There's no famine of dupes in the end times

If you'd like to see how easy it is to expose the devil in a typical seminary fool (in this case a professor) and expose the absolute lack of discernment for the pure and whole Word of God vs. what the devil and his dupes want people to think the Word of God is (and expose the absolute inability to discern the devil's attack on the Word of God, an attack which began in the Garden) read this thread. Just read the first post in the thread written by 'Dr.' R. Scott Clark, then read the follow-up by Jerusalem Blade.

Speaking out of school, or trying not to...

As many of you know my sole reader of this blog is one iMonk. He's written a post here on a subject triggered by things he's read on this blog recently but also as this blog touches on such themes generally as a matter of course. His post puts me into a familiar quandary. I feel I should be more open about my own experience and sources of influence regarding the faith and the practice of the faith, but one comes up against the rule against speaking out of school. You end up tossing alot of pearls before alot of swine.

Suffice to say, there are three basic universal types all human beings fall into: physically-oriented types (think athletes, sportsman, firemen, soldiers, but also gluttons, comfort-seakers, epicureans, etc.), emotionally-oriented types (think artists, performing type artists like actors or musicians, or just people who are generally emotionally oriented in their approach to anything), and intellectually-oriented types (writers, mathematicians, language-oriented, book-oriented people, intellectuals of most stripes, etc.). These types exist but it doesn't mean a person won't have a little of all three in them, it just means each person will have a center-of-gravity of one or the other. This effects their approach to the Christian faith and how they practice it.

Ideally a person wants to develop above their 'type' and have an equal balance of all three types in them which will put them in a higher category. This also causes them to transcend the traditional three branches of the faith: Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. It's somewhat problematic to associate the three traditional branches of the faith with the three basic types, yet there is something there as well. Eastern Orthodox is more physically oriented, with its sensual icons, asceticism, and other similar dinstinctives and so on; Roman Catholicism is more emotionally oriented with it's art and ritual and so on; Protestantism is more intellectually oriented with its precise biblical doctrine, its argumentation and debate, its books (and books and books) and so on. There is something there in seeing the three traditional branches of the faith as corresponding with the three basic types of human beings, physical, emotional, and intellectual. Obviously, though, again, each branch also has its elements of the other two types, yet they still have their center-of-gravity in the one type associated with it.

To transcend your type you have to make directed efforts to develop in the other two areas you're not a 'natural' in. A natural intellectual has to develop physically and emotionally. A natural physical type has to develop intellectually and emotionally (i.e. creatively, etc.). A natural emotional type has to develop physically and intellectually.

To do this you have to make efforts to engage influences and activities that are just beyond your current interests and understanding. People rarely do this. Schools exist for this, ideally, and can have some success in introducing people to areas of influence and activity that aren't their natural stomping grounds, but the problem with schools (grade schools, high schools, institutions of higher learning) is the motivation isn't coming from inside the person, but is driven by worldly motives (to get a grade, graduate, get a job, etc.) which makes all the difference.

A person only truly begins to develop in a balanced way when they, on their own, their own time and motivation, begin to move in directions that "aren't them." People around them, family, friends, even strangers, will let them know they are straying out of their approved-by-the-world path. A family member will say to the physically-oriented person: "You don't read books!" Or the colleague will say to the intellectual: "Softball? You're scaring me." Or dancing, or whatever.

Though it has to be said the intellectual has the advantage over the other types. It's arguably the most difficult area to develop into and it is the most rare, and if you are a natural regarding the type 'intellectual' it is less tramatic to take up a physical activity or a creative type activity, and it is less shocking to onlookers simply because being an intellectual type puts you in the rarest category to begin with. Yet it must be stressed that intellectual types are as stunted in their development as the other two types unless and until they make serious efforts to develop emotionally and physically. They are, also, historically the most dangerous to mankind in their stunted state. They also tend to be vulnerable to toxic levels of vanity and worldly pride that keep them stunted in most cases.

To keep it simple, learn an athletic discipline; learn a musical instrument; and learn to read and write. If the motivation is pure and coming from inside you rather than being compelled externally by a worldly goal then you will be on the right track, potentially.

Then you may find yourself in a category that transcends the three basic types themselves.

What this means in terms of the faith and the practice of the faith is you will be above the three branches of the faith (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant) and all the divisions within the three branches of the faith, and you'll be able to draw from all three branches what each does well and what each is actually on-the-mark with.

From the Orthodox branch you'll be able to draw practical level knowledge and disciplines; from the Roman Catholic branch you'll be able to draw - with extreme necessary discernment - more emotional elements of the faith (and that is always more nebulous when one attempts to put it into practical language, but it can come down to discernment for and appreciation for art and music and history and similar influences; though having said that the Roman Catholic branch hardly has a patent on those things, yet for the sake of this discussion and seeing the three basic types in the three traditional branches one can see what the writer is getting at); and from the Protestant branch you'll be able to draw discernement for and high valuation for apostolic biblical doctrine, hardcore, unwatered-down, un-negotiated down to the demands of vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will. One will be able to discern, for instance, how Calvinism corresponds to the most rare and practical Christian languages and disciplines of spiritual development that exist in the more Eastern Orthodox realms of the faith (the Puritans were the closest to these things in the Protestant sphere). As strange as that may sound, but it can be seen once a balanced development is attained and understanding of such things is attained.

Another thing that occurs when one develops in all the basic types is one begins to see influences as they reside in a hierarchy (influences in this case being, basically, art, music, philosophy, history, imaginative literature, science, and religion). Prior to such development influences are taken basically all at the same level (no difference is discerned between the base of the mountain and the summit of the mountain). Even by worldly, accomplished intellectuals. Homeric epic and their favorite comic book are taken, basically, at the same level, when it comes down to it. They'll even write books suggesting the same. In fact, if anyone suggests to them that one influence may be 'higher' than another it will trigger resentment and anger in the person. This is how you stay ignorant in a worldly, man-approved way when you have your center-of-gravity in one of the three basic types. The moment you begin to discern that influences reside in a hierarchy (the moment you begin to discern the mountain) you are in new territory, including regarding your relations with man and the world.

Practically speaking, once you enter the realm above the three basic types you will make contact with a new language that will give you new ideas, practices, and goals. You will make contact with school influence. This is where I get into a quandary regarding what I can say. One can't speak out of school. Suffice to say: don't abandon a high valuation for precise, sound doctrine, what five solas, doctrines of grace Calvinism is, because you find you need to develop in areas the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic branches specialize in better. Add what the E.O. and the R.C. have to the best of what you've gained from the Protestant branch. Get a balanced development in all areas. Then don't hesitate to attain to the new level, which the world and man (and the devil) very much don't want you moving into.

Listen to this popish fool...

R. Scott Clark writes:

Translations [of the Bible] are for the laity who cannot read the original languages. Ministers are to read the original languages and not rely on translations.

God help us all if this is what 'ministers' think. First of all: the so-called 'laity' (that would be regenerate Christians, i.e. Christians who actually have the Holy Spirit in them) get the necessary translating done IF IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Clerics and academics come along long after that gets done. And long after the 'laity' found the universities the academic clerics get their degrees from.

Translations are mutable necessarily. I doubt there is an extant translation, including the AV, that has not been changed.

You "doubt"? Can't you kind of, look that up...maybe? No, the Authorized Version hasn't been changed.

Archaic English is not the "vulgar" tongue by definition.

See how this academic exposes his shallowness by calling the Elizabethan language of the AV1611 'archaic'. By archaic he means: "Really hard to understand, like that Chaucer guy in the original, or something. Like if the Hobbit was written in Middle Earth, or something." And to call the language of the AV1611 no longer vulgar once again exposes this academic's shallowness regarding literature and language. By the way, who today expects some fool with letters after his name like R. Scott Clark to have real understanding of language and literature, let alone the Word of God? Who really does? These modern day academics are fools. They wear suits and ties and go to conferences and write endless thin, vain books and put it on their ridiculous resumes. They're jokes. Of course they can't see the devil's attack on the Word of God in the emergence of the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts in the 19th century. They neither have the Spiritual discernment to see such a thing, nor do they have the appreciation of language and literature to be able to discern rot from the real thing.

The divines did not rely on Wycliffe's translation from the Vulgate nor did they even rely on Tyndale's marvelous translation. Rather, they depended on the original languages and, if or when they read the Scriptures in translation, they used the Geneva (widely used until the 1640s) or perhaps the AV (which was a relatively new work in the mid '40s).

Wycliffe's translation was not from the Vulgate, for the record (this is a typical error made by modern day self-described Christian academia). These academics have no sense of the work of the devil in the history of redemption, and hence regarding Wycliffe and his translation have no clue of the destruction and corruption of the few non-destroyed manuscripts by the papists of his day. Now notice he says "Tyndale's marvelous translation." What does he know? He's read about Tyndale and has read that Tyndale's English was remarkable (etc., etc.) so he throws this in, but his discernment for and appreciation of Tyndale's work is about the same as his discernment for and appreciation of Beethoven's late string quartets. I.e., he doesn't have a clue. He's a modern day academic. He can tell you about good places to find ice cream where he lives, things like that...

There is and should be no need to learn archaic English to have access to faithful Bible translations.

rsc
__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
Westminster Seminary California

Translation: "I'm still not going to mention the underlying manuscripts because as a Christian academic I fear the opinions of my professors and peers more than I fear God. Plus, I can't win the argument based on manuscripts. I've seen enough evidence of that to not venture down THAT road (hey, hey, hey)..."

Behold unregenerate inanity

Here's a post from a typically wet Christian site:

Dan Phillips [a writer at another blog] tells us the truth matters. Who disagrees with that? But did you notice he never actually defined truth in his post? What is the biblical definition of truth? Is it really doctrine as his post seems to imply? Can he defend that from Scripture? But what kind of exegesis walks and talks without defining terms? Not the sort I want to engage in.

The person's post he is referring to was referencing the Word of God as truth. To be able to discern truth - the Word of God - you have to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of truth. A person who writes, in effect, but what is truth? is not a regenerate believer.

Now look at this inane comment by one of their in house intellectuals:

1 Comment » But, Kevin, when you’re a Fundamentalist (especially a Fundamentalist Calvinist) you don’t have to define anything. That’s the beauty of the system. You know you have a guaranteed clique that’s listening to you (”the Faithful”), and you know they already share all your premises about the Bible and exegesis, all your angst at being in a world that hates and fears you because you expose their deeds of darkness to the light, and all your desire for ready-made, sloganeering conclusions that “refute” the preachers of “falsehood.”

These things being true, all you have to do is keep your tone shrill and your blood pressure elevated and the audience’s fervor against “error” and their fear of “compromise” worked up into a lather and you can get away with fratricide. You don’t have to answer for your own assumptions, you just have to be able to huff and puff and blow down the house of cards you’ve constructed for the other guy to live in and which, all his protestations to the contrary, you insist he must be living in merely because he disagrees with you. You don’t have to offer anything except slogans and categories of thought that came out of your own group’s most traumatic experiences with “heresy” and which you treat like infallible Platonic Forms that judge everything. You don’t have to be accountable to anyone outside your little group, because your little group is the Truth. Everyone knows what you’re talking about, and they love to sit and listen to you pound the pulpit while simply preaching to the choir.

Why try to do anything else? You can sit fat and sassy on the laurels of “the” Reformers and keep propounding the most ignorant caricatures of all other views (”Romanism,” “postmodernism,” “emergent Church”) and people will keep eating it up because neither you nor they know any better. After all, you’re too busy doing expository exegesis to seriously read the Church Fathers or the Medievals and other groups that don’t share your own inbred intellectual tendencies, and since your “Daily Dose of Spurgeon” keeps the heresy away, anyway, you’re really just A-OK.

Comment by Tim Enloe — April 17, 2007 @ 11:14 am

At the foundation of this nonsense is the trite and always fashionable belief that truth can't be known, i.e. that everybody's 'truth' is Truth; and also if 'truth' isn't held to by a vast majority it can't be real truth. If only a small minority of people see it it's obviously wrong.

He also engages in the unregenerate practice of mocking true believers.

This individual is currently on a track to earn his Ph.D in something or other, and as I see it, all the current Ph.Ds in his field deserve him. This little monster will sit at their table in their conferences and be an effective mirror for the rest of the fools self-identified as Christians with letters after their names.

How you know you're a real Christian

HOW YOU KNOW YOU'RE A REAL CHRISTIAN

1. You actually read the Bible complete. You may do it with enthusiasm, and you also may have to do it like you are digging a ditch for no money, but you find that you do it nevertheless.

2. Without too much time elapsing between your first finding yourself interested in the Bible and the faith and initial stages of really getting to know the Bible you gravitate to the whole and pure Traditional Text Word of God (in English the Authorized Version, 1611, otherwise known as the King James Version). This is the work of the Spirit in you giving you basic discernment. It is also the Spirit in you enabling you to be God-centered and enabling you to humble yourself to the Word of God rather than demand that it be what you determine - and what man in general determines - it will be. It is also a matter of basic spiritual warfare. To be able to see the attack on God's Word by the devil and by the world, in their use of ancient corrupted manuscripts to translate literally every modern version of the Bible available today is discernment given by the Holy Spirit. If you don't have it; if you mock such concerns; if you find yourself in league with those who belittle Christians who show a high valuation for the Traditional Text Word of God and a strong desire to defend it; if you can't defend yourself against arguments such as that Christian 'x' is not totally on-the-mark with doctrine thus the Bible they read and advocate is for low-brow morons, then you don't have the Spirit; if you can't bring yourself to go against 'intellectuals' or the 'academy' or what man says in general, i.e. the opinion of the world, then you don't have the Spirit; generally if you fear man more than you fear God then you aren't a Christian.

3. If you think 'faith' is defined as 'family' then you're not a Christian. You're of the world, and if you lead a church you are a corrupt leader. Along these lines you'll tend not to quote or value Jesus' words in the Gospels, another sign you aren't a Christian.

4. I'm going to pass over alot of things having more to do with education. It's problematic to say a real Christian needs to have experience with and understanding of higher influences (art, music, history, imaginative literature, philosophy, science, religion) and needs to have a balanced development regarding physical/athletic activities, creative/performing arts activity, and intellectual activities. Or wide experience in life and travel and so on. A person can be very simple regarding these things and still be a real Christian. Conversely a person can have a seeming complete education and experience in all the above and still be a complete, vain fool (see 'academy' above). Understanding is understanding though, and, to get it, once you have the Spirit, engaging higher influences and developing in a complete way will be the natural course, now and in higher time (i.e. however God has set it up for us to develop outside the obvious limitations of birth-to-death linear time which is how we perceive time).

5. You have enough view to the eternal not to get caught up with and fascinated by and in bondage to the vanities of this world, including the endless talk and complaining demonstrated by the average self-professed Christian on the average internet site.

6. You eventually come to the practical level of the faith and desire to know just what it is that you are to do. And when the usual voices attempt to scare you off such a thing you recognize it is the world and man and the devil attempting to dissuade you and not the Spirit.

7. You're on the Way, not in the Village of Morality. You know you're on the Way when you experience real friction from the World, the flesh, and the devil, and nobody is slapping your back and constantly complimenting and defending you. To fear God only and not man makes you quite a dangerous figure on the landscape of the world. Expect war, and fight like a king.

He [James White] did a radio debate...

AQuinault said...
He [James White] did a radio debate against D.A. Waite a while back (it's on his site). Waite is a doctor & knows all the relevant languages & about manuscripts, etc. and he still clearly lost. How do you explain this? What arguments did Waite miss? I guess what I'm trying to say is if the best of the KJV supporters can't refute him, why do you say White is wrong? If you feel this way about White, I shudder to think how you must feel about Texe Marrs and Gail "(NASV + NIV) - AV = SIN" Riplinger.

April 13, 2007 6:49 PM


c.t. said...
White's not even a good sophist on the manuscripts issues. He's a juvenile delinquent. He doesn't even try to be honest. He plays the liberal politician game of fooling a percentage of the audience while shamelessly giving up the fact of knowing that the others in the audience know he's blatantly lying. He doesn't care because his main thing is to fool as many as he can. This is the devil's program regarding the corrupt manuscripts. Fool as many as he and his followers can. They think they can defeat God and God's plan this way, but they can only annoy God's plan (and play for time). Anybody who plays along with the devil on this foundational issue will suffer by degree much more horribly than the average rebel against the Kingdom of God.

May you see the light some day. Read the Word of God, the pure and whole Traditional Text Word of God, complete, and humbly. Don't read it in a man-centered state of mind, dictating to it what it is and will be, but read it in a God-centered state of mind and heart. Regeneration is necessary to be able to discern the pure and whole Word of God, and regeneration is effected, when it is, by the Word and the Spirit.

April 14, 2007 3:14 AM


c.t. said...
The thing you and your authorities in academia are going to have to realize: you are attempting to turn the minds of regenerated Christians from God's Word to the devil's version(s) of God's Word. No amount of mocking of us will make us succumb to this demand. And you attempt to shut us up and not expose you. No amount of mocking will get us to stop exposing the devil's (and his follower's) attack on the pure and whole Traditional Text Word of God preserved by God for His elect.

To us you are shallow fools. Unregenerate. Giving your allegiance to man and the academy and thinking anybody who doesn't is somehow weird or embarassing. Well, if in time you are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit you'll understand. Until then expect a lot of confrontation from God's people, because what you are doing defiles the very foundation of God's plan: His invaluable Word.

We're not going to let you do it, and we're not going to allow you ease and comfort as you have your little successes in fooling God's people, for the temporary time you are able to fool any of God's people. We will continue to expose and oppose you until the return of the King.

April 14, 2007 3:29 AM

And a couple of embarassing links for your mocking pleasure:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/marr12.ram

(Notice how Ruckman actually sounds like he's matured into manhood, while White is stuck at his high school debate club teenage level of maturity...?)

Yeah, White wins debates...

Your next move is to say neither of the two individuals above are Calvinists. Riplinger's arguably sympathetic to moderate Calvinism (I notice she's quoting Gurnall lately, has always recognized Foxe's worth and his Calvinism, and considers Spurgeon on her side, and gives respect to Calvinists as being, historically, the most faithful to the Word of God (prior, of course, to the theological golden age of the 19th century's Westcott/Hortism that has captured nominal Calvinists like many of your authorities in the academy who push the devil's manuscripts). I was hardly a Calvinist at first, and it was hardly stepping into the darkness and the intellectual shallowness of adopting the modern corrupt versions that led me to on-the-mark biblical doctrine, otherwise known as Calvinism (minus the ecclesiology and sacramentalism). Just read the pure and whole Traditional Text Word of God, humbly, complete, and put yourself on the territory where regeneration by the Word and the Spirit can potentially take place. With the discernment of the Spirit in you you'll see the truth...

Always reforming: you got that right, clerics and Alexandrian academy priests

Always reforming. An abused slogan from Reformation times. There is, though, practical wisdom in it. In our day it applies to the subject of 'church.'

Are churches making and keeping Christians dumb? Are churches fostering and enforcing Village of Morality values and behaviour? Are churches policing members for the purpose of maintaining shallowness in all members? Yes they are. Then get out of the churches.

Read Calvin on this subject. The devils who run the current crop of churches love Calvin's 4th book in his Institutes because they see it as giving them authority to enforce their devil practices in the churches (and I obviously speak of Reformed and Reformed-sympathetic churches, the rest of churchdom is in the devil's camp in much more obvious ways, it goes without saying). But Calvin would not put up with this if he were here today. There is clear proof of this from his own pen.

The work is called On the Necessity of Reforming the Church. Here's is an excerpt (read at least the first paragraph):

"The last and principal charge which they [Roman Catholics] bring against us is, that we have made a schism in the Church. And here they fiercely maintain against us, that for no reason is it lawful to break the unity of the Church. How far they do us injustice the books of our authors bear witness. Now, however, let them take this brief reply—that we neither dissent from the Church, nor are aliens from her communion. But, as by this specious name of Church, they are wont to cast dust in the eyes even of persons otherwise pious and right-hearted, I beseech your Imperial Majesty, and you, Most Illustrious Princes, first, to divest yourselves of all prejudice, that you may give an impartial ear to our defence; secondly, not to be instantly terrified on hearing the name of Church, but to remember that the Prophets and Apostles had, with the pretended Church of their days, a contest similar to that which you see us have in the present day with the Roman pontiff and his whole train. When they, by the command of God, inveighed freely against idolatry, superstition, and the profanation of the temple, and its sacred rites, against the carelessness and lethargy of priests,—and against the general avarice, cruelty, and licentiousness, they were constantly met with the objection which our opponents have ever in their mouths—that by dissenting from the common opinion, they violated the unity of the Church. The ordinary government of the Church was then vested in the priests. They had not presumptuously arrogated it to themselves, but God had conferred it upon them by his law. It would occupy too much time to point out all the instances. Let us, therefore, be contented with a single instance, in the case of Jeremiah.

"He had to do with the whole college of priests, and the arms with which they attacked him were these: ’Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet’ (Jer. 18:18). They had among them a high priest, to reject whose judgment was a capital crime, and they had the whole order to which God himself had committed the government of the Jewish Church concurring with them. If the unity of the Church is violated by him, who, instructed solely by Divine truth, opposes himself to ordinary authority, the Prophet must be a schismatic; because, not at all deterred by such menaces from warring with the impiety of the priests, he steadily persevered.

"That the eternal truth of God preached by the Prophets and Apostles, is on our side, we are prepared to show, and it is indeed easy for any man to perceive. But all that is done is to assail us with this battering-ram, ’Nothing can excuse withdrawal from the Church.’ We deny out and out that we do so. With what, then, do they urge us? With nothing more than this, that to them belongs the ordinary government of the Church. But how much better right had the enemies of Jeremiah to use this argument? To them, at all events, there still remained a legal priesthood, instituted by God; so that their vocation was unquestionable. Those who in the present day have the name of prelates, cannot prove their vocation by any laws, human or divine. Be it, however, that in this respect both are on a footing, still, unless they previously convict the holy Prophet of schism, they will prove nothing against us by that specious title of Church.

"I have thus mentioned one Prophet as an example. But all the others declare that they had the same battle to fight—wicked priests endeavoring to overwhelm them by a perversion of this term Church. And how did the Apostles act? Was it not necessary for them, in professing themselves the servants of Christ, to declare war upon the synagogue ? And yet the office and dignity of the priesthood were not then lost. But it will be said that, though the Prophets and Apostles dissented from wicked priests in doctrine, they still cultivated communion with them in sacrifices and prayers. I admit they did, provided they were not forced into idolatry. But which of the Prophets do we read of as having ever sacrificed in Bethel? Which of the faithful, do we suppose, communicated in impure sacrifices, when the temple was polluted by Antiochus, and profane rites were introduced into it?

"On the whole, we conclude that the servants of God never felt themselves obstructed by this empty title of Church, when it was put forward to support the reign of impiety. It is not enough, therefore, simply to throw out the name of Church, but judgment must be used to ascertain which is the true Church, and what is the nature of its unity. And the thing necessary to be attended to, first of all, is, to beware of separating the Church from Christ, its Head. When I say Christ, I include the doctrine of his gospel which he sealed with his blood. Our adversaries, therefore, if they would persuade us that they are the true Church must, first of all, show that the true doctrine of God is among them; and this is the meaning of what we often repeat, viz. that the uniform characteristics of a well-ordered Church are the preaching of sound doctrine, and the pure administration of the Sacraments. For, since Paul declares (Eph. 2:20) that the Church is ’built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets,’ it necessarily follows that any church not resting on this foundation must immediately fall.

"I come now to our opponents.

"They, no doubt, boast in lofty terms that Christ is on their side. As soon as they exhibit him in their word we will believe it, but not sooner. They, in the same way, insist on the term Church. But where, we ask, is that doctrine which Paul declares to be the only foundation of the Church? Doubtless, your Imperial Majesty now sees that there is a vast difference between assailing us with the reality and assailing us only with the name of Church. We are as ready to confess as they are that those who abandon the Church, the common mother of the faithful, the ’pillar and ground of the truth,’ revolt from Christ also; but we mean a Church which, from incorruptible seed, begets children for immortality, and, when begotten, nourishes them with spiritual food (that seed and food being the Word of God), and which, by its ministry, preserves entire the truth which God deposited in its bosom. This mark is in no degree doubtful, in no degree fallacious, and it is the mark which God himself impressed upon his Church, that she might be discerned thereby. Do we seem unjust in demanding to see this mark? Wherever it exists not, no face of a Church is seen. If the name, merely, is put forward, we have only to quote the well-known passage of Jeremiah, ’Trust ye not in lying words, saying, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these’ (Jer. 7:4). Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?’ (Jer. 7:11).

"In like manner, the unity of the Church, such as Paul describes it, we protest we hold sacred, and we denounce anathema against all who in any way violate it. The principle from which Paul derives unity is, that there is ’one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,’ who hath called us into one hope (Eph. 4:4–6). Therefore, we are one body and one spirit, as is here enjoined, if we adhere to God only, i.e. be bound to each other by the tie of faith. We ought, moreover, to remember what is said in another passage, ’that faith cometh by the word of God.’ Let it, therefore, be a fixed point, that a holy unity exists amongst us, when, consenting in pure doctrine, we are united in Christ alone. And, indeed, if concurrence in any kind of doctrine were sufficient, in what possible way could the Church of God be distinguished from the impious factions of the wicked? Wherefore, the Apostle shortly after adds, that the ministry was instituted ’for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God: that we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the Head, even Christ’ (Eph. 4:12–15). Could he more plainly comprise the whole unity of the Church in a holy agreement in true doctrine, than when he calls us back to Christ and to faith, which is included in the knowledge of him, and to obedience to the truth? Nor is any lengthened demonstration of this needed by those who believe the Church to be that sheepfold of which Christ alone is the Shepherd, and where his voice only is heard, and distinguished from the voice of strangers. And this is confirmed by Paul, when he prays for the Romans, ’The God of patience and consolation grant you to be of the same mind one with another, according to Christ Jesus; that, ye may with one accord and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 15:5, 6).

"Let our opponents, then, in the first instance, draw near to Christ, and then let them convict us of schism, in daring to dissent from them in doctrine. But, since I have made it plain that Christ is banished from their society, and the doctrine of his gospel exterminated, their charge against us simply amounts to this, that we adhere to Christ in preference to them. For what man, pray, will believe that those who refuse to be led away from Christ and his truth, in order to deliver themselves into the power of men, are thereby schismatics, and deserters from the communion of the Church?

"I certainly admit that respect is to be shown to priests, and that there is great danger in despising ordinary authority. If, then, they were to say, that we are not at our own hand to resist ordinary authority, we should have no difficulty in subscribing to the sentiment. For we are not so rude as not to see what confusion must arise when the authority of rulers is not respected. Let pastors, then, have their due honor—an honor, however, not derogatory in any degree to the supreme authority of Christ, to whom it behooves them and every man to be subject. For God declares, by Malachi, that the government of the Israelitish Church was committed to the priests, under the condition that they should faithfully fulfil the covenant made with them, viz. that ’their lips should keep knowledge,’ and expound the law to the people (Mal. 2:7). When the priests altogether failed in this condition, he declares, that, by their perfidy, the covenant was abrogated and made null. Pastors are mistaken if they imagine that they are invested with the government of the Church on any other terms than that of being ministers and witnesses of the truth of God. As long, therefore, as, in opposition to the law and to the nature of their office, they eagerly wage war with the truth of God, let them not arrogate to themselves a power which God never bestowed, either formerly on priests, or now on bishops, on any other terms than those which have been mentioned."

Put to memory

The antithesis of vanity is: faith.

The antithesis of worldly pride is: repentance.

The antithesis of self-will is: descent-of-the-dove God's will.

Making a break in this public journal...

Yes, I need to get away from the Alexandrian cultists for awhile.

What is most important? What is most alive? The Word of God (the pure and whole traditional text Word of God). That is: actually engaging it and making it a part of you at the essential level.

Also: the practice of the faith in real time. A school one has to find the language of. Ask the Holy Spirit.

Alexandrian Cult Priest

Anybody who's ever been approached by cultists knows this face. Knows the look on this face. This is an empty soul. This is a soul giving free rein to the spirit of disobedience. The spirit of the devil. Notice also the look of invincible righteousness. And what is he and his cult pushing? The one thing the devil knows most effectively annoys - annoys, but can't defeat - God's plan in redeeming His people: 'bibles' translated from Alexandrian manuscripts corrupted from ancient times by followers of the devil. NASB, ESV, NLT, NIV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and literally all other modern versions counterfeiting the Word of God. This Alexandrian cult priest also has done the devil's bidding in attempting to tear down the fortress of the one translation in English of the pure and whole traditional text Word of God available to God's people today: the Authorized Version also known as the King James Version. This cult priest hates God's pure and whole Word like the devil hates Jesus Christ. Use the Sword of the Spirit if you are approached by him or any like him.

Photograph of James R. White courtesy of Google Images, just search on "things that come out of Madame Blavatsky's ---".

Question for the Alexandrian 'bibles' cultists

Question for the Alexandrian 'bibles' cultists (who read and push the corrupt versions: NASB, NIV, NLT, TNIV, ESV, etc.): do you love your German Shepherd?

Regaining my focus...

Scratched at the bottom of an ashtray:

"How would a Christian tell a Jew that he/she was lost, but Abraham (and other believing Jews) were saved? IOWs, how would you differentiate between the faith of two Jews, one Abraham, one now?"

Now you've stepped into the TR territory of Federal Theology, Mr. iMonk. Either you're very lost...or...you're beginning to acquire some inkling of understanding of biblical doctrine...

You tell him Abraham had faith in the coming Messiah. Do you, generic Jew, have faith in that same Messiah Who has now come and will come again to consumate the end of the age and inaugurate a new Heaven and Earth? No? Then you don't have the faith Abraham had. Yes, there's no getting around John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Notes...

~`~ Just been recently wading through the sewer of anti-KJV (anti-traditional text, anti-Word of God) blogs. If you want to see that it is the spirit of disobedience (the spirit of Satan) that is motivating those types go read their blogs. They let their hair down, so to speak, on their personal sites. Their hatred of the Word of God and their hatred of the regenerated people of God knows no limits. They will burn in the same pits the hierarchy of the Roman Beast church and the jihadists and the communist genocidal Satanists will burn in. Good riddance. (All you can say is good riddance, and...good riddance.)

~`~ Just to piss off (and mentally agitate ["angry...confused..."] the Westcott and Hort adherents:

Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsell of the vngodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornefull.
Psa 1:2 But his delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in his Law doeth he meditate day and night.
Psa 1:3 And he shalbe like a tree planted by the riuers of water, that bringeth foorth his fruit in his season, his leafe also shall not wither, and whatsoeuer he doeth, shall prosper.
Psa 1:4 The vngodly are not so: but are like the chaffe, which the winde driueth away.
Psa 1:5 Therefore the vngodly shall not stand in the iudgement, nor sinners in the Congregation of the righteous.
Psa 1:6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the vngodly shall perish.

~`~ Yes, I belong to the Great Ocean Kirke (you have to go to another language for the word church due to the establishment Christians having turned the meaning of church into Village of Morality and any number of other vomit-inducing impressions and associations and realities). Great ocean of the beautiful is a phrase coined by a neo-Platonic philosopher for the Macrocosmos. It captures the invisible Church of which Christ is King. (As for the picture in the post below, that was a play on words on the woman's name, ha ha... Don't freak out. And if you're James White: read a novel or something. And not science fiction.)

~`~ Who stole Dave Armstrong's wagon? I saw him delivering papers using a wagon he borrowed from a kid next door. This was the day he posted the 'Paper' titled 'A Letter from Armstrong to Calvin of Geneva' and another titled: '10 Best Reasons Why the current Pope is not quite as Gay or Intellectually Retarded as the Average Anglican Bishop'...

~`~ The iMonk has unconsciously killed off his forum. This is the only explanation for the new site design he OKed for it. (Other than that or his mistress came up with the new design and he's had to bite his tongue.) Meanwhile, those of us who always hesistated between skimming lightly through the entries and reading only the Spencer and Pirate entries can now easily just click over to the newly designed site, scroll once, say the new design is still there, and not even skim lightly... Dark grey font on a background of dark grey always works well...yes, the iMonk has definitiely unconsciously put his forum to rest.

~`~ Phil Johnson, the self-appointed killer of all weirdness in the Christian blogosphere, now has to keep his mouth shut as he works for a man who puts terms such as "Jewish DNA" into his public proclamations. (Hitler thought Jews had uniquely identifiable earlobes. Or something like that. Maybe Phil might want to pass that on to his boss.)

...

Great Ocean Kirke

Great Ocean of the Beautiful

AV 1611 (read it complete, then again, until seven times, word for word)

Learn the language of the Holy Spirit; a language of doing, from Work sources.

Biblical Theology by John Owen, why it's been ignored by Village of Morality scholars

I'm reading through book 6 of Owen's Biblical Theology which is on the subject of evangelical theology. In chapter 3 I think it can be stated is found the reason this book waited - strangely - so long to be translated into English (from the Latin). Owen takes a doubled-edged sword to 'Christian philosophers' (as opposed to, using Owen's terminology, Gospel theologians). That this is John Owen doing this makes the criticism cut deep. Owen delineates finely the types you see alive and well today leading churches, writing Christian books, going to seminaries, teaching in seminaries, etc. For someone who was so learned and so scholarly Owen is all the more effective when stating that all that learning (and putative learning) means nothing regarding understanding the Gospel (and the Bible in general). He boldly states the vast run of theologians don't have the Spirit. He points out how when it gets down to it they mock Christians who give evidence of having the Spirit. He talks of how they merely go through the motions of pastoring churches so as to be able to get back to their first love which is displaying their vain and juvenile intellect and engaging in disputes. I would say that the manuscripts issue of our day is a telling mark of these types. They adopt corrupt manuscripts that they are continually fiddling with - God-like - and changing because they don't have the Spirit in them. If they had the Spirit they would have discernment for such a basic, foundational thing as the traditional text Word of God and its counterfeits and valuation for holding to the former.

Owen states explicitly that these types will mock real Christians, and especially mock any manifestation of real piety or high valuation for the Word of God (see how they mock King James Version readers, as if the KJV is something worthy of being mocked (meaning, as if the KJV is, for instance, in the same league as some New Age thing or practice); they do it because those who come to value the KJV and the traditional text tend to be the born again who have been given the discernment of the Holy Spirit and are able to see the counterfeit manuscripts and bibles for what they are, and who are able to see the motivations and spirit of darkness moving the 'critical text', Alexandrian side.

Any one of these types would be very stung by Owen's words in this book. Notice since it's been published even it doesn't get talked about much by the common types described above. Yet they claim to highly value John Owen otherwise.

"When men exercise their minds about spiritual matters while being themselves strangers to the Holy Spirit and His evangelical workings, the outcome is often a despising of, and hostility to, the Spirit of Christ in those to whom He has graciously bestowed His gifts in accordance with the New Testament promises. Surely some part of the philosophy that they have learned must make them understand that such evangelical talents as are well-pleasing to God must be manifested publicly, and will be seen in operation among the pious; but, even if they refrain themselves from mocking the Holy Spirit openly and directly in plain language, yet it is still their custom to exercise their impudent wits in criticism of those whose privileges they do not share. Very Suffenuses [basically, juvenile delinquents] themselves, they are never more popular among profane mockers than when the mark of their elegant and witty attacks is the Spirit of God dwelling in the pious." Page 610-11 John Owen, Biblical Theology

"In external matters, where the study of Christian theology has some common ground with secular sciences, they [the shallow, Spirit-less, churchianity scholars] are often fierce and fiery disputants; they are subtle investigators of theologico-philosophical propositions. They give appearance of being (and often in truth are) great gluttons for their books. And yet, when they must stand before the people and expound the mysteries of the gospel, they merely demonstrate their own ineffeciency and emptiness." Page 611 John Owen, Biblical Theology

This reminded me of James White complaining on his internet show that even though it is made well known where he preaches in person nobody ever shows up in person to hear him. Anybody who has attempted to listen to him in 'preacher mode' knows why. He is a pure type of what John Owen is describing. He's very much not alone. He's in a very large crowd of similar empty souls standing behind church podiums.

This is what you find in mainstream churchianity: shallowness. Juvenile delinquents with books but no Spirit. And too juvenile and arrogant to ever get near enough to God to put themselves in the territory where they possibly could get the Spirit (James 4). That would require giving up their juvenile vanity, shallow worldly pride, and delinquent self-will. And they're getting too many slaps on the back from their fellow empty clouds and hollow souls. They do live in that Village of Morality too that Bunyan wrote of. This reinforces their illusions about themselves.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

A person who comes to the faith pure, by the Word and the Spirit, then approaches these churchianity/seminary Christians experiences the same thing. A crowd of shallow church boys and girls, and the moment you step into their village they let loose on you with thier mocking (and doing such obvious things as mocking the reading of the Word of God or any talk of doing the commands of Christ). They have to just to protect their vain illusions and existence.

This is the Faith

This is the Faith: 3 lines:

1. Engage the Word of God to be mighty in the Word. Regeneration and then conversion. You can't control it, i.e. make regeneration happen, but you can engage the Word of God and force the issue. God likes that (just read Him). Conversion is something you can play a part in. Seek sound doctrine. Biblical doctrine.

2. Your practice of the faith. Means of grace come into play here. Active, progressive sanctification (i.e. effort on your part) comes into play here. Finding the practical level of the Faith; what you do. The Spirit speaks regarding these matters. Not to all. Especially not to Village of Morality types, or any who mock anything that isn't spoken by a seminary professor fresh from the nearest ice cream shoppe wearing a proper suit and tie. Natural revelation also plays a role here. With the Spirit you have discernment. Use it.

3. Evangelize the faith. This is what you do for the Faith in general. This is effected by proclaiming the actual Word of God. Even a sharp "Jesus saves" at the right moment can do it all, in time. Don't look to convert people, only God can regenerate and convert people. And don't look for immediate results, if any (the time between planting the seed and the seed growing and coming to fruition, if it does, is such that you will likely be long gone from the scene). Just don't argue or beg or try to convince intellectually. Regeneration is effected, when it is, by the Word and the Spirit. Use the Word. That actual Word of God.

General comment: notice none of the three lines above need a church building? And as for the means of grace: the non-biblical word 'sacrament' is for carnal fools. Baptism is nothing if not performed by the Holy Spirit (it's called regeneration, and it's not effected by a ritual and a cleric) and the so-called Lord's Supper is when Jesus said when you eat and drink remember Me. This doesn't mean eat wafers and drink grape juice from little plastic cups thinking you are receiving grace. (Zwingli told you this was for the most stupid among us, and yet you still have to cling to worldly, carnal, devilish, Romanist superstition). Jesus said be awake and love your enemy. None of you ritualist, formalist, clericalist, moralist church Christians quote this (you don't quote Jesus in general because you've made your family the faith, and Jesus kind of doesn't go along with that definition of the faith). You want a real means of grace? Be awake and love your enemy. These two acts have a depth of practice that requires the Holy Spirit to guide you into. Make yourself able to receive such teaching.