<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/platform.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\x3dhttps://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/?m%3D0\x26vt\x3d-7552387615042926418', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe", messageHandlersFilter: gapi.iframes.CROSS_ORIGIN_IFRAMES_FILTER, messageHandlers: { 'blogger-ping': function() {} } }); } }); </script>

11.30.2005

The Word of God is your guide in the spiritual realms



You're in the afterlife, making your way to the New Jerusalem. You seem to be in a realm you're not familiar with. It's dark. Hard to see where to go. You come to a point where it just seems you have to make a descent into the center of a mountain (to be, you suspect, entombed in rock for eternity). The 'guides' who have appeared appeal to your faith and your courage and say: "To get to God you have to do brave things." (I.e., they are saying, you have to be a hero and descend into the blackness deeper and deeper, and...well, hero, you'll find out...) What do you do?

Here's what you do: you ask yourself: what does the Word of God tell me? Did the Word of God ever tell me I had to descend into the center of a mountain deeper and deeper into rock and darkness? No! In fact the Word of God said God would give me power to confront and chase my enemies and ascend from such a situation and that He would put me on a high place where there is light and freedom and joy! Just then you see the Way that you couldn't see before, and it doesn't lead down. The guides see they are dealing with one of God's own, who has a real Sword, and run off.

So, that tough decision has been made for you. Made by the Word of God. (You can also now see just what side those 'guides' are working for, i.e. you have discernment from the Word of God.) But- You had to have gotten the Word of God into your heart complete prior to entering the afterlife to be able to use it like that for wisdom and practical navigation in the spiritual realms!

Note: much of Scripture is like this. Knowledge that may seem somewhat simple or obvious to you now but is as valuable as traffic and street signs (and as obvious and simple) once you are in spiritual realms. Something like: a wise man tells the truth, but a wicked man tells a lie. OK, you say, when you read that. Obvious. But in the spiritual realms these things become much more real and important with real, immediate consequences. You're confronted by an adversary. You're faced with a decision. You think maybe a lie would work best. Then you remember that verse from Scripture and you decide not only to tell the truth, but to be bold in proclaiming the truth. So you not only do what Scripture says and tell the truth but you find within you your new nature that in itself also has effect in your current situation. You not only tell the truth but you manifest a boldness in the face of your adversaries as a king would. So not only the truth is manifested but your nature as a king and an heir of the Living God is manifested. What adversary can stand before you? So, you see, you want to have all of Scripture inside you; every line of it; what you don't understand or what you think is 'obvious' as much as what you are drawn towards; you want to have it in your heart, in your soul. For reasons you may not be able to see or know about now...but that you won't regret then...

11.29.2005

New stick (Update)



New stick here; and another new one here.

All the stick drawings and diagrams are linked in the righthand margin...

The heart of it all



You can't reach into the ground and pull wheat up by your own effort. You have to plow and plant the seed. Then it grows (or it doesn't) by God's will. The difference between the wheat and the seed is the difference between levels of being.

The Word of God is not just a 'book'. It is living language. It is 'seed'. You can't pull understanding out of it any more than you can reach into the Earth and pull wheat up. You have to plow and plant the seed in you, and it has to grow. It will only become increased level of being and understanding - if it does - in time by God's will.

This is why having the goal to read the Bible humbly, complete, once, three times, seven times is so powerful and simple and effective a goal and so much gets to the heart of everything.

All the talk, talk, talk, day in, day out, and all the reading - however diligent or desultory - of books written by man, no matter how worthwhile and vetted by time means nothing regarding real awakening and development without this effort to get the Word of God written in your heart.

In these complete readings you have to see the Bible as an influence that is above you. If you approach it as an influence your intellect has surveyed and measured and weighed and put in its place your approach and your effort will be vain.

The Bible is not a 'book' like other books. It is living language. It contains the Holy Spirit and is the actual Word of God. It meets you where you meet it. What it gives is not the same for everybody. The subject here is not doctrine. Foundational, on-the-mark doctrine exists and can be found. With the Word of God, though, there is depth and there are heights in the very basics that are revealed to understanding by degree and only by the result of zealous, humble effort to engage the Word of God as an influence that is above you.

Talk and opinion and complaints and compliments for this that and the other thing made all the day long and then tomorrow again and then tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow is all meaningless, vain activity and noise. When you die what you'll need is the living Word of God in your heart, in your essence, in your soul. You'll need things you can only acquire in this life by diligent plowing and planting and waiting on the Lord. Doing the most needed, most serious things now that have effect in time...

11.27.2005

I'm shunned by the Village of Morality... Oh my soul, what peril, what peril?



For context of this comment (and directions how to walk through the gate) go to the thread here:

I use the biblical categories of fearing God or fearing man. This gets to the heart of it all. Once you truly fear only God you are separated from the world; and you know it because the world lets you know it, for one thing; i.e. you can't fear only God and still be in back-slapping league with the world. The world knows when you switch camps. When you switch from the camp of darkness to the camp of light. It not only happens in this physical world, but it happens in the spiritual world as well, and this can be 'seen' by people and the world in general. "You're not one of us." From your point-of-view you'll go through different phases where you'll try to pretend nothing's different, but the world will sneer at you. Then you go through the real baptism-of-fire-separation. Then you get tough or you fall into a lame depression (Slough of Despond) or a lame community (Village of Morality). Or you go back to the City of Destruction pretending - or not - you're on the Way (cue the Roman Catholic theme song), but you never walk through the Wicket Gate...

Observations on the Way



Frank Turk is currently a blizzard of self-justifying (and that salesman in him is looking more and more sinister)... He just needs to realize he can be right all he wants regarding the iMonk, but he's still a detour critiquing a stumblingblock. The main thing for him (and the iMonk) is to get back on the Way. And to find it in themselves to walk through the Wicket Gate. I currently see Carla looking that Wicket Gate over...looking at its design- oop, she touched it and it swung open a little... Careful! the devil sees you, and he's got arrows... Walk through or run back, but don't just stand there...

11.26.2005

New stick (diagram in this case)



Stick #2 is linked in the righthand margin...

I don't want to give the impression that the iMonk and centuriOn are where they're at permanently, necessarily; I just want them to see where they're at. And see the way back to the straight and narrow. And to see that the Way, once entered, involves effort and movement...

11.25.2005

On the Slough of Despond and the Village of Morality



What can the iMonk and similar types learn from knowing they are in the Slough of Despond? Two things:

1. They are not in any unique or unusual situation. What they are experiencing is typical and common. The Slough of Despond is one of the two most common stumblingblocks or detours of the faith once one sets off down the road (yet before one actually enters the Way through the Wicket-Gate). There are two stumblingblocks (or detours): the Slough of Despond and the Village of Morality. Notice the Slough of Despond-stuck iMonk sees enough to poke sticks at the Village of Morality people, and vice-versa, but they are both stuck and not on the Way. This is why I pointed out that the very fact that the Village of Morality resident Frank Turk didn't ban the iMonk from commenting on his sight was evidence that they have more in common with each other than either of them have with a Christian who has gone through the Wicket-Gate and entered the Way proper. The Christian who enters the Way will be banned by both the iMonk and Mr. Turk.

2. And this is the second thing: they have yet to enter the Way. I.e. they have yet to go through the Wicket-Gate. This will be the most difficult thing for them to accept about themselves and their situation. It is hard to accept that you are stuck not only at a common stumblingblock but also one that is merely one step away from the very beginning point of the Faith. They will not want to entertain the thought that they can be so long a Christian and yet be so short a distance down the road. But entering the Way proper is rare.

For both the Slough of Despond types and the Village of Morality types the main thing to see is that Christianity is about being on the Way. It involves action and effort. It's not about plunking yourself down by the side of the road and calling yourself a Christian. It's about striving on a 'way' -- the Way. Staying on that Way; walking on that Way. Climbing that Way. Crawling along that Way. Fighting forces that would draw you off or oppose you along that Way. But you have to enter the Way to begin with, and being stuck in the Slough of Despond or smugly righteous as a resident in the Village of Morality means you have yet to enter the Way.

Understand too that it is the Puritans here who are schooling you. The Puritans understood the Faith and practiced the Faith. They didn't make of the faith 'family time' in the local church. They didn't turn Scripture upside down by determining when God says "fear God" he really means "fear man". They were spiritual soldiers who knew what it meant to enter the Way and walk the Way, and they knew what the goal is, and that it's not attained by the self-absorbed despondent or the smugly self-righteous; and that it involves action and effort and not sitting on your ass.

On the BHTers and the sMug Sellers



People are missing different things. The iMonk and crew types don't have discernment, nor do they have real valuation for the Faith. This all is evidence of a lack of the Spirit of Truth in them.

Others have some discernment for truth but are lacking the practical level of the Faith. They havn't gotten to the point where they can discern their own situation in the world and vis-a-vis the Faith. The point where a person has no where else to go but to take the step of actually doing the Faith.

One can see that, to a degree, the iMonk and crew types desire some degree of the practical level of the Faith, but they really don't have the motivation or desire to find it or practice it. If they could see it. The types they call 'TR' (truly Reformed) are too self-satisfied and intent on seeking comfort and comforming to the demands of the world (which they incorporate as actual Biblical teaching, i.e. man-fearing becomes God-fearing) to ever get near the practical level of the faith.

In both cases the world is strong in their lives. But it's also valuation for actually embarking on and hewing to the Narrow Way on its terms. The King's Highway. Unlike Christian (in the Pilgrim's Progress) both types have yet to step through the Wicket-Gate...they get stuck in the Slough of Despond (iMonk, etc.) or the Village of Morality (Turk, Pyromaniac, etc.)...

(Pause and reflect on how deadly accurate John Bunyan was in nailing these types, and nailing them in motion at the specific point they reside at between the City of Destruction and the Celestial City...)

Weak, ignorant slaves of the devil (with mugs for $19.99)



What I write angers and bores you all, but it's important. There is death all around you. You live in the Kingdom of Death. You're drugged up on cheap illusion and cheap worldly influences and cheap physical desires and glittery and slimy false idols of all kinds, and it all just 'doesn't seem too bad' to you... It is the Kingdom of Death and you're its prisoner.

Heaven must be assaulted. You're in the talons of the Kingdom of Death in your very churches and you think you've arrived somewhere. You think you're different as you drag every value and "all we hold dear" from the world in with you. You value everything the world values still (your man-fearing and mocking of reading the Word of God and mocking of serious practical doing of the faith and your mocking of fearing only God gives you away). You still have the devil's controls inside you tyrannizing you (vanity, worldly pride, self-will, lying, self-justifying, sleep, the fear of man, you name it).

You refuse to do what God TELLS you to do. You say "I don't have to do ANYthing! I'm saved!" and you do nothing. That's a sign you're not saved. If you don't have a driving motivation to assault self and heaven you're still a tame slave in the devil's kingdom.

11.24.2005

This convicts you, man-fearers... [Expanded]



When Christian, in the Pilgrim's Progress, knew he had to leave the world and answer God's call he went to his family and said come with me, and they said no you're crazy, so he left them. That's right, man-fearing churchmen, he left his family.

"Oh, but that's not real life!" you say. Really?

Is John Bunyan a real life person? Yes? When John Bunyan had a wife and children he was confronted by the world and told to conform to the demands of the world or be put in jail. What did John Bunyan do, Christians? Did he value the fear of man over the fear of God? No, Christians, he went to jail, leaving his wife and children in dire straights...

Take your 'family time' churches and stick them back up the devil's ass, man-fearing Christians. And take your 'family man' back-slapping man-fearing values and don't even begin to think about showing them around God's elect.

Your values are the values of those who fear man and not God.

+ + +

Why is the Village of Morality a destination and not a detour in the visible churches?

No, you don't have an answer for that, man-fearing church Christians.

When did Christianity become Churchianity?

When the devil and his followers infiltrated it enforcing man-fearing and mocking the fear of God within its domain.

Why is effort a bad word in the visible churches?

Because the devil demands it be a bad word.

A Christian who is actively assaulting heaven is not a Christian who fears man, but is a Christian who fears God and God only. The devil doesn't like that. Neither do his tame slaves...

11.23.2005

Only the oceanic Word of God can cure shallowness



Yes, only the oceanic Word of God can cure shallowness...

The Bible doesn't give up its influence and mysteries and understanding promiscuously. One thing that happens to scholars and readers of the Bible who take a similar intellectual approach is they will think they've 'gotten the measure' of the Great Book when they've scanned each part to some extent (the one's who actually do this), then they fall into the trap of thinking that is all there is in the Bible.

The Bible is not a book like any other book one can hold and read. The Bible contains the living 'oracles' of God. (Calvin states somewhere in his commentaries that he prefers to use the word 'oracles' of God rather than merely 'word' of God because the Bible contains words that are so much more than mere words. It contains living language. The oracles of God Himself.)

But one can come to a point where the Bible seems a stale book. Like something you've 'covered' already. Something - though you wouldn't put it like this to yourself - that has nothing more to give you. So you think it's OK to just read theology now. You've 'got' the Bible down. But that is a vain mistake. The Bible is alive and always has more to deliver. You, though, have to put effort (zeal) into getting more of what it delivers.

And you have to realize that you can't filter it through vanity and worldly pride and self-will. You have to be passive to it. Conquer it, yes, but set aside 'what you know' when you go to the Bible anew. What you know is not all that is there.

Really it comes down to this: do you see the Bible as being an influence that is above you, or do you see it as something that your intellect has focused on and measured and weighed and put in its place? Do you continually think of commentaries you've read when you read a passage? Or do you take in what you read in the Bible as if seeing it for the first time? Do you respect the Bible as something that is above you? Your past understanding won't go away. Foundational biblical doctrine once found doesn't change either. That's not the subject here.

The Bible will be stale the more you read it complete, but that is because it requires more effort the more you read it. It requires more focus and meditating and pondering on each part of it, and more thinking in terms of the whole of it. It requires engaging it that involves more time and effort. The Bible is not stale when you pause over a verse and passage and chapter and meditate on it. Draw it into mind away from the page...

How many times do I have to say it...



Once again: I AM NOT JEFF.

Mr. Turk...

The odds on Jeff BEING C.T. are pretty good.
iMonk | 11.23.05 - 4:39 pm |


No surprise the iMonk would blithely make a charge he has no way of knowing could be true. Bravo, minister.

There are now two so-called Christians who allow this charge to appear on their blogs and who know the truth. Dave Armstrong and now Frank Turk. They both have access to the I.P. numbers of commenters (they both use Haloscan) and if they don't know how to trace an I.P. address to it's general geographical area (centuriOn aka Frank Turk certainly does) go here and paste it in. Armstrong has remained silent for weeks if not months regarding this simple favor to someone who keeps being accused of being another person. Silence from Frank Turk will mark him as well as someone who kind of enjoys seeing lies made about other people.

Then there's this:

Jeff --

c.t. is banned for being a troll. She doesn't play well with others. If you enjoy her, um, "ministry", I have some Joyce Meyers books I can refer you to.
centuri0n | Homepage | 11.23.05 - 1:05 pm |


Joyce Meyers? Why not Adolf Hitler? It has the same effect as a smear (and is in the same Alice-in-Wonderland territory regarding truth). This lame charge wouldn't stand up two seconds if he actually had to defend it, but he knows he doesn't have to defend it because he bans me. Notice he chose a woman for his smear too. Maybe she's his mother.

Just an interesting note: look how the iMonk, currently in the midst of a rather sweaty, contentious exchange with Frank Turk, so easily shifts to the "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" mode. As I said below in another post: until you get banned by these man-fearing, shallow, no-effort preaching, lukewarm fools like Frank Turk and Steve Hays and Phil Johnson - and the iMonk - you aren't saying anything that isn't shallow and isn't man-fearing and isn't lukewarm regarding the Faith...

Now let's see how long Mr. Turk remains silent on the I.P. addresses of myself and Jeff. Jeff has stated he lives in Washington, D.C. I'm in northern California.

Update: Having done some googling on 'Joyce Meyers' to see what Frank Turk was free-associating on in any of my writing I assume it's one of my recent references to 'wealth'. (Which was in the context of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but that's not a comic book, so Frank was confused.) Well... I probably shouldn't reference War and Wealth like I do without explaining how I am using the two subjects, not that I can know what 'ol Frank is going to use for his smearing at any given time. But I do use War and Wealth as metaphor in an unusual way that I shouldn't in this environment. No, I have no assocation with 'Word Faith' whatever. I don't get into any church level nonsense like that of any kind whether it's get-wealthy preachers or it's devil-channeling Presbyterian ministers sending letters to the White House saying black is white and white is black. I'm a Calvinist in doctrine, and that just means I hold to biblical doctrine.

Update II: And why did Frank Turk put "ministry" in quote marks as if I've ever said this blog is a "ministry"? Why? Because he lies like babies regurgitate. It was part and parcel of his smear-theme. He, though, is just a bit more unconscious to his lying than most. Actually he's about par for the course for his type of self-satisfied, pillar-of-the-church churchman...

Ordo salutis and effort




  • Election

  • Effectual Calling

  • Regeneration

  • Conversion: Faith & Repentance (involves effort - 'knowledge')

  • Justification

  • Adoption

  • Sanctification (involves effort - 'being')

  • Glorification

New feature in the right-hand margin: 'Sticks'



Stick-figure drawing(s) linked under the 'Essential' posts...

Regarding the first stick diagram: if you don't make efforts you get dragged up scraping your nose at each step. When you make efforts and climb up on your own two feet you develop at each step. Either way you'll get up there, but the person who makes efforts will be in much better shape at the top... (It can also be argued that that hook in your heart is what enables you to 'see' the steps to begin with, and gives you a desire to climb them...)

11.22.2005

Some general topical notes...



I'm going to be on top of this blog.

Regarding the centuriOn/iMonk strife give the iMonk credit for finding a pulse in centuriOn, but the reality is: until centuriOn bans you from commenting at his blog you havn't said anything real or non-lukewarm or non-man-fearing regarding the Faith.

(Everytime I go to centuriOn's blog and click on a comments thread I see a: BANNED BY THE WEBMASTER!!! YOUR COMMENTS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED!!! CRIMINAL!!! OUTCAST!!! POLICE HAVE BEEN CALLED!!!)

No, until the centuriOn and Steve Hays and Pyromaniac types actually ban you you aren't a threat to them and their man-fearing, no-effort, "let's keep it at the level of theory and philosophy" faith. Until they actually ban you you're really just one of them.

It's good, though, to see Frank Turk writing something that brings him some negative reviews. Let's just hope he doesn't commit suicide. With a note about how 'Jared' of the Thinklings can be 'happy now'...

More: What is going on really is there are many students and no teacher. There is no school. There's a trickle of the influence of the school of Geneva. A very powerful school, but a mere trickle of influence today. I notice the individuals at the new blog Pyromaniac mentioned (the one I linked above) have a fondness for A. A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology. Do they know that particular text, widely known and used in the world in its day, was a foundational text for the deeply and widely influential teaching of an individual who they'd think was the most Satanic person on the planet if they'd met this individual? No, they don't know this. Why? Because they've never pursued wisdom beyond the nursery. They fear man. Fear only God, it is the beginning of wisdom.

The practical teaching of the school of Geneva was of a political nature. Calvinists were taught to take down political and spiritual strongholds and create fortresses of freedom which were the strong, dynamic, free republics of western Europe and America. They instituted God's law at foundational levels scholars aren't even able to recognize, such as the laws of economy found in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The long tradition and respect for and skill at war-fighting that existed in the mountains of Switzerland as well was part of the school of Geneva. War, wealth, and the uncompromised doctrine of the Word of God. The school of Geneva taught a practical level of the faith unique to its time. What was necessary for its time. Strongholds of the devil needed to be taken down and those who came out of the school of Geneva and those influenced by the school of Geneva had practical understanding and ability to effect this.

We live, still, today in the wake of this work done by the school of Geneva, but what is called for from Christians now at the practical level is not was was called for back then. What is called for now is a practical level teaching of the faith that develops Christians internally into the image of God. Prophet, priest, and king. The strongholds that only the practical level of the Faith can take down now are the strongholds within one's inner being. These same strongholds of course existed in Christians of the era of the school of Geneva, but the battle was just different. An external battlefield affords a kind of inner development that is not available in times of relative freedom as we have now (sacrifice is available in the one, suffering in the other). This internal warfare though still calls for understanding of war and wealth and uncompromised biblical doctrine.

Everything I've written in the two paragraphs immediately above are pure nonsense to the ears and eyes of mainstream church Christians... I know, I know, children... It's weird and scary... You live in a comfortable world with TVs and alot of new Christian books to talk about...

An oft-asked question



So, how did you now you were regenerated and elect? Was it a feeling? An epiphinay? A telegram? Does your Church issue a document? How do you know?


Valuation for the Word of God and the wisdom of God on its terms and its ground.

Coming out of the bondage of the fear of man and only fearing God. This means, practically, real separation from the world and from family and from your old or common social contacts and milieu. This is initiated both by you (your new interests) and also, more painfully and confusingly, by the world against you. There is first an attempt to draw you back, but once they see you're not coming back they attempt to destroy you (i.e. they attempt to get you to destroy yourself because you are given some measure of protection from direct harm). As you go through all this you are being literally separated, in a hardcore way, from the world.

Discernment. Knowing which way is 'up'. This manifests in political and social things (not to mention spiritual things, i.e. God's truth), but also in basically all areas of life. You have the Spirit of Truth in you and you have new discernment. You can see how the Kingdom of Satan operates in this world, and you see it in history, and in current events and movements and various media phenomena, etc. All of this also involves having a motivation to learn the truth of things as well. Awakening to real discernment of 'up' from 'down' involves seeking and engaging influences that you wouldn't - most likely - have even touched prior to regeneration.

Those three things are central if not comprehensive. 1. Valuation for the Word of God on its terms. 2. Coming out of the bondage of the fear of man, and only fearing God; being truly separated out from the world in a hardcore and painful way. 3. New discernment. Being able to discern up from down.

The process or event itself of regeneration can only usually be seen over time in retrospect.

It's not a human document...



Agriculture is a helpful metaphor for things Christian.

You have to do things now that pay off in time.

Just as you plow a field and plant a crop in faith and hope that it will result in a harvest in another season, you have to do the same thing with the Word of God.

You read the Word of God complete and humbly. Not like a 'scholar'. Just read it. Read it as if it were above you (which it is). Read it as if your current level of understanding is not at its level.

Approach the Word of god the way a farmer approaches nature. With respect. With awe. With acknowledgment of its mystery and power. With understanding that he needs it more than it needs him.

Plant the Word of God in you like seed, and then it will grow. And it will manifest in time in new understanding that you can't predict or know about until you just have it.

But this all requires a very different approach to the Word of God than the scholar's approach, or the student's approach (the student who is looking to get some kind of grade or degree), or the approach of any kind of affectation of intellectualism, as if you're engaging a human document and not the very Word of the Living God.

Imagine a non-sailor thinking he can understand the ocean merely by an intellectual approach (or a person who thinks he can plant and grow a crop as if he were solving a mathematical problem.

I don't end this by conceding the obvious, that understanding is possible with the Word of God. I won't do that because it only gives the vain justification for forgetting everything written above. The fact is: understanding develops by degree, and the Word of God gives more than the scholar can even imagine. Of course an anti-intellectual approach is not what is called for, but these stumblingblocks should be obvious, and I won't waste any more time on them...

Just know that if when you hold the complete Word of God in your hands you don't have a sense of its mystery and living depth and power and the reality that it is ever new and potentially a source for ever new understanding (i.e., pilgrim, understanding above where you are currently at now) then you aren't approaching it in the way one has to.

11.21.2005

Some prophecy for you...



You can see in the churches how the world takes over everything. Instead of planting seeds the churches and church leaders actually see their role as sheltering fools and innocents. It's all man-fearing and worldly and inane.

And they read a few books written by man, or get a degree from man, and then suddenly they are important 'teachers'. And nobody can teach what they teach. Do they actually read the Word of God complete? No. Do they read it to an audience? No. They're afraid of boring the audience. Maybe God didn't make them charismatic enough to be in front of an audience.

This is why I say this (and it stings them): there should be a common, universal thing in Christianity that a Christian is to have a goal to read the Word of God complete once, three times, seven times. That gets to the heart of everything. And see how I'm mocked when I say that. It goes against the COMPLETE program of the world and of man-fearing institutionalized in the visible churches (all of them). Then they make of the Faith 'family time'. It's all about 'family' and 'children' and all that asinine nonsense. We all see these fools who get a few children and then think they are the center of the universe. Do your children save you? Do you save your children? Is the faith about 'family'? What did Jesus say about family, other than what any fool can know about a goodhouseholder issue? Support and protect your family? Yes? Good. Is that the Faith? No. "Oh, my God, did you hear that!?!"

That must be one of those Christia-, er, I mean, one of those strange people...

Yes, strangers. Strangers in this world. In this world, not of this world. What don't you understand about that, mainstream Christians?

Is the way narrow? Yes it is. Is God calling a royal priesthood, is he calling prophets and kings, or an army of self-satisfied, man-fearing suck-ups to the world and the devil and their own vanity and worldly pride and self-will? Is God calling innocents? Fools? People who never make the effort to know His Word? People who never make the effort to practice His Word?

Answer it yourself.

More: Then these on-fire man-fearers will say (or think): "There are criminals who connect with our church. You are so far out of reality. Grow up."

I say: If that criminal had had some real guidance by the visible churches; if that criminal had actually been told and shown how to read the Word of God complete, thus getting into his criminal soul the complete language of God to grow in his soul, he may not have become a criminal sitting in a prison cell to begin with.

"Oh," but they say: "it isn't that easy! The Word of God isn't magic!" The he**(ck) it isn't. It is REAL magic. It is Living Language. It transforms you. You can't read it complete once without being a different person for eternity. You can't continually download it into you complete without it effecting you in ways you can't know but that are as real as your very being.

Think about it: there's a young man sitting in a prison cell right now. That young man came into contact with a Christian church at some point of his youth. Probably just at a time when he was at a crossroads. But what happened? Did that church and its leaders act boldly with this youth and get the Word of God into him with no apology and no mush and no nonsense? No. They were 'afraid' of 'upsetting' him. They told him what they fearfully concluded he wanted to hear.

So what happened? What happened was this: no seed was planted in the young man.

These asinine, man-fearing church leaders actually think THEY convert souls, and they fearfully think THEY can 'screw it up' and on and on. NO! Only God can convert souls. What YOU do is get this young man to hold a Bible in front of you and READ THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Get him to read the first three chapters of Genesis. Get him to read the last two chapters of Revelation. Get him to read the Lord's prayer. Get him to read Ephesians 6:10-18. You just get him to literally hold a Bible and READ it. Obviously he can't read it complete in front of you, but he can get the Living Language into him now, quickly. When you do it boldly it has effect.

But you don't do it boldly, mainstream Christians, because you are ashamed of yourselves and the Word of God and you fear men and you fear the world, and ultimately you fear the devil.

After that young man reads those passages you tell him "If you read this entire book complete it will give you things you can't know about until you just do it. It will give you understanding and real will and awakening and power. If you read this book complete once, three times, seven times you can't help but be changed into a prophet, priest, and king in the Kingdom of God."

Now only God can do this, so you don't have to wring your worried little moist hands, Christian church leaders! Don't worry! God converts souls. Something drew this young man to you though. You plant seeds. And you plant seeds with the actual Living Language that is the actual Word of the Living God. God makes the seeds grow. Be bold. Do what people need MOST -- and do it quickly.

It's late in the day...

More II: Think about it: you can't be a Christian if you don't have the Word of God in you.

Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, yes. But the Word of God is good leaven. It is good to have the Word of God in you. It is good when it gets in you and grows and fills you.

It is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. Baptism is not the most important thing. Church attendance is not the most important thing. What will keep a young man out of a prison cell is not ritual water baptism. It is having the Living Language of the Word of God in his very being. It awakens conscience. It gives understanding. It gives direction to the will.

I'm talking about one whom God regenerates, but it is BY THE VERY WORD OF GOD AND THAT ALONE that regeneration is effected. The Word and the Spirit. Not anything else.

You have to concentrate on the most important thing.

The most important thing in evangelizing is to get the Word of God - any degree of it - boldly into an individual. Just plant it like planting a seed in the ground. Quickly. Forcefully. Then teach them about reading the Word of God complete. Just simply doing that. (This is why people in prison start to awaken. They actually have nothing ELSE to do but to read the Bible complete. I heard someone, some theologian, saying his radio program seems to connect more with prisoners than anybody else. No, the Word of God is doing that! He then is able to connect with biblical doctrine because of having gotten the complete Word of God into his inner being.)

Yet mainstream Christians actually mock the most important thing. They mock anybody who talks about the most important thing. The very practical and powerful goal for a Christian to read the Word of God complete 7 times is seen as something to mock. The very heart of everything is mocked. The very heart of the teaching of the Faith and the doing of the Faith is mocked. The only real foundation is mocked...

That's OK, because you're just identifying yourselves, and convicting yourselves before God. The real Christians will make holy fools of themselves and boldly push the Word of God...

Response to a query...



>what can you tell me about Westminster West Seminary? And about Peter Jones? Know anything about them?


Peter R. Jones
Scholar in Residence
Adjunct Professor of New Testament


If this said plumber who has gotten 10 people to read the Bible complete in his life I'd be more impressed.


B.A., University of Wales; B.D., Gordon Divinity School; Th.M., Harvard

Where is 'Th.M.' in the Bible? Maybe it's in the Alexandrian manuscripts somewhere...

Divinity School; Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary.

Letters piled on letters. I hate to think how much time and effort this man has put in impressing men (and a particularly vain variety of men at that) when a similar amount of time and effort to get the Word of God into one's heart and to evangelize the faith in a real, practical, effective way would be time and effort spent on something so much more real and valuable.

Dr. Jones and his family came to the U.S. in 1991, after 18 years of cross-cultural mission on behalf of the Presbyterian Church in America, assisting the theological training of Reformed pastors and church planters in France.

This is all the equivalent of a dollar donated with an overhead take of 98 cents. This is all service to vain institutions and fake positions when the Faith calls for something so much more simple and effective: get the Word of God in a real way to people, read it with them, give them the basics, and do it again for others. God wants seeds planted. He determines if they are to grow.

Get directly to actual individuals. This is how evangelism works. It's not setting up cross-cultural this and that and appointing 'assistants' to this and that and eternally training 'pastors' who in turn train more pastors when all they have to do IS GET THE WORD OF GOD TO PEOPLE DIRECTLY. How much training does that need, pilgrims?

He taught Greek and New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, was Professeur de Nouveau Testament and Director of the Master’s Programme, Faculté de Théologie Réformée d’Aix-en-Provence, and was been Professor of New Testament at Westminster Seminary California from 1991 to 2003. Among his writings are: A Second Moses According to 2 Corinthians 2:14-4:6; God’s Inerrant Word (contributor); "1 Corinthians 15:8—Paul the Last Apostle"; The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back; La Deuxieme Epitre de Paul aux Corinthiens; Spirit Wars; Gospel Truth & Pagan Lies; Capturing the Pagan Mind; and articles in La Revue Réformée, Etudes Evangéliques, Ichthus, and Hokhma.

He's proud of having written books. I'd list how many times I've read God's Word myself. That would make people really sneeeeer. How juvenile. And so what? You can read the Bible a thousand times and still be an idiot! Yes, but it doesn't matter. God converts people, not man. A person who actually reads the Word of God complete, humbly, is more likely to get others to do the same. (And people actually read the Bible complete?) Some of us actually do, pilgrims...

In January 2003 Dr. Jones was named Scholar in Residence and Adjunct Professor at WSC,

Halleluja! He's bringing in the harvest!

as he launched Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet,

Another 'launch'. Shouldn't you list things that actually have a history if you're going to list anything at all. After he launched it he obviously went back to some new institution to get some more letters after his name.

a national and international teaching, preaching and writing ministry.

Really. So, like, how does that actually work? Conferences on how best to teach and preach to people? Maybe it all boiled down to writing a book about the launch and then telling people how to teach and preach in the book. How many people read the book? It looks good on the resume though to other man-fearers.

Another vain 'scholar' who wears a suit and tie and 'talks' about the Faith.

This is my take on this individual.

As for Westminster Seminary California campus: I've never come into contact with anybody from that institution. The Bible teacher who evangelized me was a farmer who became a Marine who started a business unrelated to religion and then who began to teach the Bible - actually read it word for word - over various media. He's very practical about it and successful with it. He 'hooks' people. His theology is not pure, but his great virtue is to read the actual Word of God verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book. Complete. The theology will be sorted out by individuals on their own initiative after regeneration by the Word and the Spirit. And he does this not caring if he's boring people. He doesn't have any letters after his name... The graduates and faculty at Westminster fear man too much to do what this simple man does...

Interesting KJV note regarding a thread below



In a thread below where 'the accuser' attempted to accuse and shame me, devil fashion, for recording hours of prayer and fasting (he still hasn't answered how I know Jesus fasted forty days in the desert) he first used the loaded, modern, theological garbage word 'piety' to describe what I was doing, then he shifted and did something interesting, unknown to him.

He began to consider that 'doing alms publically' was what I was doing. He quoted the King James Version (Matt. 6:1 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.") He quoted the King James Version because based on what he's read here he knew he'd have been committing suicide if he tried to use a modern rendering based on the corrupt manuscripts.

Yet he did use the modern, corrupt versions of that verse nevertheless, in spirit if not literally. Because the modern versions ALL render 'alms' in that verse as 'righteousness'. And 'the accuser' certainly knew he wasn't accusing me of doing charitable deeds, or giving money to those in need in a trumpeting or public way.

This change of 'alms' to 'righteousness' in the modern versions (NASB, ESV, NIV, etc.) is extremely typical of how the modern versions based on the corrupt manuscripts have changed the Word of God. To change 'alms' to 'righteousness' is to directly challenge the Words of Jesus Himself in Matthew 5:16 ("Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.")

The giving of money or compassionate help - alms - (i.e. charitable giving) to the needy in a loud, public way is a particular activity where people commonly seek to garner acclaim from men, which is the motivation this verse is warning against. Alms, though, is very much not a synonym for righteousness or for good works in general. Modern theologians who champion the corrupt manuscripts justify the change in terminology by saying that "we can surmise" based on "the most accepted scholarship" done by "the most highly regarded men in their fields" that the "person on the street in Jesus' time" used the word "'alms' in a way to mean 'righteousness in general'" therefore "it is justified to change the Word of God in that verse".

But...what does the Word of God say? It says 'alms'. Go with alms, Christian. Go with the Word of God not with the word of man.

For reference:

Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. NIV

Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. NASB

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. ESV

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of people, to be seen by them. Otherwise, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. HCSB

Take care! Don't do your good deeds publicly, to be admired, because then you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. NLT


All replace 'alms' with 'righteousness' or 'good deeds', which is what the accuser did in the thread below in meaning, though he quoted the accurate King James Version. As stated he only quoted the KJV because he knew I'd gun him down quickly if he'd used one of the corrupt versions with their corrupt rendering. It's also possible that the accuser's mind has been so defiled by the modern versions that he mechanically associates 'alms' with 'righteousness' or 'good deeds' at this point.

Again, here is Jesus talking to you, not modern day scholars pushing and justifying devil-defiled versions of the Word of God:

Matt. 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

11.19.2005

Elmer can't be far behind...



This was found here:

Then we drove to Mardel, the Christian and Educational Supply store, which is just down the street from Cheddars. That was the highlight of the day. Frank is the perfect guy to walk through a massive warehouse-sized Christian retail store with. He's a Christian retailer himself, and he also works for a Christian publisher. I've been involved in various aspects of Christian publishing for 30 years. We could have spent the whole week at a place like Mardel and not run out of things to talk about.

We walked through the greeting-card aisle (an area where Frank's expertise is unsurpassed and I have asolutely no experience—not even as a customer, because Darlene does all the card-buying in our family). Frank gave me an education and a whole new appreciation for what's involved in writing, publishing, and marketing cards.


Babbitt meets Babbitt, Jr.

And I've been gently trying to introduce the Royal Way to these types in their environment.

Both of these world-beaters, by the way, have banned me with public statements of dramatic, bellowing righteousness...

One of them even said: "Most likally this indeevidool's one of those God Hates Fags people!"

In the 21st century version of Babbitt-world fag-loving is cool.

Babbitt retracted that statement later, by the way. He ended up thinking I probably wasn't associated with the God Hates Fags people afterall.

Babbitt, Jr. took great offense at my saying one should fear only God and not man. Man-fearing is a central pillar of Babbitt-world. I attacked his religion directly, and he showed his God he was a warrior by exercising blog-banning function software discipline on me. Then he, apparently, went back to getting up on the latest in the Greeting Card game.

Making a living selling greeting cards...whatever. Survival can demand worse things. Bringing Babbitt-world to the Word of God and calling it Christianity... That's another thing entirely...

11.18.2005

Knights into kings



Monks don't become kings. Mystics don't become kings. Scholars don't become kings. In the Faith you have to be a knight before you can be a king.

Knights have the Word of God written on their hearts, and they fear only God.

Knights are active in the Faith. They provoke necessary spiritual conflict: with themselves, with the world, and with the devil. They provoke their limits so as to then extend their limits.

Knights have an aim and consciously pursue the aim: assaulting heaven.

It's not for everybody to enter the practical, doing level of the Faith, but neither is the Faith itself for everybody...

Remember this: once you come into understanding of something; once you truly 'see' something; it's then in you and you needn't crawl in a hole with it until you decompose with it. If you are able to see the truth of biblical doctrine in contrast to all the false doctrine the world offers then that is obviously a very big and valuable thing. It's your foundation though. Now you have to build upon that foundation. When you stay stuck at the foundation building level, laying the foundation over and over (or vainly displaying over and over your great 'intelligence' in repeating what millions before you have said and written as though that is a great accomplishment), and you disdain or fear to go down to the practical level of actually doing the Faith you eventually get sick and off-the-mark with the foundation itself. What you once knew gets, by degree, slightly 'off' more and more, unknown to you because it happens by a degree that you can't detect as it's happening. When practice is not added to doctrinal knowledge then the doctrinal knowledge gets off-the-mark. That is a law. When you can 'see' the foundation of truth and you have it then you have to recognize that point and start to build upon that foundation. Don't become a still pool of water becoming more and more poisoned.

The real issue here is either false modesty or sincere lack of confidence that one has been regenerated by God. Either you consider yourself to be a regenerated believer or you don't (the fact is regneration is effected, when it is, by the Word and the Spirit, and people who 'question' that regeneration can be experienced are merely the vain and proud who never approach God's Word with true humility). If you do know you've been born again then all questions of confidence aside (saving faith doesn't need to be strong on your end, it can be as weak as a reed, but it's made strong by what your Mediator and King does for you at His end) you just have to be bold and pursue what a regenerated soul is motivated to pursue. That doesn't involve sitting on your hands announcing to the world every fifteen minutes that you are a corrupt soul who can do nothing of yourself. A regenerated soul has been quickened and given the Spirit of Truth and ability to act from God's will. God expects you now to make efforts to develop. The 'no effort' bad doctrine is based on a vain, "see how holy I am as I admit my corruption and shame" false modesty that has absolutely nothing to do with the teaching of the Word of God and the Faith. Christianity is not an eternal Alcoholics Anonymous meeting where everybody admits they will be alcoholics for the rest of their lives, amen, and confesses their latest sins and reiterates how corrupt they are, and...have they mentioned they are corrupt? What about the 'noetic effects' of the fall, have they mentioned that lately as well? Do they understand regeneration and justification actually change things in them? No? Who's teaching them the garbage they're repeating endlessly? Michael Horton? That Lutheran guy sitting next to Michael Horton? The old buzzards who drew up the Westminster Confession of Faith and who clenched their teeth and tigthened their fists and grudgingly admitted that in the process of sanctification there is an active role played by the regenerated, justified Christian, but they put it in language that kept it 'modestly and with intent to show their great holy shame' not very explicit? Yet it's still there, if you need to see it in a document - a good one - drawn up by man. It's in the Bible as well...

At some point you have to realize that being able to see false doctrine (such as works-righteousness or whatever) for what it is is a big thing, yet it's not the Faith itself. The Faith is having the necessary foundation, which God gives you, and then building on that foundation, which God expects of you.

11.17.2005

Sanctification is a progressive work of God and man



From Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, page 746:





JUSTIFICATIONSANCTIFICATION
Legal standingInternal condition
Once for all timeContinuous throughout life
Entirely God's workWe cooperate
Perfect in this lifeNot perfect in this life
The same in all ChristiansGreater in some than in others


Reformed theologians consistently teach what the Bible says. This is their primary virtue. But that doesn't mean they like everything the Bible says. They would much rather the Bible said sanctification was the work of God alone. (This is exposed in the lack of interest among Reformed theologians in the practical level - doing - of the faith.) That is much more in line with their desire for no effort and their fear of effort in general (which is really just a lack of boldness in claiming what God does for His own and gives to his own such as ability to act from God's will once regenerate). I could quote similar things from just about any major systematic theology written by Reformed theologians, but I've found that it doesn't matter. When a Calvinist has been fed the no-effort bad doctrine they become petulant about it and nothing can turn them including direct teaching from every Reformed theologian and Reformed confession they themselves admire and hold to. So be it...

Update: More from Grudem's Systematic Theology, page 754, under 'Our Role in Sanctification': "The role that we play in sanctification is both a passive one in which we depend on God to sanctify us, and an active one in which we strive to obey God and take steps that will increase our sanctification."

He then goes on to describe the passive role and describing how we are reliant on the work of the Holy Spirit to grow in sanctification which most all are familiar with (this section of the book is too much to type out). Then he writes:

"Unfortunately today, this 'passive' role in sanctification . . . is sometimes so strongly emphasized that it is the only thing people are told about the path of sanctification. . . . But this is a tragic distortion of the doctrine of sanctification, for it only speaks of one half of the part we must play, and, by itself, will lead Christians to become lazy and to neglect the active role that Scripture commands them to play in their own sanctification."

He then goes on to site from Scripture all the places and all the ways Scripture commands and teaches one to make efforts in one's sanctification.

Update II: Where Grudem, like all systematic theologians, falls short is in the number of categories, or ways, he lists that the Bible gives for ways we are to make efforts in our sanctification. For what Grudem lists he is correct. Bible reading and meditation, prayer, etc. He gives the foundational basics most all know (even if they don't actually do them), but he does leave out major efforts such as, for instance, watchfulness. Things I've listed in posts on this blog and can be found linked in the right hand margin. But the Bible - the New Testament - provides a complete teaching at the practical level that theologians don't even scratch the surface of, due to this distortion of the doctrine of sanctification in emphasizing only the passive part and neglecting the active part... The teaching is there; it exists; and the Holy Spirit can guide one into seeing it and engaging it. One must fear only God, though. The fear of man is really what keeps a veil between a Christian and the practical level teaching of the Bible. Fear only God, it is the beginning of wisdom.

Ponder, theologians of no-effort sanctification...



Homer understood the relation between individual effort and God's will.

'T is man's to fight,
but Heaven's to give success. - Homer
Alexander Pope trans. (Iliad, Book VI)

+ + +

Really, the question being debated in threads below regarding the role, if any, of effort in sanctification needs to be put in terms of will:

Self-will vs. God's will.

Once regenerated one is able to act from God's will.

It is, of course, difficult to see just how acting from will that is not self-will can even be accomplished. But this is the basic teaching of the Bible (and one of the hard, or difficult, truths and one of the subtle points that makes Calvinism what it is: biblical doctrine itself).

To act from God's will rather than from self-will is to act 'top-down' rather than 'carnal self upwards'.

It is to be commanded by God's will in a descending chain-of-command: God's will > intellect > emotion > actions/deeds, thoughts, words. It is a chain-of-command that is top-down starting with God's will. It is not slavery to God, by the way, it is you acting from what is natural to a person who is made in the image of God. God's will is your natural will, once regenerated. (It is the will of one who is a prophet, a priest, and a king.)

Yet self-will doesn't give up while you're still in the flesh. This is the effort part. The struggle.

Self-will wants to control in an opposite-to-the-above chain-of-command. Self-will's chain-of-command is an ascending chain-of-command that goes: physical desires and fears > emotion > thoughts/imagination > with nothing at the top but emptiness which is vanity.

Not all effort is or has to be self-will effort. Once regenerate you are ABLE to make efforts from God's will. This is the kind of effort that occurs in concert with the work of the Holy Spirit in you in progressive sanctification.

Practically, the way you act from God's will is to know what God's will is from the Word of God, and to be guided and illuminated by the Holy Spirit into deeper and more practical understanding of God's will. The Word of God is your standard, and the Spirit of Truth within you is your guide. (And, I'll add, it's a classic stumblingblock to reject all this because you think 'others' aren't regenerated or aren't 'able' to discern truth and for that reason it's 'dangerous'. When one even talks of sanctification one has to assume regeneration. If the subject frightens you so much that you refuse to even think about it my advice would be not to think about it and go to the Word of God and read it diligently and pray to God to send the Holy Spirit into your heart...)

11.16.2005

And so many of you think 'Doug Wilson is kinda OK...'



The person giving this sermon is so strikingly stupid it's impossible to even make fun of him.

That he's part of Doug Wilson's crew shouldn't surprise.

His main point is: "Why do all these corrupt, worldly religious movements survive in the world and the biblically sound movements die out?"

Well? Be...cause....the worldly, corrupt movements are in their element? Possibly?

And the assumption that biblically sound movements 'die out' is God-mockingly moronic. God always has His remnant, and apostolic biblical doctrine never dies out. The Word of God never dies out. And the effect of His elect - always a small number compared to the numbers of the world - is always profound and usually becomes part of the very ground you stand on (but in the case of some, like this sermon-deliverer, what is in the foundation is too obvious to be reocognized and too taken for granted to be valued).

You also see a lack of historical perspective in this person's 'insights' that is all too typical of the formally educated these days. If he could go back in time and see the Puritans at any point of their history he'd see a very small band of believers in a sea of unbelievers and worldly corruption. The effect of just one real school (such as the school of Geneva) is always out-of-proportion to the numbers involved in the school. That is how God's Word and God's influence through His elect works in this world. If your standard is 'numbers' don't look to Biblical Christianity.

I would normally go on with some satire on a fool like this, but these Wilsonites are pure ministers of the devil working 'inside the tent' of Reformed Theology and Calvinism (which will get them a special sentence when they are judged, by the way) and just need to be labeled as such which doesn't take too many words.

The Puritans kept journals



Yes, the Puritans kept jounrals. Why, you might ask, did the Puritans keep journals? Because when you become serious about the Faith you take the crucial step from reading and talking about the Faith -- to doing the Faith. And without recording aims and the accomplishing of aims, and observations and insights, you tend to not do anything, ultimately. You tend to be desultory in your efforts and nebulous in your purpose when you don't hold yourself to a written record.

Many 'busy people' understand the practical usefulness of a 'to do' list. It enables you to remember what you commited to doing, for one thing. What you have previously formulated when your mind was clear about what you 'had to do'. What was important for you to get done. Then the list becomes an incentive to actually do each thing. (There is power in that act of 'checking off' an item on a to-do list.)

So the Puritans would do that except instead of worldly tasks they recorded spiritual tasks. "Was I awake to God in that event that happened today [etc.] or was I in psychological and emotional bondage to the impressions and forces of the world around me (and my own uncontrolled imagination) and forgetful of myself and forgetful of being separated from the world and forgetful of my own presence and autonomy I can only have when I am oriented to remember myself in regard to God above me and so be able to do what glorifies God rather than doing what the world, in my sleeping state, is able to have me do."

So that would be a good example of something a Puritan would write down in a journal. The specific events he/she found him/herself in during the course of that day. (It would be something in the category of the first great commandment, to love God; in this case to be awake to God to begin with in the midst of the worldly events of your average - or even not-so-average - day.) A further formulated aim along those lines would be to say, at the beginning of the next day, I'm going to be awake to each event I find myself in in the moment, i.e. in real time, today, as the day progresses, which is more difficult to do than just remembering each event at the end of the day and recording them.

An example of an aim along the lines of the second great commandment (to love your neighbor as yourself) would be to consciously put yourself in the shoes of a person who, for whatever reason, real or imaginary, you become negative towards during the course of your day. And then actually recording each instance, if you are able to actually do it in real time.

The recording element keeps you honest and keeps you out of imagination (i.e. keeps you from merely 'thinking' you are doing it without actually picking up the shovel and digging the ditch).

A Christian can formulate many different aims based on the teaching of Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus didn't say, "I tell you these things not because you should make efforts to do them, but...just because. The Spirit will do them for you. You don't even really need to know what I'm saying, I'm just filling up a word-count here in these Gospels..." Jesus said do this, do this, do this...

Reading CALVIN: COMMENTARIES



CALVIN: COMMENTARIES, Editor: Joseph Haroutunian. The Westminster Press. ISBN: 0664241603.

[Re-Started from page 100: Nov. 16, 2005 - Completed no latter than: Nov. 30, 2005]

I'll have to read minimum 20 pages a day.


On page skimmed this book of extracts (of 406).

Update: My mistake with this project was in not formulating it as an aim. Notice I just merely wrote a start date and a 'whatever' end date, while giving no criteria for the aim to give it boundaries and containment and a goal. No daily goal and no overall goal. I.e. in this case no minimum number of pages to read. Nothing concrete to dedicate time and effort to. So what happened? I read when it drew my interest (the intro material of this book is very good) then I became desultory in my efforts once I got into Calvin's actual Bible commentary (in my defense I found myself to be so much on the same page with Calvin in the little I did read that I felt like at that point I was covering old ground).

But to be a good example (to myself as well) I will reformulate this aim into a real aim and finish it (because I still think it is valuable to get a good dose of Calvin-as-commentary-writer to compliment one's overall impression and understanding of Calvin one gets via his Institutes, and this book gives that opportunity).

Update: Skimming this book of extracts is not reading it, so this project is finished. It was ill-conceived due to the fact that it's not a real book. It's a collection of extracts. A good one though. At this point of my life, though, I really have a desire to read complete, contained works, or the Bible itself...

Carla...



Carla... Carla, Carla, Carla... I'm not calling you away from your family, Carla... Just to a new level of understanding... The fearing only God level... I'm not an anabaptist, Carla... Carla... Oh won't you come out to play - eh- eh -aaay... The sun is up, the sky is blue, it's beautiful, and so are you, dear Carla...won't you come out to play...

Start with not fearing language. A clear sign one is still in the bondage of the fear of man is when you fear language... - C.

11.15.2005

High standards, effort, and the Holy Spirit



Word of God + Effort = Sanctification

(Sanctification happens on the foundation of regeneration. Regeneration means you now have the ability to do.)

~ ~ ~

Doctrine + Doctrine = Warped Doctrine (even if you start out - or at some point get to - on-the-mark doctrine, you will inevitably get warped with doctrine if you refuse to practice what doctrine you learn).

Doctrine + Practice = Understanding (where Understanding includes Memory and Will as well).

If you listen to even the most orthodox (biblically on-the-mark regarding doctrine) theologians and church leaders you will hear them, sort of mentally groping, finally come to a justification for their notion that a Christian is to make no effort in this: people must hear the same truths over and over and over, because we forget. In other words: that is what Christianity is all about, repeating doctrine over and over and over.

Hebrews 6:1 just doesn't exist for them.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God...

The word 'perfection' scares them as well. The very Word of God scares them. (Unto perfection doesn't mean you have to achieve the absolute called perfection any more than a sprinter who attempts to run 100 meters under 10 seconds absolutely has to do that to develop as an athlete. If he starts at 12 seconds and gets to 10.5 he is developing 'unto perfection'. In the direction of perfection. Only God is perfect! That should not be a revelation... And when you are talking about ability to glorify God and developing inner being and inner unity and command and things that go to essence you are talking about something that won't necessarily go away, like athletic ability will go away.)

The theologians and church leaders mentioned above would be at 12 seconds and say, "God be praised, when the competition starts I'll run it under 10 without indulging any vanity in thinking I can make efforts to get there myself!" When the competition starts they'll be met with what the guy who decided it was 'best' to bury his talent in the ground was met with: rebuke from God Himself.

(Memorize something, theologians and church leaders: when you speak of justification speak of 'absolute'; when you speak of sanctification speak of 'degree'. Yes, yes, yes, sanctification is spoken of as well in Scripture as done, yet it is also a process, is it not? Either it is or it isn't. If Scripture tells you to mortify your sinful nature that means you are involved in a process. A matter of degree, not an absolute. Justification is a matter of an absolute. Sanctification is an absolute only to the basic degree that you are made righteous enough to enter the Kingdom of God now, once regenerated and justified. But the program, as the Word of God lays it out, is for you to use that 'basic level' of sanctification as your foundation to build upon and develop. Develop by the Holy Spirit and by your effort. Unto perfection.)

Another justification for no effort theologians and church leaders use is this: "Christians are hurting. They're 'broken reeds'. We can't talk about effort and moving on 'unto perfection' when the people in our churches are so ignorant and weak. Some of them have criminal tendencies! We must be careful not to put too much on them... They can't all have my seminary education! My God, look how hard it is to just read the Bible! We didn't even do that in seminary! Ha, ha... Ahem..." Yes, justify no-effort because the most currently ignorant, the most currently weak, and the most currently f***ed up are among us. Well...you're part of them. You can't see it, but you're just as ignorant and weak and f***ed up, in ways you have no clue about, as those you use for your justification to make no effort in sanctification...

You'd be amazed how quickly humans can shape up, though, when challenged and given the real thing. Especially when they have real leaders... There's something about high standards, effort, and the Holy Spirit that kind of go together.

+++

Postscript: There's no one in the Christian blogosphere who could have written this post. And there is no one in the Christian blogosphere who will ever link this post. This says it all. When all of the mainstream of Christianity can be rebuked and shown up by a common outcast, a stranger in this world, in this world not of this world, separated out of the world, no-formal-education, no worldly standing, mocked for professing the goal to read the Word of God complete, a mere lowly follower of Jesus Christ...when you all can be rebuked so easily and so unanswerably by someone like me you need to step back and take a look at yourselves. You need to wake up.

Now it is high time to awaken out of sleep..., Rom. 13:11.

You're the blind leading the blind. Some of you at the front, some of you at the back.

11.13.2005

And their wisdom is free now...



I notice the "gents", as they say, at the White Horse Inn can't end a broadcast without taking a shot at Christians who actually practice the faith.

Michael Horton: "So, to wrap this up, we can see that these liberals are really coming out of the pietistic tradition-"

Lutheran Guy: "Experiencers..."

Nameless Voice: "Or we can take it back to Gnostic tendencies in the 2nd and 3rd centuries..."

Michael Horton: "There's a wonderful book by an Anglican professor-"

Lutheran Guy: "Thus Christ Does All For Me, eh-men."

Michael Horton: "No. Doing the Faith is Denying the Faith."

Nameless Voice 2: "Excellent book..."

Michael Horton: "Well, that wraps it up for...another edition of the White Horse Inn."

11.12.2005

What's with the suit and ties, holy men...?



Somewhere in some post down below I used a slang word 'jack' for 'money' and it wasn't me. If you use a slang word that isn't you it just sounds thtupid, and I apologise...

I don't use common 'church language' either, because to me it sounds stupid.

I noticed on his blog (I forget what it's called) Ligon Duncan wrote: "We're all so proud we could pop!" Somebody should beat him up. Or at least mess up his funeral parlor suit and tie he's always wearing. Why always the suit and ties, Christian leaders? Does this not betray you are really just company men, business types, in essence? Can't we find a unique though normal-looking 'look' for the holy men leaders of the church? Why are they all types you suspect never wore jeans even in their youth?

They should have beards. Real beards, not overly trimmed and groomed beards. They should have some kind of cool-though-weird hats (not of the papal variety, mind you, I said 'cool'), and they should have some kind of robish flow to their attire. At least some billow. And darkish colors. Cool, sort of faded-darkish colors.

Look at Calvin in the various representations we have of him. Then look at some modern theologian with his 20th century suit and tie. You see what I'm getting at. If you can't 'wear' the unique threads it means you don't have the development in you to be a holy man to BEGIN WITH.

Suit and tie...

11.10.2005

From an email on the subject of the 7-book list



One of the things I had in mind when I made lists like that that culminated in that 7-book list (lower down in the right-hand margin of this blog) was this: if a person was just dropped in the desert in some time in the past and only had seven book influences what would be the best seven? (And I had in mind also: influences to give that person enough to make him able to become an Alexander or Caesar of his time.) So I chose influences that are not 'surfacy' regarding knowledge but are more like physical monuments that go to essence. Also influences that are bibles in their own subject matter. Then I made the list balanced. The War [On War - von Clausewitz] and Wealth [Wealth of Nations - Smith] bibles give you the main worldly subjects. The Calvin [Commentaries and Institutes of the Christian Religion] gives you theology and, really, philosophy; not man's wisdom but God's wisdom, as-well-as, in the most real way, the mysteries, and knowledge and understanding of how one is 'built-up' in the only real way that matters: faith. The Thucydides is really the only pure bible of history. It is pretty hard to crack, so to speak, but it contains universal understanding of historical patterns and human nature and the nature of power and all that that history gives. The Plutarch [Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans] speaks for itself. Human architecture. The Homer [Iliad and Odyssey] and the very Word of God itself the Holy Bible [AV1611] speak for themselves.

11.08.2005

What Bible is the pure Word of God? the one you most don't want to read...



From a comment:

I'm afraid this one--

"What is the real version of the Bible? The one you most don't want to read, pilgrim."

--doesn't work for me. The one I most don't want to read is the Good News Bible, with the New American Bible a close runner up. And what's that one for people who only have a vocabulary of fifty words? Maybe that's the Good News...

I knew I'd get that response when I wrote that. What I meant was this: people want to play with the Bible and affect to be biblical scholars and say "this word here of course really means" and "this, of course, is a mistranslation" and "of course this rendering is very misleading" and so on. This is the play of vanity. They're not reading the Bible in a way that their vanity, worldly pride, and self-will are passive, but very active. They are filtering everything they read through vanity. Their motivation is to dictate to the Word of God what it means, rather than to take it in at its level.

All these issues come into play in the rejection of the King James Version. Vanity disdains taking the Bible as a whole, and as pure. There is also shallowness involved of course (the comic book readers who just don't know how language communicates, and who just don't know about things like form and unity and containment and so on in a work).

Think about this: when you hold in your hand the complete thing; the complete, pure Old and New Testaments, you approach it differently. When you hold in your hands a construct stitched together by ridiculous men, using their 'newly discovered "better" manuscripts' (which is another issue), full of holes, full of renderings that vary from rank dumb ('correcting' the text, like the devil's words repeated in the New Testament, the commonest mistake of rank amateur and dumb translators) to dictating to God "what He means", i.e. vain in the most typical human ways; but just the holes and lack of understanding of figures used by God to communicate, the dumb paraphrases, etc., etc., this gives warrant for the vain to approach God's Word in a vain 'correcting' manner rather than in a manner where they are approaching something that is higher than them.

The vain want the Word of God to be at their level. They don't want to have to approach the Word of God as something that is above them. The King James Version assaults the vain in this sense.

Besides all this there is this aspect of it all: the vain reader of God's Word has no interest in the whole of the Word of God. The vain reader only has interest in the parts. It's with the parts that vanity can manipulate and have its way. The serious reader, the reader that is meeting God's Word at it's level, is passive to God's Word in the way one has to be passive, subjecting oneself to God's Word and not subjecting God's Word to one's self-will and demands; this is the approach that one who is serious and who desires to take in the whole of God's word has.

The King James Version is the complete Word of God, pure and undefiled. Vanity knows this, and vanity for this reason disdains to read the King James Version. Says it's for "hicks" and people who "don't know scholarship" and so on...

What Bible is the pure Word of God, pilgrims? The one you most don't want to read.

11.06.2005

Basic questions



Ask basic questions, and have the answers to them. This is understanding to be able to answer basic questions. Such as:


  • What is the Gospel?
  • What am I to believe in?
  • How am I saved?
  • Why are you a Christian?
  • Why do I need to be saved?
  • Why is Christianity the only way?
  • What makes you actually believe all this?

I can answer each one. More incisively than most. But I'll leave them open since everybody has to answer such basic questions on their own...

A common vanity in the theological salon...



Here's something you'll run into in environments where apologists and theologians and seminary professors and seminary students and seminary graduates and other similar types, formally educated or not, are discussing theology and doctrine and so on: they will always reject or scorn or disdain any common or commonly known influence that is mentioned. Their vanity is to always be seen to be one or two steps ahead of anybody else, and they affect this by rejecting or scorning or disdaining, or just lightly brushing off, any classic or common work no matter how central to their own learning that work may have been and no matter how classic that work may be (if they've actually spent any real time and effort with any of the classic works, which is always questionable).

This has the effect of promoting an endless, vain blather session where intellect is constantly on display but what's most important takes a back seat.

It's powerful to find solid, sound, foundational, on-the-mark influences to learn from and then to actually conquer them and make them a part of you. Now see how easily and blithely yon seminary grad brushes off those influences when you mention them. Usually it's done in a manner that is the equivalent of a vain car officianado brushing off mention of a type of BMW because it doesn't have the latest fender style. The basic car itself is still very much a BMW and is where the worth of it resides, but, you know, hey, it's got last year's fender. The same is done if you mention a, for instance, Witsius in these environments. Everything in Witsius' Economy of the Covenants, for instance, will be inanely disdained and rejected (usually in a way where you can actually see an accompanying wet grin) and mention of the latest scholarly work on covenant this or that will be placed in Witsius' place. Of course the new influence will have a fraction of the worth overall that Witsius' work has, but it's just not cool to even say "Witsius."

So the very notion of having your foundational influences that you conquer and make your own (possess) is deemed somehow dumb or uncool; with a further effect that the very notion that one can find the rock-solid foundational truth of biblical doctrine - or, horror of horrors, suggest that anybody in the 17th century was actually able to do that - is now made questionable.

These are the same intellectuals who avoid the actual Word of God like the plague (and mock anybody who actually takes the Word of God seriously and talks about actually reading it and actually does read it).

So I go into one of these salons and mention William Ames' Marrow of Theology, or worse, quote it, and I'm instantly tagged a neophyte. Ames' Marrow of Theology is a book of doctrine that I actually read and took to. I'm drawn to it. I learn from it. I see more in it than is offered in the usual fare of systematic theology. I'm drawn to the unique poetical qualities of scholastic works like the Marrow. It's an influence, a work of biblical doctrine, I choose to make my own. To possess. To conquer. I have others as well. By the standards and vain rules of the salon, though, they're all uncool to mention. Plus, the very fact that I actually find foundational sources and learn biblical doctrine and then stand on it makes me a fool in the eyes of the salon. They need the perpetual turning of the wheel to give their vanity a stage to be on display.

If they stood on a rock foundation they'd have to then actually look around them and possibly formulate the question: so now what? (That 'so now what?' leads to seriousness in the faith...)

11.03.2005

Watchfulness



The biblical antonym to 'watchfulness' is 'sleep'.

1 Thessalonians 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

Sleep here is not head-on-pillow sleep (it goes without saying, yet when preaching to the church Christian level one has to say that which should go without saying).

How do you 'sleep' while seemingly 'wide awake', Christian?

By drifting through your average day, your average moments and events, in a state filled with uncontrolled thoughts and emotions (daydreams, fantasies, negative imagination, mechanical associations, i.e. an ongoing series of associations spurred by chance external impulse, resentment, indignation, etc.) and in a state of being not-separate from the world about you. Man-fearing is foundationally a state of being in psychological and emotional bondage to the world about you. You are concerned with other human beings and their opinions (and their opinions of you). You are also in bondage to man when you revere man. But, foundationally, it is a matter of separation (or lack of it) from the world. You are not in a state of self-watchfulness. That requires effort. You are drifting in a comfortable state of sleep. As the Bible says: now it is high time to awaken out of sleep. (Rom. 13:11)

What do you think Jesus and Paul are talking about when they talk about 'watching' (especially when they couple the word with prayer and fasting)? Watchings, watchfulness, watch. It is an effort to be awake in the moment and to hold that state. It is not easy. This is why it as a practice is usually found in Scripture next to fastings and other things that one has to endure. That require effort.

You say, but the Bible doesn't say what it is! No? The Bible clearly says it is the opposite of 'sleep'. And, again, not head-on-pillow sleep.

This practice of watching is central to the practical level teaching of the Word of God (I've gone into, in other posts, what it actually accomplishes, but I won't here now). It's totally ignored by the church level. Why? Because the church level by definition is a level where sleep and comfort is made holy. Eat your ice-cream, go to church, talk about your kids, read books about the Bible rather than the Bible itself. Lay the foundation of the faith endlessly over and over without ever building the structure on the foundation which requires effort. Be comfortable. And asleep. Anyone who shows up not asleep is attacked by the church level, man-fearing fools like white blood cells attack disease. Only the body in this case is the disease.

So, you ask, how do you actually practice 'watchfulness'? Just try it, Christian. It's scary territory for an innocent pilgrim that's never left home before, but if you are going to call yourself a follower of Christ you need to make the move away from the world at some point. (It is a vertical movement, Christian; and it gets you noticed in the spiritual realms...)

There is an Old Testament phrase used often by men who come into the presence of God: I am here. Or, here I am, Lord. These are men who are in a heightened state of presence. A 'not-normal' level of awakeness. Actually as if they are in the presence of God Himself.

Imagine you are in the presence of God. Standing in the Court of His Kingdom, before His Throne. You will be more awake, no? Your mind will be awake to your immediate surroundings and you will be circumspect and your thoughts will be controlled and focused. Even your body language will reflect a higher state of presence and control and awakeness.

You will by default have a higher perspective on the things of the world. What may concern you greatly when in the world and asleep ("David and Amy said that movie was good, but it wasn't, and my opinion is never taken seriously by anyone...") is small and insignificant compared to being in the presence of God.

Of course this will cause you to be separated out from the world. This is not pleasant for an innocent pilgrim not used to being separated out from the world. It is very unpleasant. Very, very unpleasant. What happens is you make yourself a target. The world, the devil, and your own carnal self attack you. You put yourself on the battleground. The battleground a Christian is supposed to be on.

It's on this battleground that you provoke your limits; and it is also only on this battleground that you are able to extend your limits. To glorify God when in the midst of battle is to extend your limits. (The usual result, in the beginning, is anything other than glorifying God; but you have to see that via direct experience.)

Watchfulness as a practice is measured simply by time. 40 days; an hour; a night. A few moments is difficult. The disciples kept falling asleep when Jesus asked them to watch for just a little while.

Being in a state of watchfulness for any length of time is being separate from the world. Can you handle it, Christian? Do you want to handle it? It is a new world. To be separate from the world is to bring friction upon yourself. But this is the territory you have to get yourself on to develop as a Christian.

Try it. See how difficult it is to get into and to hold a state of heightened awareness of your surroundings and yourself -- as if you are in the presence of God Himself. Control your thoughts, control your body language, get the feel of having a higher perspective feeling in the moment; and hold it. Try to hold it during the course of a short walk, for instance (ultimately you want to be able to do it in all the traffic of everyday life, but there is also biblical warrant for doing it, as Jesus, off on your own). You'll have to actually say to yourself: I am here. And then look around you at your surroundings and get a sense of being present in your surroundings. It's a double attention: you are seeing your surroundings while at the same time you are being aware of yourself present in your surroundings. This is presence. Use the example of being in God's presence. Common, small, everyday thoughts will not possess your mind if you are in God's presence. If you have trouble getting out of common, everyday thoughts just think of something more important. Your own inevitable death can do it. The immensity of God's creation above you and around you. Thinking of central truths the Bible contains can do it.

You have to be conscious of your body and five senses as well. Feel yourself in your body. Each part of your body.

It's as simple as: "Here I am." Look around you. "I am here." See how long you can hold that state of presence. The state itself is hard enough to hold, but later you combine it with prayer and fasting, but for now the state itself is enough to give you an experience of the difference between watchfulness and sleep.

Because inevitably you will fall back into sleep. It is inevitable. Your limit for maintaining watchfulness is small, currently. Then when you, later in the day or week, remember the experience you can look at the intervening time and know - by experience - what sleep is. You will say: "Man, I was just 'gone'." I.e., you were 'gone' when you inevitably fell back into waking sleep after having tried to be in a state of awakeness. You can only 'see' sleep by seeing it in contrast to an intentional effort to be awake. That is sleep. Sleep in the world. In bondage to the impressions and influences and illusions of the world.

No, your pastor or seminary professor or Christian book writer never told you about this practice. You want to call it 'new age'. Call Jesus and Paul new age, man-fearing innocent. Or, develop in the faith, and don't fear the battefield. Don't fear being separate from the world. Fear only God, and know you are not of the world. Then actually live that and in the process build yourself up in the faith.