The attack is the same, the stink is the same, the lack of legitimacy is the same

Like Romanists, Protestant churchian types think that the 'church' (their church) is based in so much history and tradition and so forth that one can't possibly question its legitimacy. Well, you question the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church, don't you? With good reason too. So why do you think any visible church is sacrosanct? What are you doing in your church, Protestant, that is similar to what Roman Catholics did in their church that made them a synagogue of Satan? Something about the word of God, Protestant? You've worked your own Magisterium in between the word of God and the so-called 'lay people', haven't you, Protestants? In your case it's a priesthood of scholars (overwhelmingly atheist by their own admission at that!). Imagine that. How could things ever have come to that? Imagine that, Protestants. Imagine that. Oh, yes, your churches can be questioned as to their legitimacy. Just as the Roman Catholic Church was questioned as to its legitimacy, and rightfully so. When salvation is at stake, history and tradition be damned. The word of God is at the foundation of salvation, isn't it, Protestants? Isn't it?

The Roman Magisterium said: "We are the standard and authority of what you are to believe."

The Protestant Magisterium says: "There is no standard and authority of what anybody is to believe."

The same result. The attack on the word of God is achieved. The people perish. (Time is bought for the Devil, but that is really all, if that, in the long run.) You even adopted the corrupt Romanist manuscripts to achieve your aim, Protestants. You rejected then mocked the pure and whole Received Text handed down to you, defended by the blood of Christians through the centuries...you rejected and mocked it. What wicked little devils you have been, no? Wicked little filthy devils.

And you want respect for your churches, Protestants? You stink of the Beast as much as the stinking maw of any Roman Catholic church in existence today.

Any regenerate Christian says to you: Get thee behind me, Satan. Get thee behind me, Satan.

Some highlights from an exchange with a churchian

All the main reformers had one thing in common: they understood the importance and power of proclaiming the *actual* word of God to people. Not a closed society smug in some church building but to, like, entire cities. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all specifically mentioned this. They knew this was their number one priority and without it nothing else mattered.

The churchian didn't get the above. Because it has to do with regeneration, which is effected, when it is, by the word and the Spirit. A foundational fact of the faith churchians are blank on.

People just need to hear the living word, it and the Spirit are what regenerates, and regeneration is the main thing. Once regenerated a person will gravitate towards on-the-mark biblical doctrine (if not full, sophisticated doctrine like Calvinist, Reformed doctrine, then certainly the on-the-mark basics), but they will also value it and truly understand it.

The churchian didn't want to interact with that one either. That's boring stuff. Besides, he doesn't understand any of it.

What regenerates, churchians? Man and ritual, or the word and the Spirit? Don't know? Try the latter.

Again, stupid talk from the scary stranger. Always talking about regen-, oh, whatever that word is.

Romanism is not just limited to a church in Rome.

Nope, it isn't. Hatred of the word and the Spirit occurs outside the Roman Beast church too. Churchian guy didn't want to interact on that subject either.

I'd rather be a hick who God can trust than a false teacher [with a fantastic seminary degree] flying under a false flag with no future other than the pain of hell fire.

Yes, the question: can God trust you? It's never asked in churchian environments, but they don't fear God. They fear man. And, no, God can't trust churchians. No matter how many crackers they eat or how much grape juice they gurgle down.

You owe a debt of gratitude to whoever it is that makes the effort to proclaim the actual words of the Old and New Testaments to you.

Yep. And, again, this went by the churchian leaving his consciousness unscathed and blank as usual. He was mocking a hick who read the Bible word for word and in effect made the call that was effectual for me. He doesn't value such an act because he doesn't think regeneration is a 'thing' let alone something effected by the word and the Spirit. He vaguely thinks (and is taught) that ritual regenerates him, but he doesn't even really think in such explicit terms regarding regeneration because it's not really an important thing in his churchian world.

Please write down a rule or a theory of Ouspensky's that I'm imprisoned to. Seriously, otherwise I can't know what you are talking about. Am I also imprisoned to Carl von Clausewitz' notions of defensive warfare and is that hamstringing me as a Christian? Seriously, write something down.

The churchian couldn't do that because he was just googling for cheap shot ammunition. He doesn't know much about anything, other than his favorite TV shows.

>Thanks to all that baggage, you misread some of the more pietistic or speculative Calvinists.

Who would they be? John Calvin? The Dutch Second Reformation Puritans? I'm reminded of R. Scott Clark who got to a point where he denied the very historical *existence* of Puritans so as to be able to not have to deal with them in the realm of Calvinism.

This confused the churchian as well. The irony of listing John Calvin as a "pietistic or speculative Calvinist" didn't crack his immunity to discerning irony. And the anecdote about Clark is not something he knows about nor could understand if he did know about it. Churchians don't know Puritans sought to 'reduce to practice' the faith. He doesn't know what that means either.

>Since you think you have special knowledge, you complain that everyone else is worldly, shallow and worse.

Worldliness in the church I define: I point out the man-fearing, the respecting of persons, the turning of the faith into all things 'family', etc. We can also talk about the worldly values of secular academia informing how churchians see the Bible. A lot of real worldliness going on in the churches. I define it. You? You are throwing empty words around.

I define what I'm talking about. The churchian just makes assertions based on the cheap shot ammunition his gets from google. Then he asks: "I'm doing good, right, pastor? Am I doing good?"

Let's talk about shallowness. What do I actually write along those lines? I talk about history, art, music, imaginative literature, science, religion, philosophy. But that is even a shallow gauge for shallowness. It doesn't take much to get up to speed with what the world has to offer regarding such influences. Shallowness really has its main cause in being in bondage to the fear of man. When you fear God alone you don't fear man. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

So there I give the churchian a very good definition of the cause of shallowness. It doesn't seem to have much effect on him.

And what of this 'special knowledge'? What's wrong with special knowledge? Is it good knowledge? Based on the authority of the word of God, does it measure up? Does it withstand the tribunal of Scripture? Is it necessary? Is is empty? Is it vain? Is it helpful knowledge? Again, quote something.

And here I was trying to get the churchian to ponder this all-purpose (much like the word 'gnostic') term 'special knowledge'. Usually they mean "is God talking to you directly? huh?", but in this case he can't say that, so he just says 'special knowledge.' No, he doesn't know what he's referring to. I'll explain it though, next...

Let's make it easy: One man's special knowledge is another man's Bible commentary.

"Uh, nuh uh." Oh, yes! churchian. One man's special knowledge is another man's Bible commentary. There are different languages and influences and sources for knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the world around us, churchian. Just because you are too shallow to discern between them and use a practical, on-the-mark one doesn't make them non-existent. In this area you are no better than a dim atheist, making demands that conform to your own level of shallowness and lack of development. Yes! I said 'development'! Do you deny degree in development among human beings? Really? You do? No... I can't believe that you would... No...

Your shallowness is not just a passive state you live in either is it, churchian? You *desire* to be shallow. It's like living in darkness. The better to keep your filthy desires and your ungodly hatreds secret.

Another insight that didn't seem to register on the church Christian's radar. Must have had stealth technology attached to it.

>I said superstition and I mean superstition. As in "an irrational spiritual discipline or religious practice not based on Scripture."

I seriously doubt you know of *any* spiritual discipline based on Scripture that doesn't involve crackers and grape juice.

This is a statement rather foundational to this exchange with the churchian. No, it didn't register with him at all. I'm use to it by now.

What will Jesus do with the churchians?

Here's another nice note I got from a churchian blog:

I’ve deleted your latest post. You aren’t permitted to post at Tria[whateverthefuck] any longer. You were banned in the past, and you recently started posting again. I told you, in my last reply, to find somewhere else to post. You're banned.

Here's my response:

OK, churchian. Say hi to the devil next time he visits your ass. God you churchians are creeps.

Why are these churchian boys such creeps? I committed the crime this time of not mocking Sarah Palin as she must be mocked at all times on little Christian boy's club blogs. You know, because she doesn't have a penis, like their pastor.

On the Second Coming of Christ and the end of time

The 'rapture doctrine' is not classical Protestant doctrine.

The second coming will likely involve aspects of time that challenge our limited perception of time. I.e. when eternity breaks into a perceived linearity of time it most likely is not something that can even be known while still in the flesh.

Sort of like a sucker punch in the ghetto. In a micro second your flesh is out.

Human beings imagine having more power than they will have when the end comes. Like a man who is about to serve a prison sentence. He thinks he's still in control. The prison guards just grin.

ON THE ATHEISTS WHO ARE CURRENTLY MOCKING HUNGER WHILE THEY HAVE A FULL BELLY

I love the C. S. Lewis quote about atheists, how the world is a big trap for atheists. Atheists have to be constantly on guard not to engage any influence that develops them and gives them discernment that there is transcendent truth and reality beyond what can be grasped by their five senses. Atheists in other words have to be constantly on guard to remain shallow.

The Third Kingdom by Louis Berkhof

"Miracle, in short, is the normal frontier phenomenon."

The Third Kingdom is a paper written by theologian Louis Berkhof in the 19th century (hence when he was much younger). Here's a summary of each paragraph of the essay, 32 paragraphs or so in all.

Note: The title refers to there being three kingdoms: the 1st Kingdom being the Inorganic; the 2nd Kingdom being the organic (where human beings live); and the 3rd Kingdom being the Spiritual, or Kingdom of God.

1. That God was preparing or drawing a people out of the Second Kingdom is a main fact of the ancient world. The Israelites believed this to the extent that they refused to have an earthly king, believing their King to be of the Third Kingdom.

2. This longing for a more perfect Kingdom of God burned through the history of the Israelites up until the advent of Jesus Christ.

3. Jesus announced Himself as the King of this promised Kingdom. He gathered to Himself the first few subjects and assumed Sovereignty and framed a constitution and throughout his life the fact of the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven) was foundational to all He said.

4. (Here it gets tricky. Berkhof had not yet developed an understanding of the theory of evolution - the theory of evolution itself nor the theory of evolution vis-a-vis the Creation account - at the time of writing this paper. He is clearly in a naive state regarding it. So you have him using the language of evolution and championing Science - capitalized - as leading the way to greater understanding of the Bible and the Kingdom, etc.; yet you also have to know that in his naivete on the subject he thinks, for instance, that atheism has been forever done away with by Science in his day and by the theory of evolution [you have to read his other essays contemporaneous to this one to see this]. To see what the mature Berkhof thought of evolution go to his Systematic Theology, pages 160-164, and pages 183-188, in the Eerdman's edition.) OK, so he sees science even seeing nature as a kingdom, in ascent, kingdom rising upon kingdom, to an apex yet unseen. The whole creation groaneth and travaileth, waiting for the redemption of the creature.

5. So what is this Third Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, which all creation strives for in some evolutionary sense (leave soteriology out of this here, Berkhof is not making those kinds of distinctions in this essay).

6. This paragraph I will just paste whole: 'The form of the question which chiefly interests us in the present inquiry is, Does the Kingdom of God [i.e. the Third Kingdom] propose to do anything abnormal, extravagant, or unintelligible? Is it a new and unrelated effect that is to be wrought on the subjects of this Kingdom [i.e. the Second Kingdom in which we human beings live], or is it something still consistently in line with continuity? Certainly if it could be shown that the aim of the Third Kingdom was in harmony with all that has gone before, it would go a long way to remove any prejudice that may exist against it on the ground of what men call its unnaturalness and "other-worldliness."' Here it sounds like he's appealing to scientists to cast off their materialism and naturalism and not be prejudiced toward the Kingdom of God.

7. Keep in mind that in this essay Berkhof is exploring the border region (or even overlap region) between the Second Kingdom and the Third Kingdom. It's unusual because it is not a common subject for a Reformed theologian to explore. Even the metaphor of three kingdoms, as he's using it, if you want to label it a metaphor, is foreign to theology in general. In this paragraph he's trying to convince Science of the existence of the Third Kingdom (or Spirit Kingdom, or Kingdom of God) by appealing to its naturalness as an object - evolutionary object - of life, a summum bonum, a chief end of man. Philosophers from ancient times have held it as the goal, etc. It's 'unnatural' to deny it.

8. This paragraph I'll paste whole: "Now as a matter of fact the aim of Christianity, in its general direction, is the aim of all philosophy. Christianity fell naturally into the stream of evolution which was carrying the world through kingdom after kingdom to a high and perfect development. Its idea of development was immeasurably loftier than that of philosophy, and the means for carrying out the process were altogether different; but the goal in either case, though not the same, lay in the same general line. I have defined the aim of philosophy to be the moral development of the race. When it is said, however, that this is also the aim of Christianity we must attach a higher significance to the term moral. Morality is a word of the Second Kingdom. In the Third we look for its evolution. We shall still recognise the old quality, but it will really exist in a form so greatly developed that we may be justified in substituting for morality the word spirituality. At the same time it must again be repeated that the development of the spiritual from the natural man is not a case of simple evolution. The natural character does not simply grow better and better until a pitch of excellence is reached such as finally deserves the distinguishing name of spirituality. Spirituality and morality differ qualitatively as well as quantitatively. The natural development can never pass the barrier separating the Second from the Third Kingdom. The transition is secured, just as in the case of atoms passing from the First to the Second Kingdom, by means of something not inherent in the lower Kingdom but communicated ab extra."

9. This paragraph kind of makes a distinction following from the above paragraph that is not so important to repeat here.

10. Here Berkhof speaks of the impressiveness of Christianity and how he won't go too much into it proper because it's not the subject of this essay to do that.

11. He concludes the above paragraph by suggesting if someone wants to investigate the Third Kingdom from this angle he read the Sermon on the Mount and the seven petitions in the Lord's Prayer.

12. Same as above.

13. "While the design of the Third Kingdom coincides somewhat with the purpose of Moral Philosophy, its apparatus and methods are widely different. And they are different mainly in respect of two things already mentioned. Christianity provides an ideal which is the highest possible, and equips the subjects of the Kingdom with powers in every way adequate to realize that ideal. The problems connected with the ideal will be referred to again, but the question of the powers of the spiritual Kingdom may now be dealt with under a separate head."

14. "The fundamental difference between the Second and Third Kingdoms consists in what, for want of a better name, may be called their Energies." He distinguishes in this long paragraph between the natural man's notion of a higher third kingdom with the reality of it as Christianity reveals it. The need to be born again first, etc.

15. He furthers explains that the Third Kingdom requires Spiritually being born again, which has not to do with biology, etc. (He's speaking to scientists, apparently, who aren't familiar with biblical revelation. I suppose. I don't know who the audience of this paper or talk actually was.)

16. Here he continues to speak of the very different nature of 'life' in the Third Kingdom.

17. He's here describing the difference of the power of the Third Kingdom and the Second Kingdom. 'The sum of New Testament doctrine is that there is an immediate action of the Spirit of God on the souls of men. In the New Testament alone the Spirit is referred to nearly three hundred times. And the one word with which He is constantly associated is Power. If we are asked to define more clearly what is meant by this Power we hand over the difficulty to science. When science can define Life and Force we may hope for further clearness on the nature and action of the Spiritual Powers. At the same time we are forewarned that with our present faculties we can never pass far beyond the threshold of these hidden things. Their very power of evading the senses is the mysterious token of their spirituality. It is the test of the Spirit that thou canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth. If we could tell, if we could trace it naturally to its source, if we could account for its operations on ordinary principles, if we could define regeneration as the effect of moral persuasion, we should be dealing not with the Unknown but with the Known. It is from the analysis of natural religion, where the elements can all be rationally accounted for, that men derive their chief argument against the supernatural. But in analyzing spirituality the effort to detect the Living Spirit is as idle as to subject protoplasm to microscopic examination in the hope of discovering Life. When the Spiritual Life is discovered in the laboratory it will be time to give it up altogether. It may then say, as Socrates of his soul, "You can bury me—if you can catch me."'

18. "While the Powers of the Third Kingdom evade analysis their Energy is not less real. The activities of the Third Person of the Trinity have always been described as dynamical. The Spirit is the executive of the Godhead, carrying out the sovereign Will by operations as irresistible as they are subtle. To this omnipotent agency are to be referred ultimately all changes which take place within the Kingdom of God on earth. This is the Source of Energy for the Third Kingdom."

19. "[Let's]inquire for the evidence of the spiritual operations themselves... It will assist us, however, in understanding the evidence, as well as in defining the kind of result to be looked for, if we take one more backward glance at the two earlier Kingdoms. Suppose we take our stand for a moment on the confines of the Inorganic Kingdom. What order of phenomena will strike us first? Shall we see the Second Kingdom act on the First, and if so, in what particular way?"

[The next three paragraphs are given in full because they show where the essay is going.]

20. "As we take our first survey of the Inorganic Kingdom we seem to be surrounded by the dead. Every Atom obeys the law of inertia, or yields to simple changes induced by polar, molecular, or other forces. But presently, into this dead world, an unknown Power descends, feels about, seizes certain Atoms, and manipulates them in unprecedented ways. This mysterious Power is the Power of the Kingdom next in order above. To that Kingdom, indeed, the operations of Life, as facts of everyday occurrence, are not mysterious. But to the Atoms they are unintelligible and very wonderful. Here is one Atom raised from the dead. Here is another refusing to bend its will to the attraction of gravity A third, subject to crystalline forces from the beginning, suddenly defies them and takes its place as a part of the higher symmetry of a living organism. As their Fellow-Atoms observe these extraordinary changes, from time to time occurring around them, they have only one word which adequately describes them—they are Miracles."

21. "Taking our stand now on the confines of the Organic [the Second Kingdom], shall we not be presented with the same strange spectacle? Once more we are surrounded by the dead. Once more a Power descends out of another Kingdom—a Kingdom just in order above—and manipulates Organisms in unprecedented ways. Here is one Organism raised from the dead. Here is another refusing to bend its will to the attraction of sin. A third, subject to deforming forces from the beginning, suddenly defies them, and assumes a high and noble spiritual symmetry. And as their Fellow-Organisms observe these changes, their word again is Miracle."

22. "This, then, is what meets us first at the portals of the Third Kingdom—Miracle. We find an order of phenomena strange and inexplicable to the lower Kingdom, but as normal within its own sphere as are the operations of Life in the Organic. As the powers of the Second Kingdom master the First, so the powers of the Third master the Second. But this is not what is usually called Miracle. Miracle is a much narrower thing—so very narrow a thing that up to this point we have scarcely even come in sight of it. To single out a few specific wonders authenticated by ancient documents, and to attach to them the epithet Miracle, is a limitation so monstrous and unwarranted that the protest against it cannot come too soon."

23. So miracle describes the presence of the Third Kingdom. (Berkhof, by the way, I think without realizing it, is speaking in the language of cosmoses.) And miracles are much bigger than mere acts of healing or whatnot. The fact of a Christian itself is a miracle. The play of the Spiritual power upon the soul, etc. If you deny the existence of the Third Kingdom miracles have to become delusion or fraud.

24. "If, on the other hand, one accepts the Third Kingdom, the miraculous becomes not only credible but necessary The Third Kingdom would not be the Third Kingdom if it could not operate on the Kingdom beneath it in a way which to the Kingdoms below would seem miraculous. The Second Kingdom is the Second Kingdom because it can operate on the First in a way which to the First must seem miraculous. It is superior to the First in virtue of the superiority of its powers and the corresponding complexity of its organisms. In precisely the same way the Third rises superior to the Second."

25. "[If] one runs his eye over the boundary line dividing the Inorganic from the Organic, and finds the whole frontier abounding in similar activities, like the seaward margin of a coral reef fringed with the living polypes, he receives a new impression of their character and relations. He sees that these marvellous reactions are at that point no longer the exception but the rule. Miracle, in short, is the normal frontier phenomenon."

"Along the line of junction, again, between the Natural and the Spiritual a similar set of activities are carrying on their ceaseless work. Contemplated from the bottom of the Second Kingdom, where on an isolated group here and there these activities are operating on grosser material, the phenomena are exceptional, unintelligible, and miraculous. But on the frontier they are the normal actions of the Third Kingdom on the Second, demanded by Continuity, justified in the magnitude and gathering potency of their operations by Evolution and susceptible of the same kind of proof."

26. "That they are so little observed in the higher reaches is due to a peculiar law of their being. The Kingdom cometh without observation."

27. "But in the first days of Christianity the invisibility of its forces formed a drawback to its development. If not essential, it was at least advisable that the outside world should become at once aware of its pretensions. And if the secret operations of the Spirit in regenerating men were then insufficient to attract attention, it became necessary for the manifestation to descend to what some might call a lower plane. [...] And although it is proper to notice the striking and suggestive fact of the extreme conservation of this power in the life-work of Jesus, it is equally necessary to bear in mind that He continually did works which no other man did, and periodically appealed to these as a ground why the members of the Natural Kingdom should accept the Spiritual."

28. Berhkof says that we can't use the miracles in the New Testament to continue to make claims for Christianity and it's higher powers, but we have to recognize the miracles that are happening now (this paragraph is a bit difficult to decipher, Berkhof isn't turning charismatic on us here).

29. "Now, if Christianity ceased to act with the first century, I do not see that we can argue for the miraculous. Unless we include the Third Kingdom in our conception a miracle is certainly a violation of the laws of nature. And if the Third Kingdom has passed away miracles may be interesting, but their occupation is gone—there is nothing for them to attest to me. On the other hand, if the Powers of the Third Kingdom are working around me now I am independent of them. I have the superior credential of the "greater works" which Christ's disciples were to do in His name."

INTERESTING PARAGRAPH BELOW (REFORMED SEMINARY CHRISTIANS, COVER YOUR EYES!!) -

30. This is an interesting paragraph, and I'll paste it whole: "But I have said the denial of miracles is due mainly to defective observation—mainly, however, not wholly. The members of the Third Kingdom have something to answer for themselves here. They have failed to provide due materials for observation. Energy may be potential as well as kinetic. Were a visitant from a distant planet who had read "The Correlation of the Physical Forces" or Ganot's "Physics" to land on the coast of Labrador and demand of the Esquimaux to be shown the energies of electricity or the powers of steam, his credulity in his authorities would certainly be shaken. And even if he were informed by a passing Nordenskiold that many of the physical forces were available at Labrador, only the people had never utilized them, his bewilderment would not be lessened. Those who read the Christian's Book hear in like manner of faith to remove mountains, of love stronger than death, of limitless powers to be had for the asking of all the fulness of the Godhead placed at man's disposal. And when they turn to those who know this Book, who profess to believe it, who contribute themselves to the literature of the Third Kingdom, expanding and enforcing its ideas, and almost forcing them on men's attention, what do they see? Is it any satisfaction that a courteous Nordenskiold assures them that these forces are there withal, only the members of this frigid province at the moment do not happen to employ them? For does not the critic see multitudes of individuals met every week for the ostensible purpose of receiving these powers, down on their knees by the thousand crying for them to come? What is he to make of it? Is he dreaming or they? Or does the Kingdom come—but without observation? No; the Kingdom does not come. On the large scale it does not come. The splendid machinery of Christianity is standing still. The Church is paralyzed. When the Second Kingdom asks the Third for its credentials it remains silent. It has something to show in the past; it points sadly to the early centuries. But for the present nothing stirs; it is all as frozen as Labrador."

31. "So men tell us the spiritual energies are a myth—which is as inconclusive as the statement that the physical forces are myths where they are not utilized. The scepticism of the age nevertheless lies at the door of the Church. That there are individuals, and here and there churches, witnessing to the powers of the Third Kingdom is not to be gainsaid. No man who really desires to satisfy himself of the reality of the Spiritual World will seek in vain for a demonstration of the Spirit and of Power. But the appeal is not going forth to all the earth and arresting men by a testimony triumphant and irresistible. The Power that operated at Pentecost is no longer a mighty and awakening force. And even the ethical light which the subjects of the Third Kingdom were admonished to "let shine among men" is all but too dim to see."

32. 'Now, whatever may be the state of matters at present within the Visible Church of the Third Kingdom, let us not blind ourselves to the unspeakably important fact that the Spiritual World contains forms of energy infinitely more powerful than those of the First and Second. It has never been sufficiently realized how much greater they are—how much greater they must be, even from analogy. One might almost speak of an Evolution of Energy going on as we rise from higher to higher Kingdoms. By this, of course, is not meant that the higher energy is in any sense evolved from the lower, but that the potency—whatever may be the source of the increment—is found gradually becoming stronger and stronger. As a matter of fact, while the energy within each Kingdom is constant, the organic powers are greater than the inorganic, the Spiritual than either. And the one thing requisite at once for the attestation of the Third Kingdom and the further evolution of the Second is that the subjects of the former should give heed once more to the offer of its King and Founder, "If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask it."'

+ + +

OK, so this early essay of Berkhof's is interesting for his use of the language of cosmoses (whether he knew he was using that language or not), and his dagger in the heart of the visible church in not making use of the higher powers of the Kingdom of God. It's also interesting to people who connect with a language of inner development that conforms to Calvinist, or Reformed, doctrine, which is just to say apostolic biblical doctrine. Here is a very Reformed theologian touching on such matters. A rare thing. And though he mentions that Christianity not only presents the ideal but also gives the means to attain the ideal Berkhof nevertheless doesn't go into that aspect of the faith, other than: "...much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask it." Yet how this manifests the mockers and the eternally piously shallow will never recognize. I give hints throughout this blog. Take them if you're of a mind to...

Susan Wise Bauer strikes back

Well, Susan Wise Bauer had gone silent on the Peter Enns commotion in her life. Now she's produced a four-part essay that brushes up against the controversy just enough - subject matter-wise - to let us know it is her answer to all her critics; and a bold one it is (she isn't backing down, by God), yet it is possibly the dumbest piece of writing one could encounter outside, I suppose, the hard drive of an atheist internet forum troll.

Susan is obviously digesting conversations she's had with Enns, perhaps at the dinner table, face flushed with wine, and this essay is some of the result of her digesting:

Disappearing Words, Part I: The Bad News

Disappearing Words, Part II: What exactly are we worried about?

III. Wrong assumptions

Disappearing Words, Part IV: What do we do about it?

+ + +

Ok, I'll write some notes by way of critique...

Susan Wise Bauer's initial thoughts on writing this essay: "Well, my critics on the internet are unwashed morons, but I can't say that, it would hurt my reputation in the homeschooling mom's cult, but I am a professor at William & Mary, so this is how I will deal with all this criticism I've been receiving, people calling me dumb and whatnot... I'm going to take some very erudite themes I've picked up from my friend Peter Enns and I am going to combine them with some thoughts I have about the written word and the evolution of the various mediums of the word and culture and so on, throw in a lot of that type of stuff, and the mix of the two is going to so explode the simple moronic brains of my unwashed critics they will know to back off when it comes to criticizing me. OK, so..."

Well, this hybrid is a bit strained. Susan has obviously been thinking about her main theme (the disappearing word), for longer than the history of this current controversy regarding Peter Enns, collecting many books on the subject, digesting them, and so on. But combining it all with Peter Enns' ideas about the word of God has caused it to further expose her really rather astonishing ignorance of the Bible and biblical doctrine. (Remember, she's also a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary. Though she wants you to know she doesn't identify as Reformed. Which is not surprising, considering she's a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, ha ha, ahem. She, though, probably doesn't even know what Reformed means. I suspect she went through WTS in some sort of catatonic state.)

How to critique this essay? Like I said, it's sort of a mutant hybrid. It goes off the tracks in more than just a linear way. It like splays off the tracks in different directions, including into the ground.

Hmm, as I write this I'm debating rereading the whole thing or just going off memory of my first reading. I really - really - don't want to reread the whole thing.

Basically, Susan, whether we like it or not, Christianity is a bit of a demanding enterprise. It, like it or not, is a religion of the Book. Line upon line... study to make yourself approved, all that. You can't be a common dope and be a Christian. At least not stay that way. Tyndale's famous plough boy knew how to read. Christianity raises the bar, it doesn't despair that a bar has to be raised. It raises the bar just being what it is. Once the Spirit gets to work there's a compulsion to not remain ignorant. At least if the threat of torture and death is taken off the table. But even then we are talking of a remnant. God always has His remnant. Remnant Christianity is not establishment Christianity, or Christendom.

No, Susan, you can't learn of the Gospel through images. You can't stare at a crucifix or a stained glass window and learn of justification and adoption and so on. There is general revelation and there is special revelation. The written word of God - the Old and New Testaments - are special revelation par excellence. Yes, the incarnated Jesus is special revelation as well, but He has resurrected. His miracles were special revelation, but they exist for us in the living word (which refers to the written word of God, by the way, Susan, not the living Jesus Christ). The word of God is a living word, it regenerates. Potentially.

No, Susan, it is not true that images are not inferior to words in carrying meaning. (One of Susan's main notions is that images are not inferior to the written word, and she makes that argument even to the extent of saying that you don't need the written word to be a Christian, i.e. that images alone are enough. Like I said, this essay is so dumb it's even hard to know how to critique it.)

I'm just going off memory because I really didn't want to slog through her essay again...

Throughout the essay it's obvious that Susan sees the Bible as just mere 'words', and that Christianity is really about Jesus Christ and not words. She also accuses, through third parties, Protestant Christians of making the words of the Bible into idols. Understand, she is not making the common accusation of bibliolatry, that Protestants worship the actual physical book of the Bible itself rather than its contents, she is making the accusation that Protestant Christians worship the actual words as false idols because they think you need those words to be a Christian when she says you don't need them. You just need...images, for instance. Or whatever. Her argument is accompanied by the lament that not all people have the ability to read and have the advantages, throughout history, that we of the west have, you see.

She also makes the statement that the Reformation had nothing to do with New Testament Christianity. I.e. that the Reformation had nothing to do with going back to the source, apostolic biblical doctrine. This exposes her ignorance of history, ironically. History being her strong point, supposedly.

She defends her thesis with a total misreading of the second commandment (and in fact whenever she draws on Scripture her readings are pretty batty, for instance, in belittling us westerners in our fears of the end of the book and hence of Christianity she draws on the apocalypse imagery of Peter and says, no, when your little culture dies it won't mean the end of the world, it will be like Peter says and you will just have to survive in a post-apocalypic scenario with images to guide you in your faith as much as that may be distasteful to you, get use to it. I kid you not, she makes that argument.)

There's really no overall meaning in the essay to critique because it's such an unnatural hybrid. As a response, though, to her critics regarding the Peter Enns affair it is interesting and further exposes her as a rather ignorant and arrogant - supposedly well-educated - fool...my conscience is stung, I don't like being too hard on her. She's a hard worker, and she really is not doing a lot of damage such as false teachers do (publishing Peter Enns aside). She's like a school teacher. The little one room school house, that type of thing. And in that realm she would make a very good teacher, methinks...

Note to academically-oriented Christians

There is no part in being a Christian that requires one to be a debunker (or mocker) of the supernatural.

Puritan Board implodes

One Matthew Winzer, a pastor from Australia who has the status of an oracle over at the PuritanBoard, is currently coming out of the closet as a proto-Romanist, useful idiot in the service of Federal Vision doctrine. In Winzer's case: foundationally in the service of his demand for infant baptism. More proof, as well, that Reformed paedo-baptists are default sacramentalists and more comfortable in the company of Rome than in the company of any real Protestants.

Am I being too hard? No. I first saw these flaws in Mr. Winzer when he willfully threw the Covenant of Redemption under the bus because, yes, in some byzantine way it threatened his all-important infant baptism doctrine. Imagine that: denying the foundation of the Covenant of Grace to 'save' infant baptism.

Then, his arguments for being against any notion of a republication of the Covenant of Works on Sinai exposed further willful confusion on his part. Again, his demand to protect infant baptism, from the most byzantine threats imaginable, caused him to deny the spine of Federal Theology.

Then, not surprisingly, comes denial of the Federal Vision main target: the Covenant of Works in the Garden itself. Rev. Winzer denies it. He has to. As do all Federal Visionists. As do all sacramentalists.

This is why you don't put your faith in man for biblical doctrine, and you don't fear man. Fear God alone, it is the beginning of wisdom.

[This post was written for the benefit of readers of the PuritanBoard, some of whom read this blog because I used to be a member of their forum and they think I'm crazy and like to see what I'm saying about them. Any overstatements are designed to get them to think. Notice in the thread linked above that Mr. Winzer waves off not only Reformed theologians like Charles Hodge but the Westminster Confession itself. Whatever gets in the way of one's demands!]

Schaff's History of the Christian Church (Kingdom of God)

This is the first chapter (actually the first part of the General Introduction) to Schaff's History of the Christian Church. It is an epic chapter. Schaff was a true writer. He's neglected by this more shallow academic age. If you want on-the-mark writing that borders on the epic in the history of the Kingdom of God (not a mundane history of the 'church') Schaff's work awaits.

For instance look at this sentence from Chapter 1: "Heathenism is religion in its wild growth on the soil of fallen human nature, a darkening of the original consciousness of God, a deification of the rational and irrational creature, and a corresponding corruption of the moral sense, giving the sanction of religion to natural and unnatural vices." He goes on to describe the Greek religion, the negatives and the positives, fairly well, which is unusual for any...oh, well, I'll stop there...

+ + + + + + +
1. Nature of Church History.



History has two sides, a divine and a human. On the part of God, it is his revelation in the order of time (as the creation is his revelation in the order of space), and the successive unfolding of a plan of infinite wisdom, justice, and mercy, looking to his glory and the eternal happiness of mankind. On the part of man, history is the biography of the human race, and the gradual development, both normal and abnormal, of all its physical, intellectual, and moral forces to the final consummation at the general judgment, with its eternal rewards and punishments. The idea of universal history presupposes the Christian idea of the unity of God, and the unity and common destiny of men, and was unknown to ancient Greece and Rome. A view of history which overlooks or undervalues the divine factor starts from deism and consistently runs into atheism; while the opposite view, which overlooks the free agency of man and his moral responsibility and guilt, is essentially fatalistic and pantheistic.

From the human agency we may distinguish the Satanic, which enters as a third power into the history of the race. In the temptation of Adam in Paradise, the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and at every great epoch, Satan appears as the antagonist of God, endeavoring to defeat the plan of redemption and the progress of Christ’s kingdom, and using weak and wicked men for his schemes, but is always defeated in the end by the superior wisdom of God.

The central current and ultimate aim of universal history is the Kingdom of God established by Jesus Christ. This is the grandest and most comprehensive institution in the world, as vast as humanity and as enduring as eternity. All other institutions are made subservient to it, and in its interest the whole world is governed. It is no after-thought of God, no subsequent emendation of the plan of creation, but it is the eternal forethought, the controlling idea, the beginning, the middle, and the end of all his ways and works. The first Adam is a type of the second Adam; creation looks to redemption as the solution of its problems. Secular history, far from controlling sacred history, is controlled by it, must directly or indirectly subserve its ends, and can only be fully understood in the central light of Christian truth and the plan of salvation. The Father, who directs the history of the world, "draws to the Son," who rules the history of the church, and the Son leads back to the Father, that "God may be all in all." "All things," says St. Paul, "were created through Christ and unto Christ: and He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. And He is the head of the body, the Church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the pre-eminence." Col. 1:16–18. "The Gospel," says John von Müller, summing up the final result of his lifelong studies in history, "is the fulfilment of all hopes, the perfection of all philosophy, the interpreter of all revolutions, the key of all seeming contradictions of the physical and moral worlds; it is life—it is immortality."

The history of the church is the rise and progress of the kingdom of heaven upon earth, for the glory of God and the salvation of the world. It begins with the creation of Adam, and with that promise of the serpent-bruiser, which relieved the loss of the paradise of innocence by the hope of future redemption from the curse of sin. It comes down through the preparatory revelations under the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets, to the immediate forerunner of the Saviour, who pointed his followers to the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. But this part of its course was only introduction. Its proper starting-point is the incarnation of the Eternal Word, who dwelt among us and revealed his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth; and next to this, the miracle of the first Pentecost, when the Church took her place as a Christian institution, filled with the Spirit of the glorified Redeemer and entrusted with the conversion of all nations. Jesus Christ, the God-Man and Saviour of the world, is the author of the new creation, the soul and the head of the church, which is his body and his bride. In his person and work lies all the fulness of the Godhead and of renewed humanity, the whole plan of redemption, and the key of all history from the creation of man in the image of God to the resurrection of the body unto everlasting life.

This is the objective conception of church history.

In the subjective sense of the word, considered as theological science and art, church history is the faithful and life-like description of the origin and progress of this heavenly kingdom. It aims to reproduce in thought and to embody in language its outward and inward development down to the present time. It is a continuous commentary on the Lord’s twin parables of the mustard-seed and of the leaven. It shows at once how Christianity spreads over the world, and how it penetrates, transforms, and sanctifies the individual and all the departments and institutions of social life. It thus embraces not only the external fortunes of Christendom, but more especially her inward experience, her religious life, her mental and moral activity, her conflicts with the ungodly world, her sorrows and sufferings, her joys and her triumphs over sin and error. It records the deeds of those heroes of faith "who subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the months of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of aliens."

From Jesus Christ, since his manifestation in the flesh, an unbroken stream of divine light and life has been and is still flowing, and will continue to flow, in ever-growing volume through the waste of our fallen race; and all that is truly great and good and holy in the annals of church history is due, ultimately, to the impulse of his spirit. He is the fly-wheel in the world’s progress. But he works upon the world through sinful and fallible men, who, while as self-conscious and free agents they are accountable for all their actions, must still, willing or unwilling, serve the great purpose of God. As Christ, in the days of his flesh, was bated, mocked, and crucified, his church likewise is assailed and persecuted by the powers of darkness. The history of Christianity includes therefore a history of Antichrist. With an unending succession of works of saving power and manifestations of divine truth and holiness, it uncovers also a fearful mass of corruption and error. The church militant must, from its very nature, be at perpetual warfare with the world, the flesh, and the devil, both without and within. For as Judas sat among the apostles, so "the man of sin" sits in the temple of God; and as even a Peter denied the Lord, though he afterwards wept bitterly and regained his holy office, so do many disciples in all ages deny him in word and in deed.

But on the other hand, church history shows that God is ever stronger than Satan, and that his kingdom of light puts the kingdom of darkness to shame. The Lion of the tribe of Judah has bruised the head of the serpent. With the crucifixion of Christ his resurrection also is repeated ever anew in the history of his church on earth; and there has never yet been a day without a witness of his presence and power ordering all things according to his holy will. For he has received all power in heaven and in earth for the good of his people, and from his heavenly throne he rules even his foes. The infallible word of promise, confirmed by experience, assures us that all corruptions, heresies, and schisms must, under the guidance of divine wisdom and love, subserve the cause of truth, holiness, and peace; till, at the last judgment, Christ shall make his enemies his footstool, and rule undisputed with the sceptre of righteousness and peace, and his church shall realize her idea and destiny as "the fullness of him that filleth all in all."

Then will history itself, in its present form, as a struggling and changeful development, give place to perfection, and the stream of time come to rest in the ocean of eternity, but this rest will be the highest form of life and activity in God and for God.
+ + + + + + +

From an email: subject: novels

I didn't say it well, but what I was saying on novels is they are a major category to get complete understanding of (parts in relation to the whole) because they carry so much within them in terms of depiction of human nature, the ways of the world, language in all its sophistication and simplicity, much of what defines culture and civilization, including what sophisticated types consider high culture (the way the novel mirrors the fine arts in terms of schools - expressionism, realism, naturalism, impressionism for instance), and not least of all the way the novel is able to contain a real hierarchy of low to high influence - mechanical genre novels (science fiction, westerns, fantasy, romance, etc.) up to rarified literary works of higher inspiration - which enables one to really see development in understanding as one engages different works at different levels in this hierarchy (if one is able to ever discern that hierarchy to begin with).

On that last point I recently read an article on Slate written just after the death of John Updike where the writer was asking "is it OK now to stop pretending we like John Updike novels?", which was a good theme to write on, Updike being horribly overrated by the shallow northeastern literary establishment, but this writer also complained in the article that writers like Frederick Forsythe were not considered 'literary' compared to Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. It made his complaints against Updike easily mocked. It's a common instance, though, of a person who is not able to discern hierarchy of influences. He wondered why a genre novel - the Day of the Jackal, for instance - was not considered to be at the same level as War and Peace or the Brothers Karamazov.

I won't write a treatise, but here's a clue - a general rule that has its exceptions - for discerning a lower level novel - like a genre novel - from a more literary novel: the lower level draws you in with little or no effort of attention on your part. The higher level requires you to bring some effort of attention to engage it. Also, at the lower level there are many works of equal worth. At the higher level the works become more rare and individual. (I mentioned the first rule has its exceptions, that's because sometimes a great novel can read much more easily than one might have expected when first encountering it, like, say, War and Peace, which was written very before-its-time cinematically, not counting the didactic material strewn throughout its massive bulk.) Of course genre novels usually have a more two-dimensional characterization and don't go very deeply into the various themes of the human condition (the crime novel genre can come closest), but mainly want to carry the reader along via plot without much aforesaid effort of attention on the part of the reader. This goes without saying. When I say a person should get a total understanding of the novel as a category I am referring to the full range, or hierarchy, of literary novels.

More crap from the Critical Text scholars

And the Critical Text scholars beam like proud fathers...

Even if that baby's got red eyes (like all their other babies)...

Curious: do Critical Text scholars follow metaphor? They're pretty shallow when it comes to language, ironically. (Do they discern irony?)

What does James White take away from the killing of Osama bin Laden?

There have been many predictable 'more moral than thou' reactions from academic Christians regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden, and among them is the no less predictable reaction from James White. He wants everyone to know that Jihadists are like people who hold to the Received Text in sound translation, what he calls "King James Only people."

He also wants everybody to know, on this occasion of the death of Osama bin Laden, that "King James Only people" are easily confused, have little patience for complicated things, and are generally a bit too dense - in a salt of the Earth way, of course - to understand the truth as Christian academics are able to know it. (Plus, the Authorized Version is just so hard to read.)

In the case of most Christian academics they simply have the usual fear of man driving their words that is demanded in academic environments (not to mention the juvenile intellectual vanity). In White's case it is a bit of lunacy mixed in as well.

There's a new trans. of Don Quixote (and a Pilgrim's Progress note)

Yet another new translation of Don Quixote has hit the shelves this month. This one replaces Walter Starkie for the Signet Classics mass market paperback edition.

The cover is good. At first it doesn't seem to work, but it grows on you. The font of the text is different than Signet usually uses, and it's *much better.*

I did a lot of internet searching to find reviews and get a sense if this one - the translator is Tom Lathrop, by the way - is unusual or unusually good, and it seems to be unusual for various reason, in a good way, and as for just good in style I sense it probably is, but that is harder to get a sense of from just reading reviews and what not.

Here's the Amazon page for it.

He refuses to correct Cervantes. Apparently there is a lot of correcting of Cervantes at the manuscript level in past translations. He leaves in all the apparent 'mistakes' saying Cervantes knew what he was doing in each case. You have to read the intro.

On another subject, I was reading passages from Pilgrim's Progress, Pt. 2 (I've only read Pt. 1), and was struck by how deep what I was reading was. The Valley of Humiliation segment seems very deep and on-the-mark. Pt. 2 is different in style due to the more passive nature of the characters of the wife and kids, led by Great-Heart. So, at least from the little skimming I was doing, it seems Bunyan filled it out with more description of metaphoric stages and states of a person on the King's Highway. Definitely worth some time and effort.