Unbroken pride

Pack attack from the James White followers.

"The matter of missing verses, variants, and the silly puddy nature of modern day translation is big but nothing compared to the unbroken pride that is sustained by the very approach of fallen man in using corrupt manuscripts needing man's authority and man's help to have Holy Writ's content determined and to even exist."

+ + +

">The Reformation is overrated. And the Received Text is even more overrated.

I give you credit, diglot, for your honesty. Critical Text teachers and followers would *not* have been on the side of the reformers in the 16th century. Critical text scholars want authority to be in man, not God, just as the Jesuits of the counter-Reformation did (and still do)."

+ + +

"It stings you when you learn of the counter-Reformation and how its main tactic was to destroy faith in the authority of the Word of God by introducing variants and various corrupted manuscripts. The goal was to make people amenable to putting their faith in the word and authority of man. The Pope. The magisterium.

That battle was won by the reformers. Often at the cost of their lives.

In the late 19th century it was all given away by sleeping Christians who didn't know any better. No shot fired. Even someone like B. B. Warfield falling for the devil's line and crossing over that line. Yet God's people, God's remnant, were still around then, as we are in all eras of the history of redemption, and they sounded the alarm. And do to this day.

The Romanists, like Muslims, have the 'long view' and could afford to wait until Christians were asleep to even such foundational issues that underlie the very Word of God, the foundation of the faith.

The ongoing battle between the devil and God's remnant. The devil can only play for time though. God's elect come into the truth eventually, one by one. And in the fullness of time all is consummated."

+ + +

"There is a difference between a *received* manuscript and a *constructed* manuscript. Your critical text masters won't tell you this. They'll tell you that the received manuscript needs an editor. It needs to be edited. That is not the same as needing to be *constructed.*

+ + +

"The devil fights hardest on the ground of the Word of God. Christians have been martyred in untold numbers defending the pure and whole received Word of God. Shallow scholars whether duped or consciously mischievous are playing the devil's part for the most part in our era. Scholars, who, in a different yet similar context, John Owen described as "a host of arrogant, wanton thinkers, puffed up with every fancy of science or yearning for the reputation of erudition..." Book 5, Chapter 12, Biblical Theology.

+ + +

">Looks like he backed off a little in his response to you

My experience is critical text followers are historically ignorant and rather shallow regarding things involved with language and literature.

You all seem to have memorized James White's little book and that's about it. You take its straw man [King James Only] then you call anything that doesn't conform to that straw man a concession.

I said I am not English preservationist (a term I first saw Kent Brandenburg use, don't know if he coined it, but it's a useful term). Neither is a Riplinger. When we talk of Luther's Bible and of the Dutch and French and Italian Bibles made from those languages during the Reformation (I mean see Riplinger's In Awe of thy Word, and I mention her because if *she* isn't a representative of the straw man who is?) it should be obvious that English preservation is not the issue. And when we talk about the underlying manuscripts it should be obvious that questions like: "So where was the AV in the 1400s?" are not exactly relevant."

Modern day false idols

What are the false idols of today that take the place of the Baals, Molochs, Astartes?

It's tempting to say money, sex, fame. But they aren't really idols. They are staple temptations of the devil's kingdom, worldly honor, worldly pleasure, worldly gain.

But an idol is something that a human being in rebellion to their Creator puts in the place of their Creator; and is something they go to to ease their troubled conscience. Something they sacrifice things to as well.

There are more subtle false idols than merely money, sex, and fame.

Left-wing politics is a false idol. Worship of the state. Marxism, communism, socialism. Environmentalism is a false idol. Worship of the earth. Nature. Multiculturalism is a false idol. Worship of the 'noble savage.' Typically unaware of their condescension of course.

The left-wing 'liberal' (and you just have to be born to be a left-wing 'liberal') comes to these false idols with their troubled consciences ready to make sacrifices.

They will sacrifice their individuality (and everyone else's) to the state. Their freedom. Their labor. Their money. Of course not realizing it will actually take 'all' of those things, eventually. They will then, in the extreme tyrannies they set up, sacrifice millions of their fellow human beings in state-approved acts of genocide. Human sacrifice. Abortion as well.

They will sacrifice their freedom to nature and environmentalism. Sacrifice their money, their economy, free markets.

They will sacrifice their culture and civilization and the safety of their neighborhoods to the worship of the 'noble savage' under the dogma of multiculturalism.

They sacrifice their time, money, words, concern. This salves their uneasy conscience.

The false idol replaces God. Replaces their Creator. Yet they still need to be made to feel ease for their uneasy conscience, so the false idol takes care of that as well.

Their vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will, their rebellion to their Creator in general won't allow them to approach God. They switch the creation for the Creator and engage in practices as wicked and dumb as anything that went on among the Israelites and surrounding nations of Israel in their worship of their Baals and Molochs et al.

I make the point that modern day Reformed academics have forgotten about the subject of spiritual warfare (I use Reformed academics as an example because for whatever it's worth they do carry on the tradition of the most on-the-mark - biblical - school of doctrine). They don't include it in their modern systematic theologies and other books like the first and second and third generation reformers did. They don't value it as something a Christian needs to know about and be able to practice. The same with the teaching on false idols. They don't go near the subject. And they are, as a class of human beings, pretty much monolithically left-wing in their political understanding (or lack thereof). If they are not passionate left-wing 'liberals' they are certainly quicker to mock conservatives and foundational elements of classical liberal society (classical liberalism being true conservatism). You don't have to be around them in their environments very long to see this. It is deemed 'ok' in their environments. Their fear of man is not threatened when they mock such things. It's safe in the eyes of the world to be left-wing 'liberal.' I.e. they don't talk about false idols or spiritual warfare because they would have to face up to their own false idols and current state of being happy prisoners to the devil's kingdom. Or happy denizens of Bunyan's Village of Morality.

Another giddy-for-debate atheist

Right... About 90% of the distinguished scientists in the national academy of sciences are atheist/agnostic. I'm sure all those brilliant people are just undereducated uncultured idiots who never read anything.

Every atheist scientist in the western world is a parasite on Christian culture and civilization just like their atheist brothers and sisters who don't have science degrees. They stand on the shoulders of Christians and pretend they've accomplished things they didn't and could never accomplish.

The atheist pretension to science is new and similar to the homosexual pretension to literary talent and inspiration. The devil has taken all the village idiots and perverts, organized them, and set them to march. It's called the end times.

Science, by the way, has been so politicized that no poll of scientists on their religious beliefs will be accurate. Grant money and other funding not to mention tenure and other perks are at stake.

Atheism + science = junk science. Darwinian evolution, global warming, the Trabant.

Gurnall's Christian in Complete Armour

Handsome looking cover for a new edition of Gurnall's Christian in Complete Armour.

New publisher anyway, don't know if it's a new edition.

Artistic, literary, musical inspiration vis-a-vis Calvinists

>Well, Olsen does have a point, though it may not be the one he was going for. Before accepting his theological challenge, we've got to recognize our failure at his artistic one. Calvinists are notoriously bad at artistic "stuff" in general (when was the last time we saw a good Calvinist movie?). Before we can even think about writing a doctrinally correct response to the Shack in novel form, we've got to get our act together and get some decent writers reading Kuyper's Fifth Stone Lecture. Then maybe we can respond theologically to the challenge...

Arguably the artistic output of Elizabethan England is Calvinist. Arguably, the best of American literature is Calvinist since it grows from Calvinist soil. But the bigger point is this: truly universal and inspired art is more in the realm of general revelation and is tainted when it is mixed with special revelation (which is not the same as visual artists painting biblical scenes or Bach setting parts of Scripture to music). Palestrina, Bach, and even an atheist, or quasi-atheist like Beethoven all drew from the same source for inspiration, despite themselves in the case of the atheist or quasi-atheist.

My reading history

My reading history ended - in terms of what one can get out of such influences as classic imaginative literature, history, philosophy, sacred writings - back sometime in... (well, way back when).

You don't have to read a library. You just have to read until you begin to discern that influences reside in a hierarchy and then make efforts to engage each level of that hierarchy until you reach the top. You do this by not staying on the same rung of the ladder, so to speak. You engage influences that are just above your current level of understanding and just outside your current interests. It is also common to read a great work prior to getting to that level. This helps one to know that the levels exist to begin with.

Higher influences are basically imaginative literature, history, philosophy, science, art, music, and sacred writings (and anything else generally falls into a sub-category of those seven). Athletics and performing arts are also influences.

The higher works have two common characteristics: 1. They are rare. I.e. many genre novels, few epic poems. 2. They require more effort of attention to engage and digest and finish and get understanding of. I.e. they don't pull you towards them like lower influences, you have to bring the motivation and effort to engage them (it's easy to read a bestselling thriller, difficult to read Thucydides).

In academia they are clueless regarding what I've written above. A common literature professor will not be able to discern the difference in influence and inspiration between the Iliad and a comic book (and will take pride in not being able to discern that). If you're in academia and truly an exception, my apologies. You really have to be a rare exception though. (And you're probably not.)

On the other hand one can read every great book in existence and remain a shallow fool. (One can learn at the feet of Jesus and still get no understanding.)

In my own reading history I was able to discern the mountain (switching metaphors) and to climb the mountain. I say there are summit works (Homer, Shakespeare, Plutarch, Thucydides, Plato, etc.), and then there is the 'beyond-summit' work, the Word of God itself.

This is the context of my saying my reading 'came to an end.'

One other thing to discern regarding influence carried in the written word (really, the most foundational influences are in the written word) is there is - as de Quincy outlined in an essay - the literature of knowledge and the literature of power. If all you read are books that give you knowledge, shallow surfacy knowledge usually, you are a common type and usually a shallow soul. You also need language. Higher visual language. Powerful language that can only be found in great works that deliver such language. The Homeric epics are the greatest example regarding this. (Other than the Bible, but as mentioned above the Bible has to be seen in a higher category.) The Iliad and the Odyssey are literature of power; they give you higher visual language that once taken in you can see things in yourself and in the world that you wouldn't have been able to see without that language. J. M. Roberts' History of the World is literature of knowledge (as an encyclopedia is). Most philosophy is literature of knowledge (there are exceptions, the Republic being one). Works of history can fall into either category. A history of art, or of New York will be knowledge; whereas Herodotus and Thucydides are literature of power. Some fall in-between. Grail romance is a visual language that is powerful. Greek myth as well. Even Grimm's Tales are powerful, deep language. Shakespeare is literature of power. Anyway, these basic two categories must be discerned.

There is also knowledge that is beyond the ordinary. Knowledge (and the practicing in real time of that knowledge) that gives us understanding of ourselves and the world around us. One has to venture into 'occult' areas (fending off the voices of the world and the devil at every step, including shallow Christians; i.e. voices that attempt to dissuade you from seeking such knowledge). These types of writings (and schools) vary greatly in worth (it goes without saying), and one often has to search through acres of mud to find a nugget of gold (mixed metaphor, sorry). One has to be able to navigate unknown waters with hazards in them. The Spirit of discernment, the Holy Spirit Himself is helpful (needless, again, to say). Basically, one has to fear God alone and not man. This is what leads to wisdom and understanding.

You also have to know what is out there. Know the field. Know what exists. This means seeking lists and making your own lists. How many great epic poems are there? Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost. Those five would be on any list. What are the classical historians? What would be considered great novels? What are the basic categories of books to begin with? (history, philosophy, all types of imaginative literature such as novels, lyric poetry, plays, etc.) Finding out about books from reading books. Some authors are good at leading one to other authors. Taking notes. The good thing is higher influences are not infinite. The categories and sub-categories of them are not infinite. There is a finite number of them. They can be listed and categorized. Captured, so to speak. Displayed. You don't have to read them all (see above about levels of influence). Two great works can represent the same level and go over the same ground.

What I've been doing in the last few years is reading great works that I passed over earlier just to now, like a retired athlete, work muscles so they don't atrophy.

I've been focusing on great novels because they deliver - they specialize in - universal human nature and the ways of the world. Understanding that can atrophy first. Musically more like a quartet or a fugue. Something you can get in to and follow at a close level along with the novelist and re-awake such understanding and discernment in the transactions between human beings and in the world.

Other than this, for me, complete Bible readings are a constant. They can become mechanical, which is not good, so one does want to develop level of being somewhat in-between complete readings. (Develop level of being...that 'occult' subject matter mentioned above...)

Don't fear the word 'occult', by the way. It just means hidden. Though it can be right under your nose. Not for everybody, but available to anybody.

Another way to categorize some types of influences is exoteric, mesoteric, and esoteric. Example: exoteric would be like a common systematic theology; mesoteric would be an allegorical work discussing truths of one's inner being; esoteric would be practical level knowledge and practices. When one comes to the point where one says: "But what is it that I'm actually to do?" One is ready for the practical level. (This does not reference works vs. faith, by the way.)

Another categorization is: philosophy, theory, practice.

Enough of these scattered notes. There is a lot in the above.

There's also something to be said for choosing a handful of influences (books in this case) and getting to know them very well rather than having only a shallow connection to a thousand different ones. Make them a balanced handful.

Two unique approaches to atheists (not that it matters, usually)

Here are two unique approaches to take when attempting to wake up an atheist, to some degree:

1. Introduce the atheist to the biblical doctrine and reality (for a Christian) of *regeneration.* Why? Because atheists have a very shallow, juvenile notion of *faith* and really base all their complaint against Christians based on this shallow notion of faith. They think faith is some thing Christians just decide to have, a matter of self-will, and that it is a blind leap and so on, etc. But when you speak to them of regeneration you can actually see them stop in their mental tracks, because regeneration is an experience, and the atheist doesn't think Christians have *any* experience of anything that they don't have access to. So when you explain to them regeneration, and monergistic regeneration, you can then explain to them that their entire complaint is that some people have experienced something they the atheist hasn't experienced. So they are like the deaf person who thinks the people who are dancing are crazy because he can't hear the music they hear. An atheist doesn't like being trumped on experience, and since they don't know enough doctrine to know about regeneration by the Word and the Spirit when you explain this to them it shocks them a bit, and thus is a unique approach to take towards them.

2. Challenge them to do what the people they seem to often most admire (the ancient Greeks) did: practice the saying 'Know Thyself.' Atheists tend to be shallow by nature. They tend to not know themselves any more than they have understanding of human nature in general or the ways of the world or higher influences of imaginative literature, history, philosophy, science, sacred writings, music or art. (Yes, they'll usually have a pretension to such things, but it is not difficult to expose that.) Science fiction genre novels and some Richard Dawkins and they've graduated to atheist Ph.D. That and being born. So challenge them on their self-knowledge. When they deny original sin, for instance, challenge them on how much they are awake to themselves. These are actually areas of worldliness where the atheist can be made to see he/she is very immature and undeveloped. The ancient Greeks practiced 'know thyself'...and they became Christians. Another thing the ancient Greeks had going for them was a basic degree of honesty with themselves in their pursuit of truth. Know thyself, atheist; and pursue the truth honestly.

More me bantering with atheists

ME: Most atheists, when pressed, concede they believe in some kind of reincarnation. Atheists turn out to be psychic hotline dupes when it comes down to it.

ATHEIST: Remember how it was before you were born? That is what death is, good luck!

ME: You don't remember what you were doing a year ago, or a week, or probably a day. Yet you were alive. When you say: "remember how it was before you were born? that is what death is..." you are engaging in very shallow thinking based on a severe lack of self-knowledge.

[I have more; and show tunes later in the evening...]

On Jesus returning

Jesus is never coming back. I can remember my Mother telling me that he was gonna come back eventually and save us all because the bible says so. She would give me money to put in the collection plate.

Even as a small child I could feel the flaws.

Believe in whatever you want. I believe in myself. I hope you believe in you and not a cosmic zombie.

Put down your magic wand and leave harry potter alone.

Use the Bible as your authority and not churches or man and you will at least have the potential of getting on the right track and the narrow Way. As for Jesus' return. Jesus will return in the fullness of time. God acts from eternity. We are constrained to perceive time as linear - birth to death. Time is bigger than how we are constrained to perceive it. When time ends (the harvest) it ends in *all time.* It doesn't end on a single calendar date. It is a supernatural event. Just as creation involved supernaturalism and catastrophism the end does as well. What you need to do is become a prophet, priest, and king, with the full armor of God which includes the shield of faith and the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. Get understanding of the Word of God by actually *engaging* the Word of God in dedicated complete readings. Then using teachers - books - as your discernment enables you to find on-the-mark teaching.

Atheism again

ATHEIST: Oh hush it fool, before I come build a giant 3 meter wall around your church so you cant worship fake deities anymore.

ME: When did atheists learn how to build anything? Atheists can only sit on walls, like village idiots.

ATHEIST: We might appear to be idiots when really we are looking down and marveling at the fact that one can be so inclined to believe in something just because if you don't, you might be punished by something no one has proof of. Curse the heavens until your lungs shatter and tell me if you ever feel a smite of anger from above. Or just pray in one hand, shit in the other, and tell me which one gets full first, you might find an answer some where between the two options about how credible your god is.

The atheist's entire complaint is some people experience something the atheist hasn't experienced. Rather than leaving it at that you pretend nobody can experience anything you havn't experienced. Then you express this juvenile reaction with a lot of juvenile rhetoric. Meanwhile you know you're in rebellion to your Creator because your Creator has put knowledge of Him in your heart. This is why you obsess over Him and those He has effectually called and regenerated. You just need to begin to break the shell of your vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will. My advice: engage higher influences (art, music, imaginative literature, history, science, philosophy, sacred writings). Engage influences that are just outside your current interests and just above your current level of understanding. Keep this up until you can begin to discern a hierarchy in such influences. Eventually you'll arrive at the Word of God itself, and you will engage it even if just as 'literature' (whatever makes you feel comfortable). It's living language though and with the Spirit it has the power to quicken. To cut your dead, worldly spirit from your soul and connect you to the Spirit of God. All despite yourself. Now it is high time to awake out of sleep. Rom. 13:11