<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>


Churchians are not Christians

Here is a revealing statement. It comes at the end of a comment where 'scholarly commentators' on the Bible are being graded and discussed:

"On Philippians, give me 5 pages of Motyer rather than 100 of Fee. I'll have more to think about, and apply to my people."

His people. He's a pastor and he is referring to the 'laypeople' who come to the building where he gives 'sermons.' His people. His people.

He apparently does their thinking for them, and considers this his burden.

There is no difference between this dumb, unself-aware inanity and what socialist 'intellectuals' think about 'people' and their burden to 'teach' them and rule over them 'for their own good.' All the while the pastor and the socialist intellectual are the least practically intelligent (or any kind of intelligent) or inspired person in the room. And the first to get Satanic tyrannical angry if they aren't 'respected' in the way they deem their superior merit calls for. Just filthy, dumb, unregenerate, deadly inane and wicked fools to be avoided, folks.

Churchians are not Christians, pure and simple. Churchians, whether the 'leaders' or the 'laypeople', are not Christians.

Christians are prophets, priests, and kings. My goodness how that shocks and confuses and angers the churchians.


The White vs. Camping debate

A churchian and a date-setter had a great debate on Iron Sharpens Iron, here and here. I'll go with the date-setter on the subject of churchianity and with the churchian on the subject of date-setting, but what everybody who has commented on it seems to have missed is how it demonstrated how ridiculous most all debate formats are. A casual conversation between the two, with the moderator simply allowing neither to filibuster or talk over the other would have accomplished a thousand times more than the inane three minutes to one then three minutes to the other accomplished.

* * *

Where are the adults, by the way? I keep using this example: imagine if Loraine Boettner had a radio show. Or imagine if R. C. Sproul had had a conversation with Harold Camping. Can you see how it would be different? Why are these juvenile types pressing themselves forward like this?

If not juvenile types you get shallow academics.

At least Camping sounds like an adult. But the date-setting thing is a bit self-indulgent, Harold, don't you think?

We're called to be watchful, not to pick a date on a calendar. If you don't think you'll need oil in your lamp until May whatever, 2010, you won't have oil in your lamp when He comes like a thief in the night.


More wicked, willful deception coming from Reformed academic Jesuits

There should be a cry for help in this article. That there is not is evidence of the wicked and willful - and prideful - deception of its author. The entire article is premised on a lie the equivalent of saying no Christian experiences regeneration if the experience, the event, doesn't match the dead, sterile, embarrassed life of a self-identified Reformed academic with Romanist leanings.

To write this article this twink Jesuit Darryl G. Hart (yes I've just coined a term for these Reformed academics who teach Romanism while calling themselves Calvinists) has to pretend (and get you to believe) that Calvin a) didn't describe his regeneration by the Word and the Spirit in his preface to his commentary on the book of Psalms the way he did, and b) that Calvin didn't experience, in a rather short time, a powerful regeneration that awakened him and enabled him to write the first edition of his markedly non-Romanist book Institutes of the Christian Religion rather quickly for someone who had been a dead asleep Romanist just a few years before; not to mention inspire him to defy the entire world as he knew it then and give all to God taking his own life into his hands in the process. Not to mention switching gears in his interests rather dramatically as well.

No, this twink Jesuit, Darryl G. Hart, wants you to think Calvin never really experienced anything very profound or dramatic and just merely kind of 'evolved' throughout his entire life into the faith - with the aid of being sprinkled with water and drinking grape juice in a 'qualified' church building - the Word and the Spirit not having much if anything to do with it. Because you see, just like twink Jesuit, Darryl G. Hart, no one ever experiences regeneration by the Word and the Spirit. If Darryl G. Hart hasn't experienced this, then by the good name of the antichrist pope no one will be allowed to experience it!

It's not fair. Why should some people get to be regenerated by the Word and the Spirit and good, accredited academics like Darryl G. Hart, Reformed academics no less, not be recognized by the Spirit as well? It can't be, therefore it never happens.

This is so comical it reads like parody. Unfortunately these Reformed academics are actually influencing people.


A CBN report on Calvinism

This is a good report on the resurgence of Calvinism. Don't say, oh, boring!, and not click on it. It's unusual when people are drawn to real truth, to any degree. I mean the hardcore real truth. Which involves seeing ourselves in a true light.

The means of grace

What are the means of grace?

Is wearing a suit and tie one of the means of grace?

Are academic conferences a means of grace?

Is ritual?

Writing books?

Rightly so engaging the Word of God is a means of grace. Why is that? Because the Holy Spirit resides in the Word of God. It is a lively, quickening language. It potentially cuts your soul away from the spirit of the devil and connects you with the Spirit of Christ.

What else is a means of grace?

Rightly so being in a state of worship of God is a means of grace. An eschatological state, being awake now in the moment. "I am here," say the Old Testament saints, when in the presence of God. "Here I am." In real time. For duration, depth, and frequency. In the fear of God only, and not man. The fear of man makes one asleep.

What else?

Be awake and love thy enemies. Love thy enemies. Is this a means of grace? "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."

Grace is something we can have in degree. Like the Holy Spirit. If we accumulate grace and the Spirit by being awake and watchful and in a state of worship of God we certainly also preserve or contain it by loving our enemies. Loving our enemies standing for the transformation of any kind of resentment for gratitude.

Only Jesus was given the Spirit 'without measure.' No human being but Jesus, the God-man, could handle having the Holy Spirit within him without measure. When we get more than we can handle we 'grieve' the Spirit. Our Old Man, our vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will, asserts himself, and gratitude is far from our minds and feelings as resentment and self-justification take the reins. Then the battle is on. To extend our limits we must provoke our limits.

Certainly not easy to do. Certainly not at first especially.

And certainly this is a far distance from dead ritual. Is it taught in Scripture? Of course it is. It is taught in the words of Jesus Himself.


Only regeneration by the Word and the Spirit puts one on the Way

What is grotesque about a Reformed academic like Michael Horton using the phrase 'pilgrims on the way' - appropriating the phrase - is the stark fact that Reformed academics like Michael Horton have no clue what the 'way' is.

When Reformed academics show any degree of awareness of the fact of spiritual warfare let me know. That is what happens 'on the way.'

When Reformed academics show any degree of valuation for the Sword of the Spirit (not the constructed document(s) scholars have glued together from the most corrupt manuscripts they could find but the pure and whole - received - Word of God) let me know because that is what is used on the 'way.'

The very fact these modern day Reformed academics never speak of - let alone write of - real spiritual warfare that follows directly upon regeneration by the Word and the Spirit dismisses them as teachers of God's people.

The fact that they champion corrupt 'bible' products and mock the old paths and the received Masoretic/Received Text exposes them as the devil's 'ministers of righteousness' who take over churches and keep self-identified Christians in bondage to the darkness and death of the devil's kingdom.

The fact that they, like the Beast church itself, exalt ritual and clerics over the Word and the Spirit gives them away in their motive to keep Christians dead asleep and tame slaves to their father the devil.

These are "clouds...without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots..."

* * * * * * *

Basically, they're not self-aware; they're not Christian men and women. They are smug Village of Morality denizens and ministers of righteousness.

When I first came upon the scene of Reformed Christians (or those who were claiming that name and policing the environment) I was astounded at what I found. The sterility, the shallowness, the lack of self-awareness, the lack of knowing one's own smell. The lack of awakeness and true humility. The lack of valuation for the most important things. All that is inane in the culture of secular academia imported directly into the midst of God's people. The man-fearing (and demand for man-fearing and policing that goes on to enforce man-fearing) and the asinine back-slapping and respecting of persons. The mocking of what is most important.

Again, these are not men and women of God.

Why I'm so 'mean' towards the churchians

Why am I so harsh and 'mean' towards the churchians? Because they are pure death. They ensconce their 'honorable' asses (the devil's ministers in the churches are 'ministers of righteousness' as the Word of God tells us) in positions of leadership and make Christians under their influence naked and ignorant before the devil and the world and their own inner Old Man. Christians need to be in full armor, fully awake, with a full experience of the Way. The deadly churchian shit leading in the churches mock all of this and say, "Suck down your sacraments, child, and obey your clerics. You're 'under our care' (ha ha), you just sit there and listen to our good sermons putting you and keeping you dead asleep where you damn well better stay."

Here is what you do when confronted by these deadly, shit-tongued spiritual pedophiles: you wield the Sword of the Spirit before their filthy dead souls. Watch them attempt to mock you if you have a true Sword (not their devil distributed corrupt versions, but the pure and whole - received - Word of God), and if they should make the mistake of attempting to threaten you or do you harm you simply beat the living shit out of them. A good horse whip will come in handy. Most likely they will run away very fast before it comes to that. The devil's ministers ('ministers of righteousness') are as much cowards as their father the devil.

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.


Three random Saul Bellow quotes abused

"[There is] an immense, painful longing for a broader, more flexible, fuller, more coherent, more comprehensive account of what we human beings are, who we are and what this life is for." - Saul Bellow, from his Nobel Lecture

It's found in the Word of God. It requires the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, to discern and to value.

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow, from his To Jerusalem and Back: A personal account

Vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will.

We need better teachers of the Word of God, the state of man, the history of redemption, the plan of God. The academics aren't getting it done. They are too shallow. The preachers aren't getting it done. They are too shallow.

Churches and churchians aren't getting it done. They are taken over by the devil.

Really, without the pure and whole, received Word of God; without the Holy Spirit; and without a clear body of inspired doctrinal teaching that isn't lost in a million words and a thousand personal quirks and demands and that doesn't include catastrophic leftovers from Rome (the confessions aren't getting it done either) the path to getting understanding is going to be severely corrupted if not impassable.

"People can lose their lives in libraries. They ought to be warned." - Saul Bellow

If you never discern that all the multitude of influences fall into a hierarchy and that at the top of that hierarchy is the Word of God then, yes, you can lose your life in terms of time and years and so on. If you begin to discern that hierarchy and begin to climb by beginning to pursue influences that reside just above your current level of understanding and just beyond your current interests then you can lose your life in a good way. You can lose your old life and become born again.

Email exchange with a man-fearing, outraged churchian

['Bad language' warning. If you read what follows don't complain about the language because you have been warned, right? Just leave now and do not read the following if you are the type to complain about 'bad language.' That's right, go. Leave. If you continue to read, you lose your 'right' to engage in pleasurable Village of Morality righteous indignation at my language.]

Kow-towing to a fool is not what being a Christian is about

Me Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM
To: n
You piously say 'by their fruits and all that' in response to Clark deleting my comments. If you'd read my comments (I was actually replying to you by your request) you'd have seen the comments were innocuous and not anything that should have been deleted. What they did though was to sting Clark. His then posting my angry response was pure delinquent behavior and typical of shallow, juvenile churchians like Clark. To see what upset him read this post:


And being obsequious to people like Clark while so easily spitting on a Christian like myself is called in the Bible being a 'respecter of persons.' God isn't one of those, and He doesn't like the practice. Modern versions have watered that verse down to nigh nothingness. The devil is a respecter of persons, as are his followers and children. They don't like being reminded of it though. Their conscience gets uncomfortable. - C.

* * * * * * *

N Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:28 PM
To: Me
Whoever you are,
I notice that you don't have the guts to take responsibility for your comments (on your own blog, your comments on other blogs, or even on your email) and you cowardly hide behind a pseudonym. It's easy to be the big man while hiding behind a computer screen.

As for 'spitting' on a 'Christian' like you, most Christians I know wouldn't wish death on a fellow human being [Note from me: saying "die in the arms of your fag pope" is saying go join the church that you truly want to belong to and die a happy death there, i.e. live a long and happy life in your Beast church, it's not saying "Die."]. Nor would they hurl expletives either. And don't give me the "I'm defending the church against false apostles" rubbish. Not even the Apostles or our Lord resorted to your debased rhetoric. Get a grip of yourself.

Don't email me again.

* * * * * * *

Me Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM
To: N
[edited... I basically told him to take a flying **** because he is the one who responded to me and I was merely responding to his *query*...] - C.

* * * * * * *

N Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:54 PM
To: Me
Still a coward, no name. Reprobate.

* * * * * * *

Me Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:06 AM
To: N
Anybody can use a fake [edited] name on the internet. (I sense you don't understand that, let me explain...) Even if I used a 'name' you wouldn't know if it was real. Get it?

Now listen: there are those of us who know biblical doctrine (apostolic biblical doctrine nicknamed Calvinism or Federal Theology) who have simply lost patience with academics who self-identify as Reformed and Calvinist and appoint themselves leaders and teachers and gatekeepers and put forward sterile, unregenerate sacramentalist [dung] in place of the faith once delivered. And do it with all the academic juvenile vanity and Village of Morality man fearing and respecting of persons you see in the world.

Their first move was to follow liberal Christianity in the 19th century downgrade on the Word of God, and now they use mockery against any Christian who knows better and exposes them on that rather foundational subject.

Go ahead and follow them. I personally don't care. But I won't water down my language I use against them in exposing them and putting them in their place. My King expects nothing less. - C.

* * * * * * *

N Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM
To: Me
NO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. You sit behind your little keyboard firing out sexual obscenities and vitriol without having the guts to put your REAL name to it. And then, incredibly, you claim to be serving Christ! Serving Christ by being a coward, slandering Christians, pouring out foul language(!); you are a complete wacko and need mental help.

* * * * * * *

Me Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:45 PM
To: N
Fool, you have no power to effect a real follower of Jesus Christ with such pious, Village of Morality [dung] coming out of your mouth. Real Christians know spiritual warfare. What you bring is like the snot running down a child's face compared to what I deal with in the world. In my own [difficult] family. May you be graced to experience it someday. It requires regeneration by the Word and the Spirit. Engage the pure and whole (received) Word of God. Do it humbly. That is the environment where regeneration potentially happens. If you stay in churchianity and continue to be a man-fearer good luck. You'll need more than luck, but good luck anyway. - C.

Response to an atheist challenge

I notice atheists are lately arguing that Christians born in Christian lands and culture wouldn't be Christians if they hadn't been born in Christian lands and culture.

A simple response to this is: God is sovereign in creation, providence, and grace. Part of providence is where we are born.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
— The apostle here opposes both Stoical Fate and Epicurean Chance, ascribing the periods and localities in which men and nations flourish to the sovereign will and prearrangements of a living God. - Commentary of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown


Reformed academics sending out an SOS

This is now seeming to amount to a collective cry for help from Reformed academia.

Calvinists need to start evangelizing these guys. They don't know where the Word of God is. They don't understand conversion (or regeneration for that matter). Left to themselves they can only mock such things.

I've been getting angry at them (and attempting to shock and shame them into waking up) due to their holding positions of leadership and teaching, but now I'm not so sure that is the best way to deal with them. I think they just simply need the actual pure and whole - received - Word of God. They are starving for it.

Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Those evil individual Christians: 'Reformed' academics, Federal Vision, and liberal female Bishops are all exposed as a little anti-Christ trinity

This is hilarious. It's very funny how God trips up those who claim to know Him and who teach anti-Christ teachings in His name. Here, from a liberal female Episcopalian Bishop, is the *exact same* false teaching coming out of Reformed seminaries and from Reformed (so-called Reformed) academics who appoint themselves the teachers of Christians despite their holding to corrupt Alexandrian bibles Reformed Christians of the past would use in out-houses and despite the fact that not only do they not understand regeneration by the Word and the Spirit and the spiritual warfare that follows from it, they mock it. The *exact teaching*:

Episcopal presiding bishop terms individualistic salvation 'heresy'
By Bob Allen
Thursday, July 09, 2009

ANAHEIM, Calif. (ABP) -- The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church called the evangelical notion that individuals can be right with God a "great Western heresy" that is behind many problems facing the church and the wider society.

Describing a United States church in crisis, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told delegates to the group's triennial meeting July 8 in Anaheim, Calif., that the overarching connection to problems facing Episcopalians has to do with "the great Western heresy -- that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God."

"It's caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus," Jefferts Schori, the first woman to be elected as a primate in the worldwide Anglican Communion three years ago, said. "That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being."

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori blames individualistic views of salvation for ills plaguing the church in the United States.

Jefferts Schori said countering individualistic faith was one reason the theme chosen for the meeting was "Ubuntu," an African word that describes humaneness, caring, sharing and being in harmony with all of creation.

"Ubuntu doesn't have any 'I's in it," she said. "The 'I' only emerges as we connect -- and that is really what the word means: I am because we are, and I can only become a whole person in relationship with others. There is no 'I' without 'you,' and in our context, you and I are known only as we reflect the image of the One who created us."

Jefferts Schori said "heretical and individualistic understanding" contributes to problems like neglect for the environment and the current worldwide economic recession.

"The sins of a few have wreaked havoc with the lives of many, as greed and dishonesty have destroyed livelihoods, educational possibilities, care for the aged, and multiple forms of creativity," she said. "And that's just the aftermath of Ponzi schemes for which a handful will go to jail."

When you don't have discernment for anti-Christ teaching and you still affect to call yourself, and to act as, a teacher of Christians you will pay a price beyond what any common reprobate rebel to God's Kingdom will pay. God comes down hard on such 'teachers'.


Robert L. Reymond and angels

A similar thing to this subject: When Robert L. Reymond published his New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith he was asked why he didn't have a chapter on angels. The questions turned into insinuations that he didn't believe in the existence of angels. So Reymond turned out an article on angels to quiet such talk. A rather half-hearted article on angels. Mostly the intent of the article was to 'caution' too much thought about angels.

The fact remained: Reymond, a Reformed academic, probably doesn't believe in the existence of angels. He can't say it because it will expose him as not believing the Word of God, but he already took that step when he, along with all his fellow Reformed academic comrades, accepted giddily the 19th century downgrade on the Word of God. That allowed them to not have to believe the Word of God is actually inspired and true. So they play a game, on and on.

The subject of spiritual warfare is similar. The notion of 'spiritual warfare' is comical to Reformed academics. It's like "believing the earth is flat" or some such "uneducated" nonsense.

This all comes down to regeneration. What happens when you are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit? You value the pure and whole - *received* - Word of God as being the actual inspired *Word of God.*

*And* you are confronted by the flesh, the world, and the devil *so that* you *damn well* know what spiritual warfare is.

Michael Horton teaches the world...

As he reads this R. Scott Clark is going to be screaming at his computer screen: "Michael Horton has a degree from Oxford!!!" OK, R. Scott, calm down. Degree from Oxford, eh? Wow, OK. Calm yourself down now.

Here is some typical nonsense from the priesthood of academics regarding what Christianity is all about:

Almost everything that is advocated as “spirituality” or “spiritual disciplines” today is private and focuses on the inner life of the individual, but Christianity is wildly, unashamedly, thoroughly public and focuses on Christ’s historical work and the way that he comes to us by his Spirit–not through private revelations or subjective experiences, but through ordinary human language (preaching), water (baptism), bread and wine (Lord’s Supper). God comes to us in Jesus Christ by his Spirit outside of our reason and experience. His visitation throws us off balance, surprising us instead of simply soothing us or confirming our piety.

So when someone asks us about our spirituality or piety, we typically talk about the public ministry of preaching and sacrament as well as prayer, Bible reading, catechism, and singing Psalms and hymns at home and at church. When the Westminster divines said that “God blesses the reading but especially the preaching of the Word as a means of grace,” they were highlighting this point. From a covenantal perspective, God works from the outside in, from that which God accomplished for us and outside of us to that which he performs within us and through us, from the public to the personal, from what has happened in the past to what is happening in the present. When we follow the opposite direction, we’re swimming upstream–against the current of God’s gracious condescension to sinners.

This was written by an academic named Michael Horton. The man obviously has never stepped one inch outside the well-worn life pattern groove of getting a degree and then teaching like you know something.

Let's start at the beginning:

Almost everything that is advocated as “spirituality” or “spiritual disciplines” today is private and focuses on the inner life of the individual, but Christianity is wildly, unashamedly, thoroughly public and focuses on Christ’s historical work and the way that he comes to us by his Spirit–not through private revelations or subjective experiences

Yes, this is a confused opening. It has to be, because the academic priesthood *knows* it is kicking against the pricks (being Critical Text adherents they probably will think that is a pornographic phrase) when it makes these common statements of self-justifying their inane, sterile churchianity.

Yes, the Holy Spirit regenerates as an outside shock to one's system. Yes, it is the quickening Word of God that carries this shock (the Holy Spirit can effect the shock without the Word, but usually uses the Word). No this does not make Christianity a solely public enterprise no matter how many geeky romantic adjectives you string together (wildly, unashamedly, thoroughly).

(If those aren't exactly adjectives but something more grammatically exotic I'll stand corrected.)

but through ordinary human language (preaching), water (baptism), bread and wine (Lord’s Supper). God comes to us in Jesus Christ by his Spirit outside of our reason and experience. His visitation throws us off balance, surprising us instead of simply soothing us or confirming our piety.

See, these Reformed academics are shallow sacramentalists, no matter how many times or how many ways they claim they're not. Oh, my God, you dumb, over-educated moron (in liberal institutions by the way which means under-educated with a cooked-in juvenile arrogance and sense of specialness). The faith is not about ritual. I mean, that sounds kind of stark and simple, yet it's the plain truth. The faith is not about ritual. The devil has no problem with ritual. It keeps people asleep. Hence the great devil church the Roman Beast Church is full of ritual.

Now note this carefully: The Roman Beast Church burned the Word of God and kept people away from the Word of God upon threat of torture and death - yet - they called people to baptism and communion all day long.

Read that above paragraph a few more times, or at least once if you skipped it thinking you were going to hear something that would upset you.

The devil knows what regenerates God's own, and it's not ritual.

So how do the Reformed academics approach the Word of God? They see it as a 'document' that needs them more than they need it. You see, it's a poor document that has been lying around in tatters and pieces, and without the scholars to pick the poor thing up and put it together 'correctly' it's just not much of anything at all! God bless these modern day scholars! What a burden they've taken on themselves!

There is more than one way to burn a book; and the unregenerate will find every way possible. And justify their activity every way possible.

So when someone asks us about our spirituality or piety, we typically talk about the public ministry of preaching and sacrament as well as prayer, Bible reading, catechism, and singing Psalms and hymns at home and at church.

Sure. He's singing Psalm 18 while he's organizing his sock drawer. A mighty king of a Christian there. And pouring over those catechisms still! And, of course, reading the latest bible product constructed carefully to the latest standards of academia, and most likely making notes for further changes as he's going along. This is a powerful recipe for spiritual growth.

When the Westminster divines said that “God blesses the reading but especially the preaching of the Word as a means of grace,” they were highlighting this point. From a covenantal perspective, God works from the outside in, from that which God accomplished for us and outside of us to that which he performs within us and through us, from the public to the personal, from what has happened in the past to what is happening in the present. When we follow the opposite direction, we’re swimming upstream–against the current of God’s gracious condescension to sinners.

Can you imagine a more empty string of words. He's not making a case for anything here, and he's hedging at every turn because he knows he's talking bullshit.

What he is avoiding talking about is the great stark fact of regeneration. When you're regenerated by the Word and the Spirit you don't think in terms of public vs. private or inner life of the individual vs. some more important public sphere. This is all dung from the tongue of an unregenerate fool. He knows not what he is talking about because he's never humbled himself to the Word and the Spirit.

The Word of God is meaningless to the academic priesthood because they don't - they can't - value it. They can only think to approach it as a document that needs scholarly 'help'.

And spiritual growth is meaningless to them because they have never been regenerated by the Word and the Spirit (hence their prideful clinging to ritual and their wicked exaltation of ritual and cleric over the Word and the Spirit). Once regenerated a Christian is thrown into the fire. A Christian knows spiritual warfare because once regenerated by the Word and the Spirit the world, the flesh, and the devil confront you. The academic priesthood (Reformed or not) have no clue about this. They mock the notion of spiritual warfare. If they even mention it at all. They are now mocking the Puritans for this very reason because the Puritans wrote extensively about spiritual warfare; and why did the Puritans write extensively about spiritual warfare? Because they knew regeneration. They are now mocking the Puritans because the Puritans expose them as the unregenerate prideful empty fools that they are.

Prayers for a broken spirit are in order, academic priesthood. Less teaching, more humbling of oneself to the Word and the Spirit. Again: less teaching. You're not ready for it.


More evidence Reformed academics are man fearing delinquents

Update below...

Over at professor R. Scott Clark's blog he posted an announcement of a new systematic theology written by his academic comrade Michael Horton. The title of the systematic theology is 'The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way.'

I wrote a comment saying, after listening to Horton over the years I don't associate him with the phrase 'pilgrims on the way.' We'll see.

Then a person wrote a reply to me asking what I meant.

I said, the phrase 'pilgrims on the way' suggests things like spiritual warfare, a subject academic Reformed Christians rarely mention let alone write about. Also, practical level Christian practices such as 'watchfulness', which, for instance, the old Dutch Calvinists would devote an entire chapter in their systematic theologies, is not a subject one associates with Horton. But, we'll see.

Clark deleted both comments.

What could have cracked in his brain to make him delete both comments? You decide.

Christianity is not for common dopes. It's also not for sterile academics who can't discern philosophy from theory from practical level doing, and who also operate too easily in environments of man fearing and being respecters of persons.

My comments should have, if even taken notice of, brought out a defense (or an explanation of why Reformed academics avoid the subject of spiritual warfare, a subject the Puritans were known to write about quite extensively). Instead, delete, ban, bye.

Academic Christians. One wonders what will happen to them the moment they have to face the devil one on one. The first words out of their mouths: "My institution was actually more secular than most seminaries, I swear!"

* * * * * * *

Here's an update. This is usually what happens when these churchian creeps delete someone's comments and ban them. They post the response from the person and cite it as 'evidence' that their action in banning the person was justified. This is like sucker punching someone on the street, getting your ass kicked in response, then saying to the people gathered: "See? This is why I sucker-punched this person to begin with. Obviously this is a violent person!"

So this academic pantload, R. Scott Clark, posts my immediate response to his deleting my two (rather extremely innocuous, though obviously stinging) comments:

July 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm

DT has been banned. He’s so full of the Spirit, this is what he last wrote:

“Wow. You deleted those two comments? You filthy romanist piece of ****. Die in the arms of your fag pope. You academics are unregenerate ****.”

Of course he said it all in the love and grace of Christ.

Yes, that is vintage me when dealing with churchians who set themselves up as leaders and teachers of Christians. Clark is a sacramentalist wimp, one and a half baby steps from the Beast of Rome's teats.

And like any good Village of Morality alder he thinks "the love and grace of Christ" means always using fake, political language. No, when dealing with churchianity shit you use *direct* language.

So why did Clark get stung by the comment about Reformed academics avoiding the subject of spiritual warfare (unlike Reformed theologians of the past)? Because it exposes them.



Forgiveness is important, not to be 'good', but for cultivating self-awareness of sin, and to get God's forgiveness.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

Look at this portion of a letter written by Anne Boleyn to Henry VIII who had her executed:

“But if you have already determined of me, and that not only my death, but an infamous slander must bring you the joying of your desired happiness, then I desire of God that he will pardon your great sin herein, and likewise my enemies, the instruments thereof; and that he will not call you to a strait account for your unprincely and cruel usage of me at his general judgment-seat, where both you and myself must shortly appear; and in whose just judgment, I doubt not (Whatsoever the world may think of me), mine innocency shall be openly known and sufficiently cleared.”

Interesting, upon a second reading of that I don't see her forgiving him explicitly, but nevertheless her words make my point even better. She's aware of her own judgment and she puts this injustice (not a small one) against her in its place as not that big a deal compared to the fact that they will both face judgment. She says: "I desire of God that he will pardon your great sin herein." This is the attitude that the verse in the Lord's Prayer teaches and cultivates.


James White is actually embarrassed by this, and felt he had to put a spin on it

A very clear biblical case of the blind leading the blind. If you don't have the time to go to the link it is a Critical Text scholar answering "ignorant" statements found in the mainstream media in regards to the corrupt Sinaiticus manuscript so beloved by unregenerate textual scholars. It embarrasses James White because of the conclusions the 'simple' journalists are naturally drawing from the manuscript, and because the critical text scholar answering them is so obviously unaware of what is happening in the transaction between himself and the journalists' statements. The blind leading the blind. In this case, though, the journalists unwittingly have seen the corrupt Sinaiticus manuscript for what it is.


The new sophistry of the paedo-baptists

"For most of my life in the Reformed world since 1980 I shared the assumption that, though I disagreed with my evangelical brothers and sisters over the question of baptism, their congregations were still churches. It’s only been in the last few years that the other shoe has dropped . . . This principle of radical discontinuity, this denial of the fundamental unity of the covenant of grace as symbolized in the administration of the sign and seal of the covenant of grace to covenant children, is serious enough to warrant saying that any congregation that will not practice infant initiation (baptism) into the administration of the covenant of grace is not a church."

The quote above is from a professor of something or other, church history, historical theology, something. His name is R. Scott Clark. He's not a systematic theologian. What he *is* though, in big letters, is he is giddy for Romanist ritual and the exaltation of ritual and man (i.e. clerics and Christian academics) over the Word and the Spirit.

What you see in the above quote is something recent. In their attempt to defend the unScriptural practice of infant baptism they are now saying ALL of covenant theology rests on infant baptism like a tiddly-winks structure resting on the head of a pin.

Covenant Theology (*classical* Covenant Theology of the Witsius, Vos, Berkhof kind) is not the servant of infant baptism, no matter how many times the Romanists who demand soteriology be a paint-by-numbers affair demand it to be.

He writes:

"This principle of radical discontinuity, this denial of the fundamental unity of the covenant of grace..."

This is a Romanist worthy lie. Reformed Baptists who hold to classical Covenant Theology do not deny the unity of the Covenant of Grace. We actually understand that unity in the way the Bible teaches it. Romish rituals not clouding how we read Scripture.

Regeneration, circumcision of the heart, is entrance into the Covenant of Grace. Ritual water baptism is not.

As for children: it is part of God's providence where people are born and who they are born to (Clark's lack of knowledge of systematic theology trips him up here, this is not a cheap shot, this is fact). If a child is born to Christian parents they will get the benefit of that no ritual required. Plus, they will understand that regeneration - the most important thing - is not a matter of a man sprinkling your little infant head with 'holy' water and hence they will at least potentially know to humble themselves to the Word and the Spirit in time (which is what paedo-baptists refuse to do, hence their weakness in the face of the world, the flesh, and the devil, their massive downgrade on the Word of God itself in the 19th century, and their deathly Village of Morality shallowness).

The Bible's teaching of God's plan is simple, clear, and elegant. Federal Theology (which is classical Covenant Theology systematized) is simple, clear, and elegant. And powerful. And it doesn't have a trace of Romanism in it.

The spine of Federal Theology is the two Adams parallel. How one finds oneself under the federal head of Jesus Christ is by regeneration by the Word and the Spirit (see Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 10). Not ritual. Hence ritual water baptism does not control things regarding covenant theology. The new Romanists who self-identify as Reformed don't even like to speak of Federal Theology (or that 10th chapter of the WCF for that matter). Systematic theology exposes them. They prefer to stay in the realm of biblical theology where they can make Scripture say anything they demand, and if they demand Romanist Beast church ritual to keep them and all the world in bondage to the Kingdom of Satan they will by god (satan) have it come hell or high water. When King Jesus Christ returns, though, their demands will be worth about as much as their future.


Gail Riplinger causes James White to get his lunatic on again

What is it about Christian internet apologists and mental health? On the Romanist side you have Dave Armstrong who considers his collected blog posts to be more world historically important than the collected works of Luther and Calvin together; on the Protestant side you have James White, a man so immature and self-absorbed he's constantly in danger of putting his own eyes out with his swift and numerous self-references.

Here is his latest.

First of all, his fans know how he operates and what makes him happy. Do you think it's possible one of them made up a story that Riplinger's mail order operation wouldn't sell him a book because it was in care of James White? Anyway, James White is kind of a common name, no? Even with the added bit of information of Arizona, look in an Arizona phone book and there are probably scores upon scores of James Whites.

He also calls people who value the King James Bible a "blight on the church." Yes, on his church. The church of churchianity. The church of academic priests. Scholar priests. In White's case, scholars-wannabee? Yes, let's all follow the scholars who followed the furry characters of the 19th century who pulled off a massive downgrade on the Word of God. Right, as a born again Christian with discernment from the Holy Spirit Himself I am going to do that. OK.

And this disdain for Gail Riplinger. It is the exact equal of left-wing elitist disdain we see for Sarah Palin. They imagine the narrative then it becomes fact and reality in their heated, deranged minds. What it is (in both cases, really) is the chaotic lunatic hatred the unregenerate feel when confronted by one of God's own. And *confronted* is the key. How dare God's own confront the world. In this case how dare one of God's own confront the academic priesthood on their corrupt bible products. Their sacred playthings that get them honor in the world. You're not supposed to challenge them or point out the shallowness and the unbiblical nature of their worldly endeavor. You're suppose to be impressed with them and to thank them for *giving* you the very Word of God. All those Christians who actually passed on and defended with their very lives the pure and whole Word of God, they are kept silently out of the narrative.

Imagine with what 'scholarly' objectivity James White is now going to pour over Riplinger's latest book. They are so blinded with rage it's like expecting Keith Olbermann to assess fairly and accurately a Sarah Palin statement, or to expect a liberal publication to publish a photograph of her that actually looks like her. (Notice White does that with Riplinger too? In his videos against her he meticulously finds a frame of her putting her in the least attractive light. One was of her in the midst of a hand gesture that made it look like she was giving the finger to somebody. Imagine the glee James White felt when he came upon *that* frame! Oh, the joys of the priesthood of scholars...)

Notice this typical Romanist rhetoric in this sentence from his post: "Many simple believers have been troubled by their wild-eyed fanaticism." Yes, "simple believers" who need protection from the Magisteri-, oh, no, the clerical hierarch-, no, the priesthood of scholars! yes... If one were to type White he is a Jesuit operating along the classic counter-Reformation lines of attacking the Word of God and the authority of the Word of God so as to replace it with the word and authority of man. This was the main line of attack by the Jesuits during the counter-Reformation. White and other 'scholars' have picked up on it (channeled it perhaps unwittingly) as a matter of course of being driven by the spirit of disobedience which is the spirit of the devil. They need to humble themselves to God's Word, something they will never do as long as they see God's Word as something that needs them more than they need it.


Neda, woman martyred in Iran revolution, was a Christian

Report here.

A beautiful trick on the devil.

God's elect will understand. Western Christians in general...?

Watch biblical prophecy in action

This thread at the so-called PuritanBoard both exposes the remarkable shallowness of modern day church and seminary educated Christians as well as giving a very clear demonstration of the biblical prophecy of the famine of the end time, which is a famine for the Word of God.

Note particularly the juvenile arrogance of the anti-KJV agitators. They're hopping around these days with all fetters of shame thrown off. The famine of the end times will have its fulfillment, and better that it is these unwitting fools than any of God's own being the secondary cause of its fulfillment.


The massive exodus from the so-called PuritanBoard

Over the last several months a rather massive exodus has occured over at the so-called PuritanBoard. Long-time regulars have voluntarily left along with all the Christians quickly banned for their various crimes of not heeding to Village of Morality, man-fearing, happy, shallow tea-party rules and regulations.

How do the 'leaders' respond to it all? They make posts saying things like: "The PuritanBoard is more popular than ever!!"

And they continue to talk down to their members like they are three-year-olds. And of course anybody who is still there pretty much is a mental and/or emotional three-year-old.

Like to join any of these guys' churches any time soon?

Just look at how they practice the incredibly *unbiblical* practice of being respecters of persons. That alone makes their gathering stink of unregenerate, man-fearing death.