Miami who tells us dumb whites one thing in English and the same day tell his base the opposite in Spanish about amnesty. Or perhaps the neurosurgeon who seems pretty dim, utterly uneducated on politics, completely inexperienced in politics and executive responsibilities, and in horribly over his head. Or perhaps the slick genius Constitutional lawyer who oddly can't block any significant legislation, ever, in the Senate (why no holds, Ted?) who also has a seemingly big eligibility issue as he's not a "natural born citizen." Choices, choices. Since I'm not a limp wristed leftist and mere words don't hurt my feelings I'm going to go with the one who has a record of accomplishment and is actually a patriot.

First, head-to-head YouGov poll from Wednesday shows Trump destroys his opponents - Carson 60-40, Rubio 57-43, Cruz 57-43. That destroys the consolidation myth.

Second, this is static analysis - if so and so dropped an such and such became the front runner... - it wouldn't go 100% to the new frontrunner and Trump would start to attack them. Rubio is a seriously flawed and incredibly corrupt candidate - he's surged like the others have, and he's also flaming out like the others. Fewer of us realize how corrupt and what a liar Ted Cruz is (he voted for TPA then campaigns against bad trade deals. Uh huh.) I'll never vote for him - he's a proven weasel. Cruz has less downside but on the upside he's accomplished precisely zip as a Senator. All talk. And his superpac is run by David Barton of Glenn Beck fame. But I'm sure the establishment types would back him. Cason's book tour is finally winding down. That'll leave Jeb!

Third, most of the others won't drop out because they're part of the splitter strategy. The early primaries are not simple popularity contests and delegates are doled out proportionally and such. They'll drop out AFTER they get their delegates then push them at Jeb! at the convention. There's a reason these losers bouncing around under the MOE are still in it - the mega-donors are paying their way to win the rigged contest. The spending of trillions of dollars is on the line, a few million thrown at Christie or Kasich is peanuts to ensure a win. Until it becomes so painfully obvious that the candidate can't scrape above 1% or get any delegates, then they drop. (Graham, Pataki, Gilmore.)

Fourth, this is a bigger war. Trump has huge crossover appeal with the independents and blue dogs. He's not a GOP establishment insider and he's beating Hillary and Bernie head to head. He may actually get blue dog union support. Anyone notice the lack of "electability" stories lately? Why isn't the media pushing Jeb! to drop out? Has anyone actually identified a second Jeb! supporter besides his planted intern? Why not? I say his 8% poll number is complete BS.

Fifth. Trump is the choice of the base. We had wave elections in 2010 and 2014 to repeal Obamacare, but now it's fully funded. Hmm.. Then Cochran/McDaniels racist primary meddling by Mitch McConnell. And Cuccinelli. And Dave Brat. And the border. Etc. Many of us WILL NOT vote for any establishment guy foisted upon us. Period. That ship has sailed. Either we the people get to decide our nominee or the party elites do. If they win this battle then the party is done. The low turnout for McCain and Romney didn't just happen due to weather.

What is the purpose of the party - to profit the plutarchs or the people? Judging by their words and deeds the establishment the plutarchs are clearly only self-interested.

THAT is what this election is about. We finally have a legitimate outsider to rally around that can go toe to toe with the elites and beat them at their own game. This is bigger than Trump. We don't particularly trust him but he has our support 100%. The others are known quantities and they have, each and every one, stabbed us in the back while saying they're conservatives. If we had an honorable conservative in the race it might be different. And what happened to all the honest conservatives? IF they manage to get past the local and state politics and get to Congress they're co-opted and/or destroyed. We want a level playing field and someone who represents us and American values, not corporate K-street values. So what if he's wrong on a few issues or mean to some professional politicians - he's right on the bigger issues and he's fighting our biggest enemy - the GOP establishment.

So the elites can play fair and ride this wave to their diminishment or stand in front of it and get destroyed and most of their bought politicians replaced over the next few elections. We are furious and are NOT going away.



Sinless people

[An email.]

On sin I've been thinking lately that this is the problem with Muslims and the current crop of young college students making demands. Both groups consider themselves sinless. By default of not having a Christian worldview. 

The doctrine of sin has been lost. Biblical anthropology. 

People become moralizing monsters when they think they are sinless. The finger wagging Muslim lecturing everybody, justifying the worst horrors. Young university students screaming people should be silenced and fired for disagreeing with them, the holy, sinless young people.

I see a Black Lives Matter person ranting, and I think: another sinless black person. - C.


If you read the entire excerpt you'll see A. W. Pink's assessment of churches and a Christian's connection with them

6. Hatred of the World

We profit from the Word when we evoke the hatred of the world. What pains are taken in the world to save appearances and keep up a seemly and good state! Its conventionalities and civilities, its courtesies and charities, are so many contrivances to give an air of respectability to it. So too its churches and cathedrals, its priests and prelates are needed to gloss over the corruption which seethes beneath the surface. And to make good weight “Christianity” is added, and the holy name of Christ is taken upon the lips of thousands of those who have never taken His “yoke” upon them (Mat 11:29). Of them God says, “This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoreth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me” (Mat 15:8). And what is to be the attitude of all real Christians toward such? The answer of Scripture is plain: “from such turn away” (2Ti 3:5). “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (2Co 6:17). And what will follow when this Divine command is obeyed? Why, then we shall prove the truth of those words of Christ’s: “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (Joh 15:19). Which “world” is specifically in view here? Let the previous verse answer: “If the world hate you, ye know it hated Me before it hated you.” What “world” hated Christ and hounded Him to death? The religious world, those who pretended to be most zealous for God’s glory. So it is now. Let the Christian turn his back upon a Christ-dishonouring Christendom, and his fiercest foes and most relentless and unscrupulous enemies will be those who claim to be Christians themselves! But “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you…for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad” (Mat 5:11,12). Ah, my brother, it is a healthy sign, a sure mark that you are profiting from the Word, when the religious world hates you. But if, on the other hand, you still have a “good standing” in the “churches” or “assemblies” [which are compromised with the world], there is grave reason to fear that you love the praise of men more than that of God! (The bracketed insertion did not appear in the original.)

(From Chp. 7 of Profiting from the Word, by A. W. Pink)


Which books of A. W. Pink were written when he was still a Dispensationalist?

That's the question I was searching for the answer of on the internet. The closest hit I came across was this:

"The late A.W. Pink, champion of Reformed Theology, was a Dispensationalist early in his writing career. Pink wrote four books on the subject of premillennialism from a Dispensational premillennial perspective: Redeemer’s Return, The Golden Age: A Treatise on the One Thousand Year Reign of Christ on Earth, The Antichrist, and The Prophetic Parables of Matthew 13."

That's from here: http://faithalone.org/magazine/y2011/11D2.html

So there is the answer. Fewer than I thought. The last two books mentioned were where I saw his dispensationalism, so that list rings true to me anecdotally.  

What separates real Christians

Real Christians read the Bible complete and are regenerated by the word and the Spirit. That goes without saying. What separates real Christians is the quality of their armor. Biblical doctrine is armor of God. What separates real Christians is their bookshelf and what they're able to see and accept and understand of on-the-mark biblical doctrine. The more they are active on the spiritual battlefield the more they will want real armor of God. Real, hard truth biblical doctrine assaults and insults our fallen nature. The soldier in battle doesn't care. He wants, he needs real armor. Note what your fallen nature doesn't want. Note your fallen nature's resentments, outrages, demands and desires. Go against them. Better yet be active on the spiritual battlefield unafraid to be conspicuous to the world and the Devil and hence be in the situation of a soldier who naturally wants real armor, telling all the demands and resentments of his outraged fallen nature to take a hike. At that point you will have five solas, five points of Calvinism, covenant, federal theology which is the real armor of God.


What to learn from news of a death

"Whatever it was [the cause of a person's death] it should, if anything, give people the realization that our days are numbered and only activities that truly develop us in an *essential* way are really worth giving the bulk of our time to; like, stop being shallow and desultory in your reading, Christians; get the word of God *engrafted* into your heart - fused into memory, will, and understanding - via a stated goal of complete readings, and get on-the-mark biblical doctrine into understanding to where it becomes the actual armor of God. Be systematic about it, and be complete about it as well. There is such a thing as terminal understanding of ultimate things."

The 5 principles of finding truth

This is an excerpt from Nancy Pearcey's book Finding Truth . It's from around page 255 or so (I have the ebook edition). It's an overview of the five principles of the book:

"A unique feature of a Romans 1 strategy is it can be applied universally to analyze and respond to any theory. Let’s remind ourselves of its key elements.

Principle #1 is to identify the idol. Every nonbiblical worldview starts with an idol, a God substitute. Romans 1 says that if humans do not worship the Creator, they will make a deity out of something in the created order. Like the blind men and the elephant, they fasten on some part of the created order and declare it to be the ultimate reality.

Principle #2 is to identify the reductionism. When one part of creation is deified, the other parts will be denigrated. Why? Because a part is always too small to explain the whole. Something will always stick out of the box. That “something”will be suppressed—devalued, dismissed, or denied. Otherwise it would count as evidence to falsify the worldview. Reductionism is always dehumanizing. It exchanges a high view of humanity made in the image of God for the image of something in the created order. And because the idol is something lower than the biblical God, its concept of humanity will also be lower. It will deny key attributes that make us distinctively human. And when reductionistic worldviews gain political power, the consequences are oppressive, coercive, and inhumane.

Principle #3 is to test the worldview against the facts of experience, the truths of general revelation. No matter how hard people try to suppress the evidence for God, the created order itself keeps challenging them. Both physical nature and human nature give evidence of the Creator. Therefore every idol-based worldview will fail to fit the evidence. It will contradict the knowable facts of general revelation. The more self-aware people are, the more clearly they will realize that they cannot live consistently on the basis of their own reductionistic worldviews. The truths of general revelation—the things they “can’t help believing”and living—create a gap between what they profess and what they practice. As a result, they live with a mental dualism, maintaining two sets of inconsistent beliefs.

Principle #4 is to show that every reductionistic worldview is self-defeating. It commits suicide. That’s because it reduces reason to something less than reason. Yet the only way a worldview can build its own case is by using reason. Thus it undercuts itself. It is self-refuting. Everyone who proposes a reductionist worldview must make a tacit exception for his own thinking—at least, at the moment he is stating his claims. But that, too, creates a logical inconsistency. It is an admission that there is one thing that the worldview does not cover—namely, the person who is proposing it. Either way, then, a reductionistic worldview fails.

Principle #5 is to make the case for a Christian worldview. By focusing on the points where competing worldviews fail, we can be assured that we are answering questions that are actually relevant. By identifying the points where non-Christians are free-loading, we can be confident that we are addressing areas where they sense a need for something more."


The death of the grown-up, pt. 6,783

[Skip to the bottom...]


Even in Genesis 1–3 we recognize the features of a covenant that we have delineated: a historical prologue setting the stage (Ge 1–2), stipulations (2:16–17) and the sanctions (2:17b) over which Eve and the serpent argue (3:1–5) and which are finally carried out in the form of judgment (3:8–19). It is only after this fateful decision that an entirely new and unexpected basis is set forth for human destiny (3:21–24). These elements are present, albeit implicitly, in the creation narrative, with the Tree of Life as the prize awaiting the successful outcome of a trial. Just as Yahweh the Great King endured the “trial” of creation and came out at the other end pronouncing victory and entering his Sabbath enthronement, his earthly ectype-vassal was to follow the same course. Genesis 1–3, and their canonical Christian interpretation, have an eschatological rather than simply existential orientation.
As further confirmation, the presence of the Sabbath at the end of the “six-day” work-week-trial holds out the promise of everlasting confirmation in blessedness. This pattern is not the imposition of an arbitrary law, but the image-bearer’s reflection of God’s own journey from creation to consummation. If Adam should default in this covenantal relationship, he would “surely die,” and we learn from the subsequent failure of Adam that this curse brought in its wake not only spiritual but physical, interrelational, and indeed environmental disaster.
Interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture, Adam’s covenantal role entailed that he was the representative for his whole posterity. In fact, every person is judged guilty in Adam, and the effects of this curse extend even to the rest of creation (Ge 3:17–18; Ro 8:20). It is with this simultaneously legal and relational background in mind that Paul makes his well-known statements on the imputation of Adam’s guilt and corruption as the corollary of the imputation and impartation of the Second Adam’s righteousness (esp. Ro 5) in justification and sanctification.11
The theme of covenant solidarity, otherwise regarded as congenial to relational and communal views of the self, is nevertheless put to the test when it involves collective human guilt: the tragic aspect of human solidarity and relationality. “The intersubjective matrix which forms individual, related persons,” notes Francis Watson, “also simultaneously deforms them.”12 Together we stand or fall. The legal and relational basis for this solidarity is the covenant of creation. As John Zizioulas observes,

The drive of the human being towards otherness is rooted in the divine call to Adam. The call simultaneously implies three things: relationship, freedom, and otherness, all of them being interdependent.… Through the call, Adam is constituted, therefore, as being other than God and the rest of creation. This otherness is not the result of self-affirmation; it is an otherness granted and is not self-existent, but a particularity which is a gift of the Other.13

Human identity therefore originates in being addressed: “the human being is singled out, not merely as a species, but as a particular partner in a relationship, as a respondent to a call.”14 It is precisely this call that humanity, in Adam, refuses, because we wish to be the speaker, not the addressee, in the covenant.
Contrary to the assumptions of Rudolf Bultmann, Ernst Käsemann, and others, Paul’s polemic against the law and works of the law is not an abstract opposition. Humanity was created for love, which means for law, since law simply stipulates loving actions. Because of the fall, there is no longer any possibility of being justified by “works of the law.” All of humanity, including Israel, is now “in Adam,” condemned as a transgressor of the law. Thus, the covenant of creation (also called the covenant of works, law, or nature) is the legal context for God’s judgment. This original covenant of creation may be defended by appealing to non-Christian as well as Christian sources.

Michael Horton, (2011). The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (pp. 415–416). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Aside from what he's actually saying (decipher that at your leisure) the writing itself is pure academic, shallow, juvenile narcissistic garbage. It is writing that is worthy of the post-modern essay generator you can find on the internet. It very much is not worthy of a Reformed systematic theology.


Going on in the world

Psalms 59:1-17 (KJV)
1 Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God: defend me from them that rise up against me.
2 Deliver me from the workers of iniquity, and save me from bloody men.
3 For, lo, they lie in wait for my soul: the mighty are gathered against me; not for my transgression, nor for my sin, O LORD.
4 They run and prepare themselves without my fault: awake to help me, and behold.
5 Thou therefore, O LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel, awake to visit all the heathen: be not merciful to any wicked transgressors. Selah.
6 They return at evening: they make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city.
7 Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear?
8 But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.
9 Because of his strength will I wait upon thee: for God is my defence.
10 The God of my mercy shall prevent me: God shall let me see my desire upon mine enemies.
11 Slay them not, lest my people forget: scatter them by thy power; and bring them down, O Lord our shield.
12 For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying which they speak.
13 Consume them in wrath, consume them, that they may not be: and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth. Selah.
14 And at evening let them return; and let them make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city.
15 Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied.
16 But I will sing of thy power; yea, I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning: for thou hast been my defence and refuge in the day of my trouble.
17 Unto thee, O my strength, will I sing: for God is my defence, and the God of my mercy.


An Address to Christian Warriors

Soldiers of Christ, be aware that you are highly advanced in God’s creation, that you occupy an important station, that you have an arduous work allotted to you, and that you have neither time nor talent to throw away. For you are enlisted under the banner of Christ: you have entered the armies of the Most High. You have taken the oath of allegiance to the King of Zion, and bound yourselves by an oath to fight the good fight of faith against sin, Satan, the world, and the flesh. What formidable enemies are these! You have to encounter all the powers of hell, and their name is Legion. Fight them you now must, for you have put on the armour, and taken the field to fight all the enemies of God and man.

When you survey the enemies’ camp, and see their strength, number, stratagems, and inveterate malice, and are then made to feel your own weakness and nothingness, you tremble and say, ‘How shall I go against these mighty hosts! Yet I must conquer them all, or die an eternal death.

’O soldiers of Christ, banish all your guilty fears! There is, after all, far more for you than against you. You are on the Lord’s side, and he fights for you. He is your refuge and strength, your sun and shield. He is with you in the field, to teach your hands to war, and to cover your head in the day of battle. He has promised you the victory. If God is for you, who is he that can overcome you and put you to death, when you are hidden in the Lord’s pavilion, and surrounded with the wall of salvation?

While in the heat of the battle, be filled with the hope of victory, and feel assured that you shall finally obtain a complete and glorious conquest over all that come against you; for has not the Captain of your salvation engaged to subdue Satan and all his armies under your feet? Trust him and take courage then. You cannot meet with disappointment, “for faithful is he that promised, who also will do it”(1 Thessalonians 5:24).

With a view to strengthen your hope of victory, keep in mind that you have not an enemy, difficulty, or danger to encounter but which has been already conquered and subdued for you by the great Captain of your salvation. And the countless millions of his soldiers who are now safely in glory, singing the song of Moses and the Lamb, were once here below, wrestling with all the enemies and difficulties which you now have to encounter.

Therefore fight valiantly, and rest assured that he who carried them safe through the war will also carry you to the triumphs of the world to come. Not one of all his true soldiers was ever left to perish on the field of battle. Put on courage, Christian warriors! Fight the good fight of faith, be faithful unto death, and then your Captain will release you from the war, and give you the crown of life, which you shall forever wear in honour of your gracious Lord and Saviour.

- The Reverend THOMAS JONES Northamptonshire, 1837.


This is something you have to see in vision

Today, for centuries, there's been the myth of the Noble Savage. This myth has covered up the demonic nature of human beings the world over.

When Europeans came to the New World they encountered what they termed savages. Demons they were called too. Not just a few Indian tribes. Most all.

Read this blog post for a litany of torture committed: http://www.reclinercommentaries.com/2011/04/fate-worse-than-death.html

My point in this is to see how evil and darkness were upon the land. Not noble savages, but evil.

From the Tower of Babel to now. Depravity of fallen nature.

But we think evil is making inroads when it was here to begin with. All lands. Mitigated only by very thin lines and layers of government based on natural law which is based on God's law. Never perfect, because itself administered by fallen human beings, but obviously not rank evil like things are without it.


No, America is not the center of evil on the planet

Any theologian or just Christian, obviously liberal but also putative conservative, who doesn't have the manifestation of evil on this planet forefront in his or her mind - and just the era they've lived through the last one hundred years alone - is living in delusion and shallowness. Nothing they say is of worth. They can't see anything. Supernatural evil manifesting (Marxist, Islam being the largest) is easier to see than the Kingdom of God manifesting, and anyone who can't see it has nothing of worth to say as a Christian.

And this is not even referencing the people who call evil good and good evil.


What modernists with seminary degrees mock

"Scriptures Induce Over Whole Bible History the Form of the Two Rival Kingdoms.

There is no subject on which we may more properly remember that "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy." It is evidently the design of the Scriptures to make much of Satan and his work. From first to last, the favorite representation of the world's history is, that it is the arena for a struggle between two kingdoms—Christ's and Satan's. Christ leads the kingdom of the good, Satan that of the evil; though with different authorities and powers. The headship of Satan over his demons is implied where they are called "his angels." He is also called Prince of Devils (Eph. 2:2; Matt. 25:41, 9:34). Prince of the powers of the air, and Prince of darkness (Eph. 6:12). This pre-eminence he doubtless acquired partly by seducing them at first, and probably confirmed by his superior powers. His dominion is compacted by fear and hatred of God, and common purposes of malice. It is by their concert of action that they seem to approach so near to ubiquity in their influences. That Satan is also the tyrant and head of sinful men is equally plain. This prevalent Bible picture of the two kingdoms may be seen carried out in these particulars. (a) Satan originated sin (Gen. 3:1; Rev. 12:9, to; 20:2, 10; 1 John 3:8; John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:3). (b) Satan remains the leader of the human and angelic hosts which he seduced into hostility, and employs them in desperate resistance to Christ and His Father. He is the " God of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4). "The Spirit that worketh in the children of this world." Eph. 2:2. Wicked men are his captives. See above, and 2 Timothy 2:26. He is "the Adversary " (Satan,) "the Accuser," (Diabolo" ) "the Destroyer," (Apolluwn ) (c) The progress of Christ to the final overthrow of this kingdom is the one great business of all time; the history of the conflict is the history of man and redemption (Gen. 3:15; John 12:31; 1 John 3:8-10; 1 Pet. 5:8; Eph. 6:11; John 8:44; Mark. 3:23-27; Rom. 16:20; Acts 26:18; Luke 10:18). The single fact that ungodly men, until the end of the world, compose Satan's kingdom, proves that he has, and will have some power or influence over their souls." - Robert Dabney, Systematic Theology


Wisdom from the 1850s

"In religion, men appear naturally fond of the difficult and the obscure; perhaps, because they there find escape from the disquieting light of clearly revealed truth." - J. L. Dagg, A Manual of Theology


Best def. of gaslighting I've come across

[an email]

I've defined gaslighting before as when no matter what you do or say people act like you're being weird. 

Here's another way of defining it I just came across:

"Mickey Kaus characterizes the approach as “gaslighting” — giving your opponent a legitimate reason to get angry, then turning around and pointing to their anger as evidence they’re unhinged, obsessed, [etc.]..."

Disingenuous bewilderment is a cousin to this behavior. 

It's often, probably usually, done unconsciously. Most people aren't calculating enough to do it consciously. It's a devil spirit thing. Often done to individuals who are rogue from the devil's kingdom. Or in the first stages of becoming so. Or obviously a lost cause hence it's done to try to destroy them. People engaged in spiritual warfare experience this. - C.


What is the apex experience for humankind?

The world says: ejaculation is the apex experience.

The churchian says: raising a family is the apex experience.

The Christian says: salvation is the apex experience.


The Four Prime Things

Thomas Brooks (1608–1680) said,

1. “Christ,

2. the Scripture,

3. your own hearts, and

4. Satan’s devices,

are the four prime things that should be first and most studied and searched.”


Tremendous free book

[An email...]

You really can't go wrong with the trio of Bunyan, Spurgeon, and Pink. Of Calvinist theologians they offer the most on-the-mark school. No fear school. And with Pink of course he saw the full truth half way through his writing career, i.e. was Dispensationalist early then came to understand covenant theology [Edit. Actually see this, it was only four books he wrote from a Dispensationalist perspective].

The subject of Anti-Christ is confusing. Is it one person? Many? A spirit of iniquity? All the above? Bunyan in this book very clearly defines it all:


He also uncommonly expresses what I learned from Kline and have been writing recently on my Plain Path Puritan blog: that Anti-Christ seeks to take over the entire world. We're seeing it now, aren't we? Only a finite amount of real estate on the planet. Ronald Reagan once said, if we let evil capture America there will be no where left to go. Same idea. Same reality.

Once Anti-Christ asserts dominion over the entire planet, just like before the flood, then the end is triggered. I.e. the Devil doesn't get to experience victory. He is allowed to trigger his own demise but not to experience victory. - C.


Asserting dominion over the entire planet

There's a school of theology that says God made a deal with the Devil saying I will give you common grace. The sun will shine on you just as it shines on my people. The seasons will turn, food will grow for you. But...if you assert dominion over the entire planet that is when I'll bring my fist down upon you.

The Devil's religion today is cultural Marxism and Islam. Cultural Marxism softens up the target, and Islam is the active force. Today all Islam has to do is walk over a border and flip off cameras and take down stop signs, and...victory. That's how much cultural Marxism has softened up the target.

Prior, Islam and Marxism never had more than a third of the planet. Today it is in parts of the world it was never able to penetrate before.

To all you unbelievers: there is only a finite amount of real estate on this planet. Once you allow the Devil to have it all you will be living in a very different universe; and no longer will you be able to seek protection from Christians and Christian culture and civilization. You'll then be encased in the chains and darkness of the Devil's kingdom, the scenery of which only changes when it is tossed into the Lake of Fire.


How much worse?

The Devil's children are known by their ingratitude, arrogance, and treachery. They are currently flooding the world with their evil. Asserting dominion over the entire planet; lands God did not give them they are asserting ownership of. When Satan and his army and spiritual children assert dominion over the entire planet this is when God brings his fist down and the consummation of the plan of redemption commences. Just how worse it can get before triggering Divine action is the question. Probably best to assume a lot worse.

Right now Satan's religion is cultural Marxism and Islam. Cultural Marxism is providing the lunatic passivity in the face of the active force of Islam on the march. Any push back has been mostly an impotent chorus of words mixed with a "what the hell is going on here" resignation or dispiritedness. Not giving in, yet passive against a seeming omnipotent and omnipresent force of lunacy and evil.

Neh 10:28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;

Everyone having knowledge, and having understanding; you know who you are. Remember who you are in all this dispiriting flood of evil. A pious approach is not called for at the end. One must be bold to separate oneself and claim the righteousness of Christ in the face of evil. At the end if you don't recognize and hate evil you are showing sympathy to God's enemies. This next point will be a hard thing to see, but here it is: Satan and his followers counterfeit aspects of the plan of God. When they preach absolute hatred of you and no mercy for you (as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot taught their followers, and Islam's holy book teaches) they are counterfeiting how Christians are to view God's enemies at the consummation. Loving your enemy is a common grace era ethic. Figuratively dashing their very children against a wall is consummation ethics (God takes care of it, vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord). No sympathy for the Devil at the consummation.


Much of Michael S. Heiser revealed in a footnote in Unseen Realm

Utopianism is a familiar theme in classic literary works of Western civilization. Plato’s Republic, Augustine’s City of God, and Thomas More’s Utopia are the more obvious examples . In the Christian context, utopian communities that sought to separate from the world or reform the culture according to Christian ideals include Calvin’s Geneva, the Shaker movement, and the Ephrata Cloister . The Transcendental movement and sociopolitical ideologies like Marxism are also well-known secular examples. All attempts at creating a perfect harmonious society are doomed because people are imperfect, and total conformity is contrary to human nature. [footnote 4 of chp. 11 in Unseen Realm]

Heiser, in all his writing, keeps his doctrinal beliefs close to his vest (or at least makes them not easy to find), but this note shows a lot. City of God utopian? Calvin's Geneva utopian? On par in some way with Marxism? That all is a combination of ignorance and angry bias.

Elsewhere he's shown sympathy with Open Theism (in Unseen Realm as well). I guess he's Arminian. He just doesn't come straight out with these things. What makes this all relevant is he makes noise here and there of being Reformed to some degree.

Mixed in with his take on the Divine Council is a typical liberal theologian's (or biblical scholar's) presuppositions regarding Scripture, ancient near east literature and its supposed influence on the Bible, but also an irreverent quality or tone when discussing the Triune God. For instance kind of making God one of the guys in the Divine Council. I suspect this is due to a lack of awareness of the reality of sin and the seriousness of God's wrath.

Though I would still recommend a reading of Unseen Realm due to it at least broaching subject matter Heiser admits biblical scholars avoid for the most part.


The Holy Spirit is the one you don't want to mess with

Jesus said mess with me, kick me, spit on me, mock me, kill me; but don't mess with the one who is coming after me. After Him you have nothing.

People, if they think about it at all, think of the Holy Spirit (the third Person of the Godhead, or Trinity) as being innocuous, and not threatening. Yet it's the Holy Spirit among the Persons of the Trinity that you don't want to mess with.

The Holy Spirit is quick-triggered if you deny His work, for instance. Never tell somebody they're not a Christian, for instance, because you can't know what is going on between them and God. You can confront and engage someone on doctrine or behavior, just don't make pronouncements about whether they are Christian if they self-identify as such.

In many ways the Holy Spirit is the most detached of the three Persons of the Godhead in his role in the economy of redemption. He is applying what the Son has accomplished to those the Father has chosen. Thus He seems to perhaps have less patience for human arrogance and intransigence.

He is, though, willingly grieved by man when He takes up residence in man, but the impatience with man can have effect in areas of sanctification.


Seeing life more fully

Here's a way to see life more clearly.

Think of the charms of girls and young women. Physical charms and all other charms. The power of yes included in those charms. The ability to have fun with other females as well as males included. I am positing attractive charm here.

Now see how it is real yet lightweight and shallow when it comes up against the weightier things of life and this world. Again: real, as in something; pleasant; life is worse without it; yet lightweight and shallow nevertheless.

Now see what it is that charm collapses in the presence of. Matters of life and death, war and peace, health and sickness, freedom and tyranny, hunger and prosperity, salvation and eternal damnation.

Now when your thoughts and orientation in life are focused more on the latter you are by default more awake and more serious, and more inclined to desire understanding of yourself and the world around you and ultimately understanding of your eternal future.


Elites: not the trace of a clue

The Trump candidacy has exposed the 'elite' virus that infects so many in our society. It's not just establishment politicians, Hollywood actors, journalists and pundits though. We also see these self-bemantled elites in Christian environments. The shallow and/or juvenile intellectuals who emerge from seminaries and proceed to engage in guild-like behavior rivaling the Romanist Magisterium of any era. And notice in the case of the GOP establishment elites and the Reformed seminary elites the cause they claim to be working for can actually be going backward, and they don't have the beginning of a clue.


Erasmus quote James White and other Jesuitical Critical Text stooges don't want you to see

O, sit anima mea cum Puritanis Anglicanis! - Erasmus

"O, let me die with the Puritans of England!"


"'Cause, you're Oompa Loompas and Trumpkins, and stuff. Just like Kevin Williamson said. And stuff."

Note I left at Steve Hays Triablogue blog under a post where he psychoanalyzes Trump supporters finding them to be just exactly what he's read National Review saying them to be:

c.t.8/28/2015 7:21 PM

Shit, you said Trumpkins, mimicking the NRO establishment tools who consider themselves the 'smart set.' Williamson, Goldberg, et al., just got skewered by the Weekly Standard. And, no, it didn't make them look cool. Now delete this 'cause I said shit. Fuck Trump smokes out the putative conservative tools.

Language warning, oh, too late.

They'll delete it, usually with a note saying something like: "We've informed you prior that you're not welcome here."

I know, dang, I'm not allowed to be a part of the Triablogue experience. [I had an insult here, but I remove it due to not wanting to be mean. People are who they are, and are where they are, and, we all survive the abortion odds, walk on grass for the first time, wonder about our place in the world...]

I'll just end here with: Kevin Williamson is not someone you want to emulate, Steve. Good on socialism, not so good on discernment of his own inanity.


Level of Being

"Biblical support for the above: Matthew 5:20 KJV For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. W."

W., I would also use Jesus' statement about how you can't pour new wine into old bottles. This clearly means to increase understanding we must increase *capacity* for understanding. That is increasing level of being, not just knowledge. Our level of being is exposed by our limits. To give a biblical example just so people can know what level of being refers to: how quick are we to answer a perceived insult with resentment rather than waiting on God and engaging in Christian new thinking such as love your enemy, turn the other cheek, and seeing in ourselves what we dislike in others? This is an example of what measures level of being.



Another "'Cuz...and stuff" Critical Text defender

A Critical Text useful idiot was challenging me saying, "Well, Reformed men have no problem with these modern versions, and I think they know what they're talking about."

I replied: "The Reformed you know are probably academic-oriented, educated in culturally Marxist institutions, adopting post-modern attitudes - and mocking approaches to true believers - with a total lack of self-awareness or critical engagement. One of the poisons which gets put in their mouths, and which they swallow obediently, is the notion that they stand above the text, and the text needs them more than they need it. You can stand above a scholar-constructed text. You have to look up to a received text. For the latter you have to acknowledge something higher than you has given the text to you. You have to be grateful to something higher than you."

Then he said: "'Cuz, James White, and stuff."

So I replied: "When did the notion that we needed a text *constructed* from divergent manuscripts come about? As opposed to a text *edited* from a received body of similar manuscripts? When did this notion occur? At what point in history? The counter-Reformation? The so-called Enlightenment? The 1800s? When? Answer this question first, and defend it, or you're not serious."

No answer was forthcoming. And stuff.


Continual weirdness in the Christian blogosphere and forumsphere

After reading numerous articles on how scientific studies using satellites and what not have found that the earth appears to be at the center of the universe, or at least in a privileged position, I began to look around for Christian sites on the internet that comment on the subject, but really could not find anything that approached the subject head on [and a note here: I just checked the Puritanboard, a site that has numerous people who will intelligently debate geocentrism all day, and it has zero posts or references to these recent satellite discoveries, that is telling; when something seems truly supernatural, in this case within the context of a current paradigm, many if not most Christians seem to scatter or go deer in the headlights]. So I recalled that there is a Reformed Christian by the name of John Byl who has a PhD. in astronomy, so I went to his blog and put a very kindly worded question to him:

c.t.July 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM

Dr. Byl, general request... As a Christian with a PhD. in Astronomy could you speak to - perhaps clear up - the recent stories of how the Planck Satellite and previous mappings of the cosmic microwave background have in some way shown that the Earth seems to be the center of the universe? The problem for the average Christian who is obviously interested in such a claim is the science is beyond the average layman. Could you write something on it for us, a general audience? Thank you in advance...

OK, so I waited the better part of a month for a reply. During that time he made other posts to his blog, so I know he was active on it, yet I got no response. So I wrote this:

c.t.July 30, 2015 at 2:13 AM

Trying to guess your reason for no reply...is this not a subject that interests you? Or, what... It seems like a rather big thing that recent satellite mappings of the universe would show the earth to be in at least a privileged position? Other recent scientific studies seem to show the same. Was wondering what your take on it all might be. Can't seem to find Christian responses on it.

To this he finally replied:

john byl July 30, 2015 at 7:27 AM

Hello C.T.:
I haven't replied because (1) your comment is off topic and (2) I reply only to real people. See my comment rules below. If you want to pursue this, please send me an email.

Just, ******* weird. The usual weird I've come to expect from Christians on the internet. It's *kind of a big subject*, no??? Kinda. "your comment is off topic" and "I reply only to real people". So what about these recent satellite findings that THE EARTH IS AT THE CENTER OF THE FREAKING UNIVERSE!!!!!???????

"You're not presenting your question in the correct manner. This is a blog. There are correct methods to approach me with a question." I won't bother with your email address because I doubt you have anything interesting to say at this point anyway.

Here's what I see going on...

Currently today in the United States many people formerly thought to be conservative have been smoked out as establishment Republicans, which pretty much is the same as being a member of the devil Democrat Party. A non-politician, a builder, i.e. somebody who actually produces and does things, entering the presidential race has done this.

I see the same thing among Christians. When something truly strange like scientific studies that show the earth to actually be at the center of the universe appears it smokes out the Christians who are just pretending (for whatever reason). The very fact they have no interest in the subject at all gives them away. It's like if Jesus returned next hour they would still be thinking of gassing up their RV to get to that conference in Seattle where they are to deliver a paper on the return of Jesus. The real thing happening? No interest. What? Actually believe all that stuff?


Major division of the faith

An active division of the faith the mainstream or establishment church ignores or is ignorant of is the division between thinking about the faith vs. being on spiritual ground and acting in the faith.

The latter is being in the cauldron vs. being outside the cauldron.

The Christian academic professor, for instance, writing, thinking teaching is outside the cauldron.

The Christian practicing presence, and prayer, and discipline (such as fasting from features of his fallen nature) in a spiritual landscape that is default hostile is inside the cauldron.

Being inside the cauldron develops being. Staying outside the cauldron can give an environment to gain knowledge of the faith, but without ever being in the cauldron that knowledge has a ceiling; tends to veer into areas fallen nature desires it move into; and can actually go backwards from the sound basics of the faith.

Knowledge and being are both necessary. Being in the cauldron is necessary. Spiritual warfare is necessary.


Genesis 6:2 and Reformed seminary types

[From an email.]

Most all modern day Reformed seminary types stay away from the angelic view [that fallen angels mated with human women]. It's like a thing that will get them cast out of the guild. Because it's a stepping into the mesoteric realm. You admit angels in that passage then you have to defend it, and defending it means going to Jude, Enoch, the entire biblical storyline of Satanic defilement of the bloodline, attempted, between Adam and Christ, etc., etc.

Meredith Kline came close to adopting the angelic view, but he said fallen angels took over the bodies of the kings and leaders and mated with women that way, but in saying that the fallen angel view is possible he made an insight that really cemented the fallen angel view I hold as the accurate one. He pointed out that Satan counterfeits God's plan, and in having fallen angels mate with humans to make hybrids he was counterfeiting the incarnation of Christ, fathered by the Holy Spirit on a human woman, Mary.

The argument for fallen angels is strong. Very, very strong. The ancient Jews, the early church fathers, 1Enoch quoted in the Epistle of Jude, etc.

Liberal theologians are prone to downgrade the notion and doctrine of sin. Conservative theologians are more prone to unconsciously deny supernatural elements of the Bible. The former become practical atheists; the latter become practical deists.


A request to followers of the Critical Text deception as it becomes more exposed

I want to make a request to followers of James White and the Critical Text movement. Whether you are part of his close following or just have read his book or listened to him on the internet, or if you are part of the Puritanboard and have defended him, etc., I make this request of all of you. As you go through the psychological stages one goes through when they learn that the person they've been looking up to is not a person worth looking up to, please - please - don't then take out your frustration and disillusionment with the word of God itself. Don't abandon the Bible. Don't decide that you're no longer going to read the Bible or believe the Bible or live by the words of the Bible. This would be giving the victory to the Devil. This is what the Devil wants, that even in the exposure and defeat of his workers the effect is the same: getting people to be dispirited about and turn away from the living word of God. Go through the psychological stages, but keep your eye on the true target of your increasing wrath: those who have wickedly set into motion a plan to dispirit people about the word of God, to preach that there is error in the word of God, that God has not preserved His word in any meaningful way, all to get you to turn away from God's word and back to the word of man and Satan.


A glorious book (a golden book) that has to be realized

There is a book that is so good, like a masterwork by Bach or Mozart, that gets lost in the vast mix of Puritan works, and also is often described as simple, as in for beginners, but that is like saying Mozart's 41st symphony is for beginners, whatever that means.

I speak of Thomas Watson's A Body of Practical Divinity. It's made up of 3 vols. Body of Divinity, Lord's Prayer, and Ten Commandments. See excellent ebook editions of them from Monergism at the bottom of this page here.

They're all three linked at the bottom of that page. For an example read Watson describe the Kingdom of God in the book The Lord's Prayer. In the contents the link is: 'Secondly, The kingdom of heaven implies a glorious fruition of all good.' Read through that. Imagine if any other religious tradition had such a work (such a teaching!), imagine how it would be their golden book.

There truly are three unique folk classics of the Puritan era. I haven't seen this as clearly as lately.

1. Pilgrim's Progress - John Bunyan
2. Human Nature In its Fourfold State - Thomas Boston
3. A Body of Practical Divinity - Thomas Watson

(The A.V. 1611 could be included in that, as a translation, it has 'folk' qualities as well, meaning, at the level of the people in tune with the seasonal and daily rhythms and activities of the natural world...that plainness and common-sense and deep, simple understanding, with not the absence of poetry and vision and power.)

This 'folk' quality of Watson's book is really what causes people to classify it differently from other doctrinal works. That 'simple' or beginner's work quality. Again, like saying a masterwork by Bach or Mozart is simple.


James White, mental patient

James White is a pure mental patient. Look at the last third of this.

You have to have been around somebody with Narcissistic Personality Disorder to know how that disorder rivals every other disorder in the book for obnoxiousness. They become a fortress. Unreachable. They never get better. It's a tragic disorder in that sense. But they take first prize in being obnoxious.

In White's case it is all turbo charged by the fact that his self-image is of a world class intellectual.

It's best that people not even deal with him in any way at this point. (It's funny that he throws the Puritanboard under his bus in this latest video, and he has 95% supporters on that forum.)

People with White's disorder will gather around themselves followers. They become a kind of egregore. When a person has zero self-awareness and a glass-eyed like confidence in everything they say or do it attracts a certain type of weak follower.

A further note: Narcissists hate people who can 'see' them. They go ballistic towards people who can see them. It kind of makes them implode. Kent Brandenburg can see White. Will Kinney can see white. Two of the more calm and polite people on the internet, and White talks about them like they're wild bomb throwers.

A little vignette of White's psychology: Recently a radio show from my part of the world, Armstrong and Getty, began playing in syndication in Arizona. White has been listening to it and remarking on things he's heard on it. It matches his politics pretty much. But for a stretch of time White stated he was very upset with the show because they kept talking about NBC's Brian Williams. White didn't like that. They were mocking Brian Williams and his self-promoting lies. "Enough with the Brian Williams talk!" White said waving his hand over his forehead. Why did White get upset about this? Because White does what Brian Williams has done in his life. Being reminded of Brian Williams, for White, is like a woman seeing another woman at a gathering wearing the same dress. The inflated self-image, the little untruths and exaggerations in stories about world travel (White once stated he did a debate that went over all of Europe...well, cable access potentially has a large audience too). White in the Ukraine during a time it was in the news: "I was at an intersection and there were armed thugs acting like they were in control, and it got a little sketchy..." He most likely never left the airport hotel's community room. Etc. He goes to South Africa..."I'll be ministering to South Africa this fall..." He can reach up and take hold of a galaxy in his hand. "Excuse me while I kiss the sky..."

Kent Brandenburg once said this of White, capturing one of White's more prominent mental traits: "White is the kid in the classroom who slams his pencil down on his desk to let everyone know he finished the test first."

The practice of the faith

1. Conscious Labor

2. Intentional Suffering

If you understand these two things you'll understand the true practice of the Christian faith.

What the churchians teach always comes down to dead ritual. "Drink grape juice and eat crackers! And, oh, yes, just sit there and don't worry about knowing anything, just be 'under the care of' these 'ordained' elders." Who don't know shit. That's like 'being under the care of' Vinnie the Bouncer at the Sports Club Bar and Pizzeria; or daddy the minivan driver who thinks everybody who doesn't look like him is trying to molest his children. Neither of them have ever done much about the shallowness they were born with and born into.

A Christian is a prophet, priest, and king. Where do kings gather? If you knew history (i.e., churchian elder, if you weren't so damn shallow) you'd know the only place you're likely to see a gathering of kings is on a battlefield. The spiritual battlefield in this case. I don't know what's going on in that churchianity church of yours. It looks like a nursery full of grown ups on the spiritual battlefield. Just where the devil wants you. Off the King's Highway and docile.

I'll give a thumbnail description of intentional suffering. There's fake suffering, there is real suffering, and there is intentional suffering. People indulge in fake suffering most of the time (resentments, whining, making requirements on everybody and everything, boredom, etc.). Then there is real suffering, i.e. suffering that can't be avoided, but it can be redemptive (illness, injury, loss, seeing tragedy or suffering, etc.). Then intentional suffering; i.e. suffering that never happens as a part of life or mechanically, but has to be conscious (loving your enemy, seeing in yourself what you dislike in others, replacing gratitude for resentment for everything all the time, etc.).

One note: illness or injury that is real suffering can morph into fake suffering if the person indulges it in that direction. There are other caveats to all the above, but you just have to be savvy and see them.

If you have eyes to see you can see how intentional suffering is visually seen in what is called the Lord's Supper, that visual parable. You in effect eat your suffering, in the event/moment/circumstance, and join with your Savior on the cross. The more unjust the act or word against you the more real your intentional suffering. The effect though is awakening and being more conscious and not wailing and pouring dust on your head.

So what then is conscious labor? And how is it like baptism, or baptism of the Holy Spirit? More like intake of the Holy Spirit. (We can have the Spirit by degree. Jesus was the only human being who could have the Spirit "without measure.") Conscious labor is not as easy to describe in a short paragraph. It's basically the opposite of sleepwalking through life (and fascinated with shiny objects and other things), which is what fallen humanity does, whether street dweller or king, street sweeper or famed surgeon. All human beings sleepwalk through life. It takes effort to not sleepwalk through life, hence the 'labor' in conscious labor. I'm going to take the easy way out and direct you to a book titled the Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution by Ouspensky to learn about conscious labor. If you're scared of that, then fine, go back to your nursery. [Note: 'evolution' in the title does not refer to mechanical, Darwinian evolution. And, the book is method, not dogma.]

Another necessary note: with Ouspensky's books, the main ones being Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution, the Fourth Way, and the more 'chaff-y' and narrative In Search of the Miraculous, you *have* to get the actual paperback editions. The Kindle editions are horrible and missing illustrations and just, again, horrible in more ways than that.

I'm giving this information because people who have read my blog here and there over the years need to know why I'm so weird compared to the mainstream Christian blogger types.

One thing is I've always been pulled between two different languages, Work language, and Christian language. You can't mix languages. Mixing them downgrades both. In the least you have to know both languages to a very full degree of understanding to begin to use them together. Hardly anybody on the internet has a real understanding of the Work ideas, practices, and goals (you'll mostly run into cult use of the language on the one hand, and shallow New Age use of it on the other); and having a complete understanding of the Bible and biblical doctrine is also rare among Christians let alone non-Christians.

The problem with both groups is a lack of development with higher influences (imaginative literature, history, philosophy, music, art, religion, science, and everything that falls into one or another of those categories; also physical development, athletics or performing arts). And it has to be a unique - balanced - development; and, another big thing: inwardly motivated. I.e. balanced and motivated by a search for real understanding, not to get a passing grade or to impress people in conversation. It has to 'take'. It has to start to build a unique center in you, out of which emerges the beginning of real self-awareness. Also conscience. Or the unburying of conscience.

You can read a library and get nothing from it. You can learn at the foot of Jesus and get it all wrong.


Conscious labor and intentional suffering are more Gurdjieffian phrases (I was never a Gurdjieffian, but he was more in tune with a kind of Christianity of his youth and geographical area (Armenia? or thereabouts), so his language could sound closer to Christian language; Philokalia type Christianity). As a Christian I wouldn't recommend Gurdjieff's books, you might as well read Rabelais. But he stated Ouspensky put the teaching into sound form. He was impressed. The New Agers like Gurdjieff's works more because they aren't really looking for practical understanding; and they want to avoid that anyway because it inevitably leads - As Gurdjieff knew - to Christian teaching itself. You find yourself on the spiritual battlefield and you realize: I need the armor of God. Gurdjieff as evangelist is the father who throws the child into the pool and says, "Swim!" It's unique evangelism. He throws you onto the spiritual battlefield, naked and ignorant and weak, and says: "Figure it out!" Suicide, alcoholism, lifelong pagan/occult/New Age idiocy... You need the real armor of God. Once you have that the Work language puts you at a different level, but...TWO POINTS:

1. You're still a beaten down, smashed up apparent loser to the rest of humanity. You don't grow antlers the more you develop in a real way.

2. Regeneration by the word and the Spirit also puts one on the spiritual battlefield, whether you try to get there or not. So, you need the armor of God even if you never learned any extra-biblical teaching, sophisticated or not. And read Ephesians 6:10-18. Doctrine is the armor of God. Hard biblical doctrine, associated by name with Calvinism. See it, accept it, value it, it then changes you - reorientates you - internally. It makes you God centered and not man-centered. It makes you a fully armed soldier of Christ in the spiritual realm as well as here under the sun.


Dishonesty on race

This post is a good example of the crap Reformed types write on the subject of race. It bleeds fear of the world.

Let's start with these two basic premises:

1. Black people, yellow people, and white people are very, very different. Even at the *soul* level. Physically obviously. Physically to the degree of kind.

2. Individuals who have the Holy Spirit in them, though, whatever color/race, appear to be very similar, cultural differences aside.

Colloquially white people used to refer to Asians as yellow monkeys, and also white people used to call black people boys (as in not men; and if they did something man-like they were praised as if doing something that was above their natural character). On the other hand nobody was referring to the white man in animal terms; and nobody was calling the white man boy.

Sensing an animal quality or limitation of full development in a people/race is sensing something at the soul level.

It's the spirit that determines if a person or group is good or evil in the main. I.e. treacherous and violent or not, exuding a satanic ingratitude or not, full of the devil's pride and arrogance or not, asserting entitlement to be lawless or not. Etc.

The core question is: are Asians descended from Adam? Are black people descended from Adam? If yes has there been mixture to a Satanic degree with perhaps animal and/or fallen angelic 'blood' (yeah, however that works, and maybe just evil spirit effects flesh)?

Why did God tell Paul not to go into east Asia? Why was Ham's son Canaan cursed to be a lowly slave (Ham, the name to become associated with the black peoples of the earth)? Specifically Ham's son, as if to say that line of people?

Are black people also associated with the mark of Cain? God made him look different?

Wasn't Adam white (ruddy complected)? Weren't Israelites, people of Shem, white? Aren't Japhethites (Europeans) white? Where do far east Asians fit into the racial scheme post flood? Are they pre-Adamites? More animal than human in their soul (unless individually they are given the Holy Spirit)?

Isn't there a defilement of humanity - the pure line from Adam - by Satan and the fallen angels involved in all this (the difference in soul mentioned above)? Wheat and tares?

Isn't it maybe true that the feeling of abomination in the sight of a white girl with a black man is not solely racial and could very well be because it's sensed as a reenactment of Eve and Satan, or the daughters of men and the fallen angels?

The royal bloodline from Adam to Jesus had to be kept pure, didn't it? A big part of the history of the Israelites/Jews. Keep that royal bloodline pure to the birth of the Messiah. Satan tried to attack and defile that bloodline didn't he? So this is all a part of the history of redemption, isn't it?

So say it. When you fear God alone you don't fear man or the world. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

ps- I don't usually run a string of questions together. That is common conspiracy style rhetoric. In my case here I am just tipping my hand that I don't know the answers. I have some data points and am presenting them. Others seem to want to ignore them.


A cold splash take on James White (and really all similar Critical Text scholars and defenders)

A Canadian correspondent's take on James White:

"My overall impression of White is that he has lost faith, he appears lost. His arguments are not rooted in a growing faith born from an inspired understanding of the scriptures. Rather they come across as arguments of a world-centred man. Contrast him to a Sproul or some of those that he mocks and this becomes clear."

My correspondent is not saying White has ever mocked Sproul, he was making a one-to-one comparison between the two; then he went on to mention those White mocks, usually true believers, zealous for a Holy Spirit preserved, inerrant Bible; zealous to defend it against the mocking and scorn of the world, most notably the seminary indoctrinated and the various priesthood of scholars.

"His arguments are not rooted in a growing faith born from an inspired understanding of the scriptures."

This sentence is well put. He's talking of White's views on the manuscripts issues. Basically whether or not there is error in the word of God. You never want to question the work of the Holy Spirit in another person, but when a person is a public Christian teacher telling others there is error in the Bible and mocking and laughing and intimidating with scorn and other means anyone who holds a different view...that is a foundational area of the faith, the word of God...and that person, the one saying there is error in the Bible, is the one questioning the work of the Holy Spirit.

I left this comment on another blog:

People can't figure White out because he seems truly born again when he speaks on political and social issues, as when he speaks to doctrinal positions other than the foundational issues regarding the word of God itself.

This can be the flaw of Christians who take a solely academic approach to the faith, perhaps. I say solely.

It can also be due to a mental or emotional issue such as a narcissism disorder, and this would play into it this way: the Bible is something we *must* look up to and put ourselves under, in a no playing games about it way. A narcissist who by nature can't be taught anything can get around that regarding learning doctrine because there is room to satisfy vanity in seeing the true doctrine amidst a wildly overgrown field of ancient and modern error. Yeah, he learned from systematic theologians x, y, and z, but that is small compared to his own effort and ability to separate out the wheat from the tares regarding doctrinal truth. He *can't*, though, so easily dismiss the existence of the source and authority of that doctrine. The best he can do to *get above* that is to adopt the pose that it really is he that determines ultimately what the Bible says. To stand above the text and be a mediator between it and the ignorant masses. His narcissism is well taken care of now, and everything is right with his world.

Your posts are very on the mark. You're particularly good at pointing out White's unconscious adoption of postmodernist academic rhetoric and approach and attitude [comment was to Kent Brandenburg]. It's these elements - including the emoting, theatrical affectation of voice and body language (the eye rolling, etc.) that I find most curious regarding how seemingly approving his defenders are regarding it.

As for always bringing up so-called KJVOs, the Critical Text defenders first tactic is to get their opponents to *concede* error in the word of God. It's a very 16th century Counter-Reformation move on their part.

Biblical formula

This is how the word of God conforms us: accept the hard truth, against all the demands of your fallen nature, and allow it to change you internally.

Examples: the doctrines of grace, election, predestination, man being born with sin yet being responsible for that sin, God being sovereign in creation, providence, and grace, while man is still responsible for all thoughts, words, and deeds. On and on. Everything in the Bible, in biblical doctrine, that is hard to accept. See it, accept it, value it. When you do it changes you internally. It makes you God centered rather than man-centered.

You have to get above yourself. You have to be savvy to get above yourself. You can't do it by conforming everything to the level of your mind. If not doing that people will gladly conform themselves to a false teaching. Conform yourself to the actual word of God. The thing you most don't want to conform yourself to. Go against your demands and desires and preferences and opinions and attitudes and resentments, and do that.

And don't let the naysayers wave off mystery, as if mystery is some kind of weak out for a Bible-believing Christian. The Bible has a ceiling of mystery on various teachings and doctrines. Deut. 29:29 gets at this. Accepting mystery when the Bible leaves something at mystery is the same as accepting a hard truth doctrine.


Open note to Robert Truelove

This is an open note to Robert Truelove, Pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Lawrenceville, GA (which is how he signs himself at the Puritanboard forum).

Regarding your video answering James White's video... You don't have to spend 10 minutes at the beginning telling us you are lukewarm. We got it. You're lukewarm. Move the thing along. Maybe I should say I realize that you don't know that you are lukewarm, otherwise you wouldn't consider it to be such a sophisticated, threading of the needle position. No, it's a hand-wringing position of a person who fears being anything other than lukewarm (as I wrote that I recall you actually wring your hands in the video). Now look up the word lukewarm in the KJV.

James White, by the way, is Mr. By-Ends in Pilgrim's Progress. You're dealing with a person who uses religion to serve his needs. He needed to be called 'Dr.' so bad that he bought a PhD. from a diploma mill, for instance. In his defense PhD.'s are given out in seminaries these days like dentists give out lollypops; so his is as good as any other, for the most part. His needs, though, include his narcissism which he has to a disorder level. Somebody with narcissism to a disorder level can't be taught anything, including from Scripture. Everything has to be mentally manipulated to an angle where the narcissist can feel he is not being taught and has never been taught. Thus, he appropriates doctrine as having its genesis within the being of James White. I.e. true biblical doctrine is true because it is grounded in what James White "has always taught." And, his approach to Scripture is of the nature of: it needs him more than he needs it. He stands above it. Looks down on it. Actually constructs it. Decrees what it is and what it isn't. Not much different from the modern student of post-modernist critical theory...let's call her Humorless Emily...who stands above all texts her professor presents her with and inflicts deconstructionist violence on the text with a presupposition that she is inherently in possession of greater understanding than the (usually) dead white male author she has under her and in her power.

What Humorless Emily does to Shakespeare, James White does to the Holy Spirit and the Word of the Living God.


Meanwhile with the A. V. 1611, or even the Geneva, you have the real thing, pure and whole, you can hold in your hand, no scholar mediator, the pure and whole Word of God

James White is finally having to answer critics' accusations that he and the Critical Text industry are basically not just reviving the Counter-Reformation of the 16th century, but they are giving Muslims propaganda to feed to the world that the Holy Bible is full of errors and needs dopes like James White to construct it correctly and tell everybody what the Word of God actually is.

What White does in the video is what evolutionists do, a bait and switch. Evolutionists talk about micro evolution (which nobody disputes including dog breeders back in ancient Mesopotamia) as if they are talking about macro evolution (fish turning into race horses) which has never been observed or proven or gone beyond Kiplingesque 'Just So' stories; how the camel got its hump, how the elephant got its trunk.

White and his peers - shallow academic Christian Critical Text scholars - talk about the need to edit a manuscript, any manuscript, as if that is the same thing as *constructing* a manuscript from diverse sources, which is what the Critical Text industry is engaged in doing over and over with no end in sight. A manuscript received from a common stream of manuscripts still has to be edited, but that is not the same thing as *constructing* a manuscript from sources each being alien to the other. Not to mention sources that are cartoonishly corrupt in their readings, mutilated, and not in agreement with each other to the extent of being a bad joke (or an evil joke).

A common denominator among these Critical Text scholars is an obvious lack of belief in the supernatural. Notice White never mentions the Holy Spirit when discussing manuscripts and their preservation. He and his peers are also very shallow regarding literature in general. They've never spent time with world literature in a way where a person becomes initiated and is able to discern the difference between a work that seemed to come into existence through time and mystery, organically, like the Homeric epics vs. literary epics composed by known poets in a known time and place. The edge where a body of work such as Shakespeare bleeds into mystery school and sources unknown to academic research. C. S. Lewis famously said to the James White types, paraphrasing: Give me a notion that you know the difference between myth and folk tale before you lecture me about genres in the Bible. I.e. Lewis knew the academic types who lecture to people on things like the biblical manuscripts were shallow regarding literature and thus had little to no discernment for such things.

As stated, couple that with a mostly silent lack of belief in the supernatural and you see the spiritual deadness they sell and try to enforce on Christians and Christian institutions.

I won't get into how White emotes and pulls words like a cinematic bad guy priest/inquisitor ("Cerrrrtainly my oppooooonents would haaaave to conceeeeede that there are many textual variants in theeeey're so-call inerrent Biiibles..."

Meanwhile Muslims giddily use him as an 'authority' that the Christian Bible has error and cannot be trusted. At least without Mr. White telling us what the Christian Bible actually says. At least for today. Because it changes with each new arrival of their official Critical Text 'editions.'