<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/\x26vt\x3d8382812700944261936', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

11.28.2006

Some commentary from a Christian in England...



I thought this was worth passing along. It's from a correspondent in England. He recently, in several years, has come into the Bible and faith and is a Christian, though I don't think he belongs to a church, though I would describe his doctrine as John Bunyan, which is to say: very much in the neighborhood of what the Bible says. He understands doctrine at the Federal Theology level... (There are some four-letter words ahead, so brace yourself [update: I edited them out at his request], but it's worth reading for some cultural commentary from an Englishman very much in the mix of the average daily life over there):

Final intro note: I had emailed him an article talking about how some in the Anglican Church were starting to defend the faith...

Yeah that's about right. No naffer dare stick their foot out for fear of getting dragged over the coals, finding themselves unemployed and unemployable courtesy of the PC brigade and with a fatwa on your head issued by a bunch of local kids that may just be latest al quaeda recruits. etc. and then the place stinks so high of liberal do goodness pc culture that stupid right wingers do infact provide a breath of fresh air in an unnatural way - hence their rising popularity. But to be fair about all this, Britain lost it's empire in the summer of 1966 and inevitably it went into freefall. I think it pretty clear, although it was already happening, the individual countries began to push for their own political and cultural identity - so it became sort of like the English were the imperial oppressors of the Scots, Welsh & Irish and they wanted freedom and through this process it just became dirty to be English. I remember hitching in Scotland (& I have Scottish blood) and when the driver identified me as English I was unceremoniously evicted! And when I lived there I was routinely abused and occassionally assaulted for same reasons. In a definite way it is only very recently that the English have begun to have an identity that isn't defined as son of an imperialist, colonial slave merchant oppressor, and you hear only this week that Blair will apologise for Britains hand in the slave trade. (It won't be long before we're paying out compensation claims!) But you can be sure the Welsh, Scots and Irish won't be feeling guilty - that's the English identity. So the very idea of what it is to be English is really a fag end world with nothing left, burnt to the tip. (People have taken refuge in their regional identities, which is understandable but small and backward). So you have this State idea that Britain could be redefined as multicultural and they really pushed it to such an extent that you have tourist information that will tell you about the history of an area, and the migrant communities that live there, the wonderful range of foodstuffs you can buy in their markets, etc, and there will be no mention that until 1970 this place was a solid hardcore white working class community that had existed since the early days of industrialisation - [stuff] like that happens everywhere. And obviously in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7 the undercurrent mumblings about all this bull[stuff] are just set to explode if they aren't resolved so we now see people like Jack Straw fair sticking his neck out to talk about veils, because in an odd way, all of this inordinate focus on muslims within Britain has catalyzed the outbreak of the whole issue of what it is to be English and British. But I still state that as a nation the UK is in a peculiar place being in this identity crisis/shift flux after the fall of empire - and the denial of anything that might associate the modern Briton with any hand in that history and God, it looks sad and pathetic being so timid and fearful of contemporary values. Sometimes I think Britain, even Europe, will implode into a very messy civil war of guerilla violence such as you see in Iraq and other times I see it as a successfully managed state in ultra fine balance accomodating a plethora of values and beliefs and the cost of that society is everyone gently tip-toeing not to offend their neighbour. Not being a particular lover of violence, unless it's in the ring, I'd favour the second scenario but as we sort of have that already, it may just be too stifling to stomach. Sorry just a ramble ...

And then, on another level again ... what a time and place for [the practice of godliness]! I should be truly grateful, historically this all seems especially rare and then perhaps not but it's the scale, and the politics that make it unique.

11.22.2006

How to die successfully



1. The most important thing you need to die successfully is to have the word of God - the Old and New Testaments - pure and whole (Authorized, King James, Version) engrafted in you complete. This is accomplished primarily by making the dedicated - goal-oriented - effort to read the word of God complete, Genesis through Revelation, once, three times, seven times; meditatively, humbly, and with zealous diligence. All else, all other kinds of study, all development of understanding, all building up of oneself in the faith will follow in the wake of this foundational effort. Having the word of God engrafted in you will serve you at the point of death when all that it gives will manifest in ways you can't perceive or imagine now.

2. Another thing you need to be able to die successfully is a clear understanding of pure, on-the-mark biblical doctrine. The ability to get this depends on having the Holy Spirit in you, which is the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Discernment, but doing what is described in the point above will take care of this necessity one way or another. Pure doctrine is best summed-up in what are called the five solas: Scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. All pure biblical doctrine rests on and derives from this foundation. Biblical doctrine then becomes more than mere knowledge once it develops into understanding. It becomes a substantial and necessary element of your faith. There is also an ethic - a strength, a defense, and a high valuation for truth - in pure biblical doctrine that will serve you now and at the point of your physical death and further enable you to stand against and proceed through any forces that would have you in spiritual bondage and darkness.

3. Then you need to have acquired real experience in spiritual warfare. The three-front war a believer in and follower of Jesus Christ will be engaged in: the war with your carnal self; the war with the world; and the war with Satan and his forces themselves. This three-front war is provoked first by regeneration (which is effected, when it is, by the word of God and by the Holy Spirit, but doing what is described in the first point above will force this issue one way or another), and then it is further provoked by 1) being present and filled with the Holy Spirit (being filled via prayer and watchfulness; 2) fearing only God and not man, which is a spiritual fasting from the false idols and illusions and fascinations of the world and from your own vanity, worldly pride, and self-will, and your fears, desires, and resentments; and 3) engaging and meditating on the word of God); because the Holy Spirit wars with the flesh, and being filled with the Spirit also marks you in the eyes of the world which causes the world to focus on you to tempt you, and draw you into sleep and fascination with its illusions, and put the fear of man in you and try to get you to either be ashamed of God or to harm yourself or do something against your best interests in some way; the devil and his forces as well focus on you once you are marked with the Spirit of God, and though he can't harm you directly he and his forces can spiritually assault you and also get at you through other human beings in various ways. Maintaining a strong and steady fear of God and using your faith and the Word of God as your shield and sword is how you defend yourself. This experience then will serve you in the time of your physical death when you will have to withstand in that evil day, against the wiles of the devil, and having done all -- to stand.

4. Another element needed for a succesful death is charity which is the bond of perfectness. Charity towards God and towards neighbor (and enemy). Charity is the standard for your thoughts, words, and deeds. Without charity, coming from a new heart, not just representing the white paint on the outside of a tomb, but representing a sunlit temple that is no longer a tomb, all is vain.

5. Following on charity flowing from a new, pure heart will be control of the tongue (James 3). When the tongue is a pure fountain, can be a pure fountain, the heart is pure (James 3:11). When the tongue is controlled and a pure fountain it is then able to be used as the Sword of the Spirit. A controlled tongue that is a pure fountain is also the crown of inner perfection and a standard to judge one's active, progressive sanctification by. Not a pure tongue by the standards of man and the world (that is a standard that exalts lukewarm and whited sepulchre behaviour) but by the standards of God's word and the new heart He gives you and the Holy Spirit He sends into you.

6. Joy is needed for a successful death. When all you have to look forward to is glorification and heaven and everything working for the best to those who love God then joy is your lot and you have to be able to handle it. This means giving up your fake suffering (which the 'old man' in you finds very pleasurable and indulges in constantly). When Spiritual joy is attained there is nothing that isn't for the best. All is good, from that point. This is the laughter of the gods, or the high spirits of heroes even in the face of tragedy or danger, but it is even higher than that. It is the joy and delight of the new man glorified in the bracing higher elevation of the Kingdom of Heaven where God's will, self-command, and subsequent increased liberty abound. Cultivate it now, imitate it, get as close to it as you can, then at death it will manifest in its full glory.

7. The final thing you need to die successfully is gratitude. Gratitude towards God - gratitude towards Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - for everything, unconditionally. Gratitude in place of resentment. In place of all traces of resentment (gratitude towards God in place of resentment towards God or towards anybody, for anything, always). A gratitude towards God that will abide even if you found yourself being marched into the very flames of hell.

11.20.2006

Pactum Salutis



Some terminology to give an overall understanding to faith and reality:

Pactum Salutis
Historia Salutis
Ordo Salutis

The controlling term of the three would the Pactum Salutis, i.e. it contains the other two, so if one term were to be used for them all it is Pactum Salutis.

Pactum Salutis means Covenant of Redemption.

Historia Salutis means history of redemption (or history of salvation).

Ordo Salutis means order of redemption (or order of salvation).

Just as, if you found yourself stranded in a foreign country, or in some kind of straights in a foreign land, you would appeal to your status as a citizen of Britain or the U.S. or Australia (etc.), and you would get involved with an embassy, and the power that embassy would have to help you would be based on international law, and the law of your nation, etc.; in the same way as an heir of God and not a prisoner of the devil's kingdom it is the Pactum Salutis that secures your status as belonging to God's Kingdom and having the rights of a subject of God's Kingdom. The Covenant of Redemption - Pactum Salutis - was made in eternity between the three Persons of the Godhead (but initiataed by God the Father); carried out in time (Historia Salutis) - effected in time by Jesus and His self-sacrifice; and applied to you by the Holy Spirit via effectual calling and regeneration and justification and sanctification and eventually glorification (Ordo Salutis).

The Pactum Salutis is the eternal Magna Carta, the Constitution, that guarantees your status as a subject of God's Kingdom (as an actual heir of God).

(See vague impressions in all this similar to what stands behind royal rights and charters and standing and so on? It's the language, the reality behind, the constitution of, the eternal royal kingdom. The symbols, the honor and loyalty, the hierarchy, etc., etc., you can see impressions of it all in life here and also in various types of literature, Grail/Athurian literature but also motifs in fantasy genres). Yet it is real when you are called and regenerated and you convert and have saving faith. It is legal standing. That is what justification is. In this world, but also in the spiritual world, where there are forces unfriendly to any who would escape the prison of the Prince of this World, the devil himself...)

If confronted and challenged by the Devil regarding who you belong to you reference the Pactum Salutis. "Pactum salutis, Mr. Devil." And the very fact you know of such a thing and can speak of it as you do shows you have been given saving faith and are justified by God. The very fact you are being confronted by the devil shows you are marked by regeneration (those who belong to the devil are tame slaves and need not be confronted by the devil). Then you draw your sword if Mr. Devil is slow to make way for an heir of the Living God of all Creation...

11.19.2006

Unity, universality, holiness, authority



One of the main points of the two posts below is why would you think human beings can defeat the unity of God's kingdom, or God's church? Humans can't. It is what the devil wants Christians to think, that there is no unity in God's kingdom or church, and that there never will be because humans are divisive and there are many other factors in play that make divisiveness the order of the day.

Unity and universality, holiness and authority exist now in God's kingdom and church. You see it, and realize it, once you have a new heart. Once you are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit.

Regeneration is effected, when it is, by the Word and the Spirit. Part of the 'rule' (rule of daily living, rule of life, etc.) of every Christian must be to read the actual Word of God, humbly, complete, a set number of times. This moves you closer to God (and James 4 and elsewhere in Scripture tells you God will move close to you when you move close to Him). This puts you in the very environment where regeneration happens, when it does happen.

Then don't look for the unity and universality, and holiness and authority of God's kingdom and church outward in the world and among other human beings. That is looking in the wrong direction. Look inward and upward. God's own in the world exist and don't need your empty coercion to effect empty goals of worldly 'unity.'

The devil wants you to define the unity and universality and holiness and authority of God's kingdom in the context of the world and human beings. Because the devil knows it can't exist there and is not supposed to exist there. It exists in the new heart of each believer...

11.18.2006

Vertical, horizontal



A regenerate Christian can't but have some - some - sympathy for elements of the Radical Reformation. All one can say is 'some' elements due to the fact that it didn't have any central, dogmatic belief or confession, and it's wiser leaders tended to be targeted first for annihilation by more establishment Protestants, and also Roman Catholics of course. The four ancient attributes of the church: unity, holiness, universality, apostolicity...they all exist in the new heart of a believer, in connection with Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit, and through Jesus to God the Father.

To find these attributes in Christianity, in being a Christian, you have to look vertically to God, not horizontally to society or other Christians. The unity and universality of the faith exists in one's regenerated heart, and the connection with God is internal and vertical.

You will get persecution (or at least friction) from the world, from other humans, including Christians. You meet that with love. That is part of the doing of the faith. It effects sanctification. Love God, love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemy.

The Unity of God's Kingdom Exists in the New Heart of One Believer



The unity of God's kingdom exists in the new heart of one believer.

A heart regenerated by the Word and the Spirit is a new heart, and within it is the unity of God's kingdom.

This is always resisted by the world and those who would spurn the Word and the Spirit to seek a worldly unity.

There are a thousand worldly - man-fearing - justifications for doing this; and among those with such justifications there is even anger when regeneration or new heart is mentioned.

So be it. (Notice you're suddenly very unified when you are angry at one of God's own who tells you things you don't want to hear?)

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

There is a constant yearning among the talkers and shallow-in-the-faith (and worse) for 'unity' among Christians in the world. This unity they desire can't exist except on the world's terms. The unity of God's kingdom exists in the new heart of one believer.

11.17.2006

James White meet John Eck


"impudent babbler and vain sophist"

John Calvin used these words to describe Roman Catholic apologist John Eck at the Regensburg Colloquy. The words fit, though, too not only modern day Roman Catholic apologists but the modern day default Roman Catholic apologists such as James White who champion using similar impudent babbling and vain sophistry the Vatican's and the devil's defiled manuscripts of the Word of God and the [per]versions based on them.

11.11.2006

The oceanic Word of God



The only cure for shallowness is the oceanic Word of God. The whole and pure, living Word of God. From the deep fountains to the celestial heights, from one pillar of eternity to the other, the whole and pure, living Word of God is the only cure for shallowness.

Riplinger on the Geneva Bible




Q
What do you think of the Geneva Bible?
A
The Geneva Bible was one in a line, preceded by the Great Bible and
followed by the Bishops’ Bible, marking the ascent to the King James
Version. After the King James was finalized, revision was of a
retrograde nature.
The Geneva, like those English Bibles preceding it and immediately
following it (except the Jesuit Douay Rheims Bible), followed the
traditional text underlying the King James Version. Historically, the
church has always used the traditional Greek text that underlies the
King James Version, not the Jesuit text now underlying the NIV and
NASB. The Geneva Bible, written in about 1560, was used by those
people who were exiles from the persecution of Bloody Mary, queen of
England.
The Geneva New Testament was written by William Whittingham. It
had a number of good points. Each verse was separate. This was new
for English Bibles and would encourage memorization. It also had
many anti-Catholic footnotes.
Some of the areas in which it needed improvement include Psalms 12:7
where it followed the Septuagint and its denial of the preservation of
scripture. In several places the Geneva Bible uses the term “master”
instead of “Lord.” In Hebrews 4:11, it had the term “disobedience”; it
really should be “unbelief.” The KJV corrected all of these places that
could have been misinterpreted as men waxed “worse and worse.”
There are also some amusing words in the Geneva Bible. It was called
the Breeches Bible because in Genesis 3, it said that Adam and Eve
wore breeches. The “abusers of themselves” (1 Cor. 6:9) were called
“buggerers.” The King James was an improvement of the Geneva Bible,
but the Geneva was definitely within the line of traditional text Bibles.
The new book, In Awe of Thy Word, gives a thorough analysis of the
Geneva Bible and all early English Bibles, beginning with the Gothic
scriptures which sprung from Acts 2 (“every nation”).

Moderator bravado in the churchian blogosphere


"Rod --

It's easier to ban people here than it is at TeamPyro. You tread softly: the way you treat Phil deserves its own kind of treatment, and you'll get it here."


That from tough guy Frank "centuri0n" Turk (who likes to refer to himself as "cent", even though he gave himself that nickname). What was Rod's crime? He held Frank up to Frank's professed description of himself as somebody who could admit when he was wrong.

~ ~ ~


"Greg: I’m ignoring your last post... That ought to be your last post with us... Consider this, and all future conversations between us, over. I’m done with you."


Ahh. That was one from Michael "iMonk" Spencer, moderator of the [Whining] Boar's Head Tavern. What did Greg do? He parodied Michael's position in a creative, and - here's the crime - on-the-mark way. In a collegial way as well, but...hell hath no fury like a self-obsessed churchian moderator not receiving his usual yes-man petting.

~ ~ ~


"Mr. Loh just won moderated status here."


This one is funnier in context. It's from Kevin Johnson, moderater of something called ReformedCatholicism.com. What was Mr. Loh's crime? He responded to a statement made by Kevin with six or seven Bible verses directly contradicting said statement. Kevin doesn't believe the Bible is authoritative for a Christian, yet, nevertheless, he still is obviously very sensitive when it is pointed out to him where his beliefs are contradicted by God.

11.10.2006

The noose tightens...



Two excellent comments:

Critical Text advocates tend to deny the findings of Herman Hoskier. In his book, "Codex B and its Allies", he lists 3036 references where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contradict each other in the four Gospels. These are very real differences, not a matter of punctuation or differences in spelling. In every case one or the other must be in error; and in a multitude of situations both of them err.

Hoskier, a distinguished scholar, in a magnificent rebuttal of the outrageous claims made in favour of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, has published over 900 pages of scholarly refutation. The differences in the four Gospels alone amount to 3,036; as follows:

Matthew 656+ Mark 567+ Luke 791+ John 1022+ Total 3036+

It is my contention that the liberal scholars of the 19th and 20th Century made use of these differences in order to create a text that is more acceptable to their theological persuasion. In other words: by claiming that Aleph and B were the "older mss" they could substitute whatever change in the Greek Text they wanted. That they were successful in arguing that the older texts are better despite the errors of these texts is exemplified by some Reformed types, such as [James] White and Carson, who make similar arguments.

I would suggest that Accuracy is far more important than Ancientness.
And...
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/div-orig.asp

Early Greek and Latin writers -- The "Fathers"

The writings of early champions of the truth (and heretics) contain copious references to the Scriptures and again testify concerning the Greek text as it was in the 2nd century onwards. The majority of these witnesses support the "Byzantine" or "Received" or "Traditional" text underlying the Authorised Version, and they establish the antiquity of this text and its superior acceptance in the early period.

So who is lying?

Both quotes from this forum.

There are many excellent voices - just everyday believers - on that forum defending God's Word against the corrupt manuscripts, but I highlight the above two because of the blunt force nature of them and to show how easy it is to refute and expose the corrupt manuscripts and the people who champion them.

[Note: for the record, James White only mentions the name of a scholar like Hoskier in the context of stating he wasn't "KJV-Only." He isn't, in other words, one of the scarecrows in the little tare field White cultivates in one of the deep corners of his little mind. He doesn't comment on his scholarship though. He can't. In the exact same way Madame Blavatsky couldn't comment on, say, 1 Timothy 3:16 AV. It kind of blows her entire enterprise out of the water...]

[Note 2: anything written by Jerusalem Blade for instance here and here is worth reading. He's dedicated and passionate on this subject, and he's rather strikingly gentlemanly at the same time.]

The on-the-mark view of the War on Terror now



First of all, God bless all the men and women of the armed forces who have sacrificed themselves - many giving their very lives - in the War on Terror that began on September 11, 2001. Because Islam had to be hit, and hit hard, to disabuse them of all the insanity their leaders had brainwashed into them it was absolutely, strategically, necessary that they be taken on and hit hard as they have been not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but around the world in operations not yet made public. This had to happen (for all my 2.5 million readers who may be reading this, I stress this point initially). No deaths of American military have been in vain. They were all for the absolutely necessary aim to strike back at the death-cult, brain-washed Jihadists to disabuse them of their belief they could strike America with impunity, and our military has disabused them of this belief in a real and big way.

Now, for the rest of the War on Terror, think about this not-small fact: all the crazy talk from the Jihadists about taking over the world is comical for this one reason: they are a rather divided bunch. Not just the big divide like Shia and Sunni, but they are divided at levels lower than that even, tribal for instance. So, what are they going to take over the world with? A house divided cannot stand. The face of anti-western Jihadism tries to give the impression it is monolithic. It's not. With this knowledge we can see the threat coming from them is rather less serious if not outright comical (especially after our military has demonstrated that they can kill Jidahists rather effectively, especially if the gloves are removed from their hands, which they will be, by degree, the further this goes on).

The only real aspect to the threat from Islamic terrorists is and remains weapons of mass destruction. I just think we have to rely on the threat to destroy whole countries if they are used (which will put the fear of God into the terror-sponsoring states), and, rely on God and His common grace to restrain such violence at such a scale, if it is in his plan to restrain it. Meanwhile, fight the War on Terror in all the diligent ways it needs to be fought, without getting into the nation building that isn't possible. Fight it through intelligence and special forces when needed and so on, and meanwhile help the Jihadists to fight among themselves.

(Note: I am not one, though, who has given up on what is happening in Iraq. The effort and sacrifice, self-less sacrifice, of our military there can yet produce much good fruit in time. The line from the left throughout the world that it is a fiasco and whatnot is the devil talking, and he was saying that from the beginning. I am and was never put off by a car bomb like dumb liberals are. Scale is something that requires a basic I.Q. to recognize, and the left doesn't have anything more than a two-digit I.Q., and their leaders and vocal advocates are purely deranged and demonic, so... No, I think what has been happening in Iraq may yet produce what was intended, it just isn't something that can be accomplished politically when the opposition is wholly given over to channeling the devil day in and day out. The time-scale doesn't fit well the U.S. election schedule and so on as well. So be it. The good deeds and charity of our military in Iraq will bear fruit, and if not, then, so be it. The people of Iraq will just be the more convicted...)

And if you're really worried, follow the Bible and don't live where people are living on top of one another. Get out of the degenerate cities...

And proclaim the actual Word of God, boldly and directly so people can actually hear it. Don't bother trying to beg people to become believers and don't worry that they can't possible understand the Bible and the faith in general, they just need to hear the actual Word of God directly, and only God can do the rest. Not your words; the Word of God.

11.09.2006

John Loftus throws a curveball at Paul Manata (incorporate angels into your theology, boys)



On a radio show called the Narrow Mind hosted by Gene Cook (or internet broadcast, I'm not sure if it's actually broadcast also on radio) Christian apologist Paul Manata seemed stumped by atheist John Loftus when Loftus asked him how God, who is a spirit, could move matter. That's not his exact wording, but it was his basic challenge. Manata stated that he didn't know the mechanics of how it happens, etc., etc.

Here's a possible way to think of it: angels. "In the Bible, angels are a medium of God's power; they exist to execute God's will." (I put that sentence in quotes because it is how whoever wrote the article on angels on the Wikipedia site put it, and I don't want to be accused of plagiarizing Wikipedia, my goodness.)

Now, the first objection would be: ah but angels themselves are spirit beings, or, immaterial beings.

This goes to a long-standing debate among theologians, including Reformed theologians. Some say angels are pure spirits. Other say it's not possible for a being to not have any body and still be a being. A strong argument for the latter view is: to say angels are pure spirits is to put them on the same plane with God, who is pure spirit. Also, degree of materiality is usually unecessarily non-existent in thinking about materiality. Angels could very well be material, yet not of flesh and bone obviously. In this way of seeing it a thought is as material as a stone, yet just a higher degree of materiality.

Only God is pure spirit.

So angels can very well effect, or move, material things because they are material themselves. Calling them spirit may just mean they are that to a threshold degree which allows them to exist with God in heaven. Yet they still have bodies. Only God the Father has no body. Only God the Father is pure spirit.

(Like many Christians I have an experience of being saved in a miraculous manner. In my case it was a car accident. My car - a very material object - was moved in a miraculous way. Because the Bible states that angels perform such functions for believers - or potentially do - I assign the deed to angels. Angels moved my car from the middle of an intersection just as an oncoming, heavy old Buick (yes, the kind certain ethnic types are always seen driving, and, by the way, where do they find all those old Buick sedans?) was a split-second from plowing directly into me after I'd driven into the intersection to make a U-turn. I describe it this way: reality became like a Cubist painting, and I and my car ended up back in the left-turn lane and the Buick was distant red tail lights down the road (this was at night). Mock if you feel you must, but many believers have very similar experiences, and some rate much more strikingly miraculous, even by our own rating systems and experience than others we also experience, and the one I just described was a 10 on a scale of 10 for bizarre-miraculous. The point is: angels moved my car (thank you Father in heaven, without your free grace I'm much worse off than just mutilated flesh in a mangled car). They effected a material object. Isn't it said in the Word of God they are powerful to do such a thing? And they carry out the will of God; and minister to His elect...)

And of course I am not saying this is the only way God has to effect the matter of what He Himself created and put into motion, but it is one way...

11.08.2006

Alexandrian Christians and apostolic Christians



There are apostolic Christians and there are Alexandrian Christians. The Roman Papist church was and is a church of Alexandrian Christians. Establishment Protestant churches and denominations effectively became Alexandrian during the 19th century, joining the Roman Papist church.

Apostolic Christians are God's remnant which he always has in any and every era of the history of redemption.

A mark of Alexandrian Christians is their willing and enthusiastic adoption of Alexandrian 'bibles.' A mark of apostolic Christians is their discernment of and high valuation for - and defense of - the Traditional Text Word of God.

In English the Traditional Text Bible God gave his people is the Authorized Version of 1611, otherwise known as the King James Version; and prior to that the Geneva Bible and prior to that all the versions based on Tyndale's inspired work culminating in the crown, the AV1611.

Alexandrian Christians, Romanist and later establishment Protestants, have always hated the Traditional Text as given to God's own by the Holy Spirit. They hate it because it requires regeneration to value what is God's. The Traditional Text has always and ever been a reminder to Alexandrian Christians of their vanity and willful, worldly pride, and ultimate rebellion from and hatred for God. To hate God's whole and pure Word is to hate God himself. So we see how establishment Protestants, already having given their souls over to formalism and ritualism and moralism and clericalism like their Romanist cousins, enthusiastically adopted the work of the atheists and spiritualists of the 19th century in giving them their very own Alexandrian 'bibles.'

Today their spiritual offspring do nothing but scoff at and mock apostolic Christians who value God's whole and pure, Traditional Text, Word. So be it. God's own know the voice of the Shepherd.

May the Alexandrian Christians, one by one, find it in themselves at some point to humble themselves to the Word - the real Word of God - and the Spirit, and put themselves at least in the environment where regeneration happens, when it does happen: the whole and pure Word of God. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The devil knows this and does everything in his power to prevent it. Which is why the Alexandrian 'bibles' exist in the first place...

11.06.2006

AV1611 and Geneva 1599



Here is a comparison of the 23rd Psalm in the AV1611 and the Geneva 1599. Each doubled verse is in the order of AV then Geneva:

1 [A Psalme of Dauid.] The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want. 1 A Psalme of David. The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want.

2 He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters. 2 He maketh me to rest in greene pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.

3 He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousnes, for his names sake. 3 He restoreth my soule, and leadeth me in the paths of righteousnesse for his Names sake.

4 Yea though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me. 4 Yea, though I should walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me: thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me, in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oyle, my cuppe runneth ouer. 5 Thou doest prepare a table before me in the sight of mine aduersaries: thou doest anoynt mine head with oyle, and my cuppe runneth ouer.

6 Surely goodnes and mercie shall followe me all the daies of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for euer. 6 Doubtlesse kindnesse and mercie shall follow me all the dayes of my life, and I shall remaine a long season in the house of the Lord.


The final verse shows the most difference, but basically you can see how much the AV1611 is the Geneva 1599. Why is that? The Geneva was in the line of English Bibles that made up the refining and purifying line of development that culminated in the AV1611. Pitting the Geneva against the AV is a game played by two types: Bible sellers (like the publisher that is currently bringing out a new edition of the Geneva 1599) and Christians who for a variety of reasons (many of them emotional and psychological) are at enmity with the AV (otherwise known as the King James Version) who yet have enough honesty to admit that arguments made against the modern versions are legitimate, but their vanity and worldly pride keep them from accepting the KJV, so the Geneva becomes a way to back away from the corrupt versions without having to look like they're conceeding anything to their fundamentalist (real or not) KJV-only bogeymen. So you see alot of rhetoric about that evil old King James I who had it in for the Geneva and demanded a new translation be done to do away with the Geneva and so on. All of it nonsense. It's the same Bible, just refined. The Puritans were fond of the notes in the Geneva and reluctant to give them up, and no the AV wasn't adopted totally by all English speaking Christians immediately, but it was fairly quickly, and for reasons having to do with its excellence as a translation. It basically is the Geneva refined, as the Geneva was a more refined version of the English Bibles that came before it, starting with Tyndale's inspired work.

It's a positive development anyway. I have to say, though, that I still don't see a discernment among these types for the devil's attack on the Word of God that constitutes the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and their use in virtually all of the modern versions. They have a ways to go, but perhaps this chosen transition route will result in a more complete awakening on their part later down the road.

I always stress to these types: nobody owns the AV1611. I don't, so-called KJV-onlyists don't. So when you adopt it you're not adopting 'my' Bible or Gail Riplinger's Bible or Ruckman's Bible or Edward F. Hill's Bible. You're adopting the whole and pure Word of God given to you by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Last note: I prefer the old spelling (the above is the original spelling of the AV1611, without the gothic font of course), but it's not as important as the language itself. The Bible in 1611 was both a blood and bone saxon language, yet it was always a unique language (I hesitate to say 'elevated' language because that gives impressions of artificial or flowery which the AV is anything but) and this is intentional always. Demanding the Bible read as your local newspaper is in the same category as making demands it say what you desire it to say. It also gives licence for further corruption and defilement such as paraphrase and worse. Meet the Word of God on its terms, at its level. There is power knowing that when you hold a Bible in your hands you are holding the whole and pure Word of God in your hands, and you can now give yourself to it and know it isn't defiled by man and isn't full of holes (variant textual readings as determined by vain scholars, atheist or just juvenile at best). The Holy Spirit has left God's own with the whole and pure Word of God. No Christian need rely on scholars and fools to tell them what the Word of God is. The Holy Spirit can be seen working in history, above history, using man yes, but working in history and riding above time and man to shepherd the Word of God into not only its canonic form but its inspired form regarding manuscripts and translation, and thank God for that, amen. If anyone then wants to claim it's God's providence and the work of the Holy Spirit that Madame Blavatsky's friends just happen to 'discover' a 'better' set of manuscripts to make new versions of the Word of God with well, then...ask whether that is a Godly, sanctified discernment that is determining that... To each his own, but that is how it always is: God's own know the voice of the Shepherd.

It's telling when theologians don't include angels in their systematics



Dabney: "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.'"

This subject.

What kingdom are you in? Are you marked (noticed) by the kingdom of the devil? If not you're not a threat to it. You're a tame slave of the devil's kingdom. Regeneration will cure that. You can't regenerate yourself, but you can put yourself in the environment where it can occur, when it does occur: the whole and pure Word of God. Read it complete. With aim, a humble and contrite heart, and zeal. And don't dictate to it what it is...

7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

[The title of this post: 'It's telling when theologians don't include angels in their systematics.' For instance, paging Shedd and Reymond...]

11.05.2006

Two Beastians discover common ground...?


UPDATES BELOW...(ha ha, very important! read now...)

I'm bad:

I was interested to check out her shenanigans on Dave Armstrong's site - she even has him defending James White! To my utter delight, a poster there quoted her the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says not to be calling people "Raca", and telling them they're going to hell, or they are in danger of hellfire, and did it in the KJV!

I certainly did defend sound doctrine against the RC apologists and false teaching on that site, but what you need to know is their main form of defense against an aggressive, biblically on-the-mark Christian like myself is to impersonate me and write the things you saw Armstrong quoting. There were about six of Armstrong's regulars writing comments on his site signed with my name. But if one is inclined to believe the witness of a Roman Catholic apologist like Dave Armstrong then you have bad will towards the truth to begin with.

Congratulations, anyway, for being influenced in just the way a typical Roman Catholic apologist like Armstrong intends his hapless visitors to be influenced when they read his various webpages...

(Note: right after writing the above about not calling people raca the writer then calls me a heretic in the very next paragraph. This is a sympton of sleep. Kind of like the girl who gets biologically friendly with six dudes at night then gets indignant if the mailman glances at her wares - violating her chastity - the following morning...)

UPDATE: I went to the Armstrong page referenced above and I can say the quoted writings are my own. Except Armstrong took much of it out-of-context. He was quoting from an exchange I'd had with a journalist - who had belligerently announced to me he is Jewish (it was about the supreme court nominee flap a year ago) - who was threatening me with legal this and that (which was serious since I'm a nobody and he's a well-connected Jew from a prominent family with political connections and probably alot of lawyer friends who could hassle me rather easily), so I gave him what he wanted, some good anti-Jew rhetoric (because I'm fearless and don't back down to anyone), and he then published it on the Corner, the blog of National Review Online, garnering him great sympathy from all over the world. We actually made up, though. Armstrong quotes it all out-of-context to make me sound like a Jew-hating nazi, or liberal or something, i.e. the average Roman Catholic...

UPDATE 2: Just read the whole and pure Word of God, pilgrims. Regeneration is the main thing, then conversion, then sanctification, then death and glorification and heaven. But without regeneration, which isn't effected by a ritual performed by clerics, nothing happens. Regeneration is effected, when it is, by the Word and the Spirit. Put yourself in the environment where regeneration can potentially happen: the whole and pure Word of God. Traditional text. Authorized Version, 1611, if you speaketh English, pilgrim. Just do it. Download it complete. Without confuting at every step of the way (or doing the: "In the original language, according to better manuscripts, found in Madame Blavatsky's butt, this should read) no, don't do that, like a vain little head-scratching, grinning monkey. Read it with aim, a humble, contrite heart, and zeal. Death is close. Learn to count your days...

Typical email exchange with an establishment Christian


Establishment Christian: among other things, shallow and nigh socially retarded. One of the first things I noticed when I first began to interact with mainstream Christians on these various internet sites is their utter lack of ability to just talk to a person. I.e. just be normal. But they recognize the enemy, instinctively; and if you fear God rather than fear man you are the enemy.

Anyway, one of them recently has been complaining that I've been supposedly email-stalking him. I wrote a post about something he'd said on a forum. Then emailed him the link to it. Simple. No big deal. He wrote back complaining I didn't give him my social security number. So that was that. Then on the same forum he wrote another post on the same topic and I emailed him a link to a website on the subject of what he was writing about. Again, simple. (Not a webpage I wrote, by the way.) He wrote back:

Hey;

You know it isn't polite to keep emailing someone without an introduction. This makes twice. I don't know how you can expect me to be kindly disposed to you when you act like this.

[I withold his name]

Right. Because publically posted email is sooo personal. It's like I was tapping at his bedroom window or something. (See what I mean about these mainstream Christians? They're a bit 'off' always...)

Then I wrote him a response I often give these types where I suggest to them to stop acting like you are somebody. Something like that. (They don't usually get that, but that's OK. Something sinks in because they usually get mad.) This engendered this response:

You are extremely rude. Do not email me again until you give me a proper introduction.

Then I wrote him suggesting to him that he is a bit asleep - accompanied with a good biblical quote - and then I gave him my usual advice to read the Bible, the whole and pure Word of God - complete and let it do its potential work in him regarding perhaps waking him up. Of course this is going to be taken in a negative way. So be it.

Now he's over on a forum talking about how at the end of his rope he is regarding my incessant three emails...

A side note: in his emails he has a signature tag:

"Duties belong to man; outcomes belong to God" -Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson

As a postscript I merely wrote that that quote reminds me of this quote:

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

He responded:

[Y]ou seem to prefer the quotes of pagan poets over Christians...

Hm. Remember what I said about shallow? And the moralising. (It doesn't even make sense, I wasn't posing one quote over the other.) Establishment Christians: formalism, moralism, ritualism, clericalism. Meanwhile remnant Christians are in contact with the whole and pure Word and the Spirit and fear only God...

11.04.2006

The Armed Man



The secular song the Armed Man was popular with the great composers of Renaissance era polyphony (masses, motets, etc.). There is a deeper meaning there. That music was a school. The symbol of the Armed Man was a reference to the armor of God, an armour of light. The cantus firmus in such music is symbolic of many things, as well the lines of music woven around it. Most all the great names of that music composed their own Armed Man mass. Three of the greatest are readily available from the Naxos label (each of which recordings given the highest rating by the Penguin Guide to Classical Music, all three in fact being given 'Rosettes': by that publication's rating system the equivalent of a 12 on a scale of 1 to 10 in both performance and sound).

Ockeghem - Missa L'homme armé

Dufay - Missa L'homme armé

Josquin - Missa L'homme armé

The Ockeghem disc comes with one of the most sublime motets (and performances) you can hear, by Josquin, called: Memor esto verbi tui.

And, no, these aren't 'Roman Catholic' things. All three are of the northern school, first of all, which had little connection to the Papacy; but, beyond that, even the set words of these works aren't infected with bad theology. The northern school, by the way, at its height is more stark and desolate than the later, and more southern, style of Palestrina and Victoria of greater fame...

11.02.2006

The Narrow Mind and clericalism and perverted bibles


Pastor Gene Cook of the Narrow Mind internet broadcast, and his friends, are onto the truth of classical covenant theology, and know that CCT is not the servant of infant baptism, but they have to work on their clericalism. On a recent broadcast they attempted to work into CCT their claimed fact that there is no longer a remnant. What they are really saying is: the establishment church is ALL. And in one part of the show they stated that it was up to 'them' to cast a person out of the Church if that is needed. Clericalism in its most inane degree.

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

During the same show they were proof-texting their reading of baptism and called on Acts 8:37. The only problem is in their chosen Bible versions (each of the people on that show has stated their preferred bible [per]versions (NASB, NIV, etc., i.e. anything but the KJV which they mocked on another show and mocked Christians who hold to the traditional text), again, the only problem is their chosen Bible [per]versions delete - actually wholly cut out - verse 37 in Acts 8. So they had to say, "Now, um, there is, of course, some dispute over this verse, but, for this occasion I'm willing to consider the verse legitimate..." Even though his Bible [per]version cuts the verse out. This is how vain and prideful and in bondage to the devil these fools are that they will be "OK" with an entire verse they consider legitimate being totally deleted from the Word of God.

May the Spirit of God come into your hearts, and may you finally have the courage that comes from fearing only God (and not man) to humble yourself to the whole and pure Word of God which is only contained in the traditional text and any faithful, literal translation based on it such as, in English, the Authorized Version, 1611, otherwise know as the King James Version. With a King James Version you can know that you have the whole and pure God-breathed Word of God in your possession, just as God promised His own would always have his Word, whole and pure, despite the best efforts of the devil and the devil's followers throughout the history of redemption.

At the second coming of Christ


Jesus Christ is now visibly appearing in the clouds of heaven in great power and glory...

IMONK: Trumpets. It's sad that the church needs trumpets to get its attention.

JOSH THE PIRATE: As a Lutheran I'm as Christ-drunk as any Christian and frankly He can do no wrong, but...the blood on the vesture?

MARK SOMEBODY: I'm with Josh, it's sad.

TRAVIS PRINZI: Maybe rather than the army being all in white linen there could have been just a little bit of respect for the different colors of His creation? What are our black brothers and sisters thinking right now?

IMONK: If we had the dignity of our black brothers and sisters, Christian and so-called non-Christian, God wouldn't have had to return or to incarnate to begin with.

BILL SOMEBODY: If I go wherever our black brothers and sisters go I'll be blessed with or without Him.

JOSH THE PIRATE: Can I disagree with that without getting all misunderstood and attacked?

IMONK: This forum will not be taken over by allegiance to Jesus at the expense of the dignity of human beings, many of which attend the school I work and suffer for.

SHARON THE PASTOR: Well, how am I going to explain this to my flock? Then again, they'll probably be bickering so much I won't get a word in edgewise.

JOSH THE PIRATE: In about a nano-second we're all going to be changed somewhat, so I wouldn't worry about it.

JOEL SOMEBODY: What do you want to bet the Calvinists are thinking Jesus is about to call them to the front ranks? Sad.

IMONK: Anybody know of a good review on the new PowerBook?

SHARON: I love mine! I'm converted!

blip . . . blip . . . blip!

Found on another blog somewhere...


Charles Spurgeon on Christianity:

"The Christian is one who is to be plainly seen, and yet his life is hidden; he is a man in the world, but not a man of the world; he converses with other men, and yet his conversation is in heaven.He is one who lives to die, and dies to live; yet he is dead while he lives, and lives when he dies.He is one who lives in another, and for another; he seeks not himself when he aims most at his own good; God is his all, and his all is God; he aims at no end but the glory of God, of which there is no end."

11.01.2006

Wow, maybe just go with the Holy Spirit all the way now?


Here's a rather comical (more than usual) post from James White where he discovers that one of his devil manuscripts actually has a reading that the Holy Spirit gave God's own from the beginning. But first, he has to call anybody who sees the whole and pure Word of God in the traditional text "King James Only people" (a strawman that he has been disabused of probably thousands of times, but if he or his followers give it up they are left with nothing, which is why fallacious rhetoric is still alive today); then he has to compare people who read the King James Version with Muslims; then he calls us "wild-eyed"... All preliminary to announcing that the most idiotic rendering in a modern version based on the devil's and the Vatican's Alexandrian manuscripts (the famous 'he who' in 1 Tim. 3:16 found in White's preferred NASB) is actually not even IN the devil manuscript in question! Imagine that! They can't even get their corrupting of the Word of God from their devil manuscripts straight. Well...time for a yet "new" "better" edition!

Hmm... Once again... Let me see: Westcott and Hort...Holy Spirit... Westcott and Hort...Holy Spirit... ..... Yeah, I think I'll go with the Holy Spirit, pilgrims.

Stick with the traditional text and the best translations based on it. In English that would be the AV1611. Expand your vocabulary if you have to.

(Note: It occurs to me that White may be signaling with this post a move towards the whole and pure Word of God found in the traditional text. I mean, one can see it like that a little bit, perhaps. Yet I have to conclude that he shows too much of his old vanity and pride in mocking of God's Word and God's elect who only can discern God's whole and pure Word to be making any kind of movement like that. Same old unregenerate fool...)

Moving on from the subject of scholars and fools, let's get serious here for a moment: Look at these verses from 1 John:

4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

These are verses the devil and his followers don't like. They tell God's own how to discern the anti-Christian forces. To de-ball, so to speak, these verses the devil doesn't necessarily have to attack them directly (though that is hardly beneath him). He can do something else here. Notice these verses don't explicitly say "Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh..." The devil certainly sees that, and he says to himself, "That can be exploited." But to do it there is a pesky verse back in 1 Timothy that he has to get rid of. 1 Timothy 3:16 specifically:

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Notice where it says God was manifest in the flesh... Yes, that, with the 1 John verses cited, gives away that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. So the devil has to specifically get rid of that one reference to God in that verse.

So what do we find in the modern versions based on the devil's and the Vatican's Alexandrian manuscripts? Well, no surprise, look here:

NIV - "He appeared in a body"
NASB - "He who was revealed in the flesh"
ESV - "He was manifested in the flesh"
etc., etc., etc...

And what, again, do we see in the traditional text and a faithful translation based on the traditional text like the Authorized Version, 1611, otherwise known as the King James Version?

"God was manifest in the flesh"

A lone and faithful witness.

Note 2: To return to White's post: he and all the other champions of the devil's and Vatican's manuscripts have been embarassed by the above renderings in their [per]versions of God's Word, so they are now saying: "Well, with ultra-violet research and such we can nowwww say that we believe that verse should read 'God.' So...to all you traditional text people, that one is now off the table! You can't use it against us or our [per]versions anymore!" Right, because that one concession from you devil-priests also takes care of all the other devil-defiled parts of your perversions? Sorry, pilgrims... Maybe just walk into the light of the whole and pure Word of God. You'll have to humble yourselves first.