<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\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>


This thread exposes much of the death within mainstream churchianity

This thread exposes much of the death within mainstream churchianity.

Notice the use of the satanic word 'layperson.' It's a word imported from the language of the Beast. Village of morality churchians use it not knowing the filth that comes out of their mouths when that word is pronounced by them.

A Christian is a prophet, a priest, and a king. Village of morality churchians want to keep you in bondage to the Beast, not knowing who and what you are. God makes you a prophet, a priest, and a king. The Village of Morality is a place of death, whether it is called the Roman Catholic beast or it is going by some other name currently.


Spot the devil's glee

Look at this from Critical Text scholar James White's blog:

The Ecclesiastical Text position could be considered, in essence, a variation on the Textus Receptus position described in the previous blog. However, while both agree upon the resulting textual tradition that must be appealed to as the authoritative text, the Ecclesiastical Text position arrives at that point in a very different way.
The main proponent of this position in recent times was Dr. Theodore P. Letis. Letis was a student of Dr. Edward F. Hills, also a staunch defender of the Textus Receptus, though on very different grounds from his protégé. Hills' works include The King James Version Defended! in which he argues that God has providentially preserved His Word in the Textus Receptus.

Can you spot the mark of the child of the devil there? Look at the exclamation mark after the title of Edward Hills book. (After reading this he'll probably remove it.) Critical Text scholars are children of the devil. They exist to push the devil's manuscripts and corrupt versions of the Word of God. In the process they can't help but mock and play games in the exact manner one sees in Darwinians and atheists on secular forums across the internet.

It's a satisfying thought that they have no future in God's creation, other than to burn in hell. When the King returns all mockers of God's elect and the Word that quickens God's elect will burn in hell.


James White finally confronts Steve Rafalsky

Yes, James White has finally summoned the courage to 'directly' confront the PuritanBoard's Steve Rafalsky. He's decided to do it using the account of fellow Critical Text compatriot and acolyte TimV. Yes, that's right, James White is writing posts on the PuritanBoard using the account of his fan TimV. And as could be predicted...he is making a complete fool of himself. Keep writing, 'TimV'...


Voet means foot in Dutch

There's a person going around the internet calling himself Elder Hoss who is brusk (like the big atheist half of Penn and Teller) and likes to throw the name Ridderbos around like he, Elder Hoss, is Zeus and Ridderbos is a lightning bolt.

On the subject of Ridderbos I've written an extensive scholarly article, but it is currently being held from publication by a German publishing house (I was offered some money, I signed some papers...), so I can't release it just now, but for the record it is titled:

Herman Ridderbos: Scofield of the Twentieth Century

Until my article is available, though, I want to recommend to my audience this article by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Mr. Gaffin will explain Ridderbos' use of the historia salutis (or, Heilsgeschichte, or "Let's coin a term for our latest assault on simple, orthodox doctrine that will sound intellectual and old.") and put his contribution into perspective for any new to the subject.

(When you get to the article use your browser's search function and search on 'historia' throughout the article, that will take you quickly to the subject at hand.)


On those who say the Bible is not inerrant

I wrote this little diddy on another blog, but many of you may have experienced it yourself:

Yes, the [Kenton] Sparks fellow seems like a central casting liberal theologian.

One thing I've observed on this subject is when you first engage people who come on with "all the mistakes" in the Bible (like evolutionists and atheists) they first start out speaking as if the Bible contains Chinese mythology, plagiarisms from old Hollywood scripts, statements from NASA, and passages of Plato's Dialogues all in a chaotic mixture, but as you engage them and narrow their complaints down they get to the point where they are complaining that in Book X, Verse Y it says "he killed 300 with the edge of his sword", yet in Book Z, Verse D it says "he charged against many and they fled".

That's a long way from a chaotic mixture of Chinese myth, NASA statements from the '60s, and Plato, etc.


Critical Text master scholar responds (self-awareness rating...oh never mind)

Here's some feedback on a recent interview I conducted awhile back with a Critical Text master scholar:

To be clever, satire must be based on truth. What you posted here - while I'm honored that you don't have time to debate this in a cross-exam format, but you do have time to post insults about me - is Inquisitional type thinking.

So you're UK67 and c.t. - and nobody knows your name. And you think such deception is representing God greatly, do you?

Once again - the challenge has been laid down. It is time to put up or shut up. Do you wish to debate the issue of KJV Onlyism or not? You have already indicated you cannot - while spreading lies about me for the whole world to see.

The Judge who gave His Son does not wink at the cleverness of your own depravity. - Maestroh

My response:

>To be clever, satire must be based on truth. What you posted here - while I'm honored that you don't have time to debate this in a cross-exam format, but you do have time to post insults about me - is Inquisitional type thinking.

I suppose it's best that we allow neutral observers to determine how much truth is in my 'interview' with you and in your 'interviews' with other people.

Meanwhile, as to a debate: once again, you tried that on the PuritanBoard with Winzer and Rafalsky, and the results are still there for all to see (your footprints making a hasty retreat). I myself would just continue to make fun of you because your whole thing is to say that what came out of Madame Blavatsky's nether region is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...


What Critical Text, 'modern', scholarship does to human beings

Don't look at this post, flinch, and say "This post doesn't really exist..." No, read it to the end. All you Critical Text master scholars read it to the end. It will be good for you.

Now read up on the author of the above-linked post. Cambridge? A Bible college MA? Who are the AV translators and the Westminster divines compared to this guy? Not to mention his Critical Text master scholar contemporaries...

Kingdom of Satan at work

Trollish devils - now not just Federal Visionists - are currently swarming Lane Keister's GreenBaggins blog.

When you ban Christians from your environment the Devil's eyes get big and his followers swarm into the vaccum.