Village idiots with degrees

"For those of you who struggle with reading 17th C. English (which is not what you’re reading in a modern KJV—that’s a late 18th C revision!)" - Rod Decker, Professor of Greek and New Testament

This is the type of mistake people make who simply have no experience with actual literature and no experience with actual language in the context of reading actual literature. Indeed this quote allows one to wonder if this scholar has ever read the King James Version at all to begin with. One of his professors fed him what he's repeated above and he obediently spits it out to others. The priesthood of scholars on the Protestant side are as dumb and shallow as the clerics on the Romanist side.

Establishment Christianity vs. Remnant Christianity

What distinguishes Establishment Christianity from Remnant Christianity?


1.

Establishment Christianity demands man be the mediator between it and God. Whether the Romanist Magisterium or the Protestant Priesthood of Scholars and scholar-clerics.

Remnant Christianity knows and accepts there is one Mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ.


2.

Establishment Christianity demands to have a constructed text based on rejected, corrupt manuscripts with the authority of scholars in it for their word of God.

Remnant Christianity recognizes and accepts the Received Text (indeed defends the Received Text throughout history) and values it because it has the authority of God in it.


3.

Establishment Christianity practices the respecting of persons, something which God hates.

Remnant Christians are so beaten down and despised by the world that they couldn't practice respecting of persons if they wanted to. Those of the world don't want a Remnant Christian even identifying with them.


4.

Establishment Christianity fears and reveres man more than God and demands others do the same in their environments where they have the power to police.

Remnant Christianity fears and reveres God alone and not man and knows that only the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.


5.

Establishment Christianity exalts man and ritual above the word and the Spirit.

Remnant Christianity knows regeneration is the main thing and that it is effected, when it is effected, by the word and the Spirit, not clerics and ritual.


6.

Establishment Christianity divides people in its confines into leaders and 'laypeople.'

Remnant Christianity knows that Christians are prophets, priests, and kings, and recognize the bar is raised high by the faith but that the Holy Spirit enables Christians to meet that bar and become complete in understanding and practice of the faith.


7.

Establishment Christianity is marked by a general shallowness among its leaders and those they lead. Even its intellectuals can't discern between surface knowledge and deeper understanding and practice of the faith, and neither do they value anything of a deeper level; and they actively dissuade their 'laypeople' from getting a deeper understanding of the faith by the use of mocking and stern warnings.

Remnant Christianity values and acquires a deeper understanding of the faith because the understanding Remnant Christianity develops by default is borne of spiritual warfare.

Really?

From a forum:

And I can imagine a pastor, say, deciding to take several years to preach through the psalms and doing it in a way that gets repetitive... and being the last guy to realize it. In such a case, a pastor with a healthy relationship with his flock should hear about it, gently and encouragingly, well before people start walking out the door.

I believe this is the case with Johnny Mac [John MacArthur]. He is famous for going super slow threw [sic] books (40+ years to get through the NT and I think nearly six months for the parable of the prodigal son IIRC [if I recall correctly]).

Who needs to see the forest when we've got cells of bark to look at?

"Hey, look at me! I'm what we've decided a 'pastor' is! I'm going to teach the New Testament. Oh, by the way, it's going to take forty years! Now don't think this is about you. Or God. It's obviously about me! Listen to me! I'm going to spend six months on the Parable of the Prodigal Son! Got a problem with that? I hope not! Because God would have a problem with you! Understand? Now sit there and waste your useless 'laymen' lives while I indulge in a forty-year stunt that is the equivalent of forcing you to hear me sing show tunes until five in the morning every Friday and Saturday night of your lesser life for forty years! It's all about me!"

Really now church people... Is this how you learn what the Scriptures say and what biblical doctrine is? The very - very - passive act of sitting in an audience listening to a man disgorge his study notes at the rate of once-through the New Testament in forty years?

Really?

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another

Luther's epistle of straw strikes again. Only, though, if you read it through flesh-colored glasses... ha ha ha...

Jas 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

"Confess your faults one to another" is taken to mean different things.

These church fathers are not on board with the greedy-eyed moralists looking for ammunition against their fellow man:

Augustine, bishop of Hippo:
'Why should I expose the wounds of my soul before men? It is the Holy Spirit who remits sins; man is unable to do so for he stands in the same need or in the same position as he who comes to him for the remedy.'

Chrysostom:
'It is not necessary that anyone should witness your confession. Recognize your iniquities and let God alone, without anyone knowing, hear your repentance. I exhort and entreat you to confess your sins to God. I do not tell you to reveal them to men; God alone sees your heart.
Confess your sins daily in prayer - who can make us doubt to act this way? I do not urge you to go and confess your sins to a man who is a sinner like yourselves, who might despise you if you were to relate to him your faults. But confess them to God who is able to forgive them.'

Basil, bishop of Caesarea:
'I do not make a spectacle before the world to confess with my mouth;
I shut my eyes and make my confession in the privacy of my heart. Only before Thee, oh my God, do I allow my sins to escape. Thou alone art their witness.'

Here's is John Gill on this verse:

"Jas 5:16 Confess your faults one to another,.... Which must be understood of sins committed against one another; which should be acknowledged, and repentance for them declared, in order to mutual forgiveness and reconciliation; and this is necessary at all times, and especially on beds of affliction, and when death and eternity seem near approaching: wherefore this makes nothing for auricular confession, used by the Papists; which is of all sins, whereas this is only of such by which men offend one another; that is made to priests, but this is made by the saints to one another, by the offending party to him that is offended, for reconciliation, whereby a good end is answered; whereas there is none by the other, and very often bad consequences follow."

From another commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown:

"faults — your falls and offenses, in relation to one another. The word is not the same as sins. Mat_5:23, Mat_5:24; Luk_17:4, illustrate the precept here."

Me: I.e. it is not man's business to know if you killed your neighbor's barking dog or if you had an affair with a stewardess or if you, a man, wore women's clothing one night. All such confessions being fodder for every un-self-aware, immature, moralizer in your particular group you are confessing before to revile you silently and openly once they feel they have a justified opportunity to revile you openly.

Lastly, here is Calvin's take which is more nuanced. At first I didn't agree with it, but upon reflection I don't think he is disagreeing with anything written above:

"This passage, I know, is explained by many as referring to the reconciling of offenses; for they who wish to return to favor must necessarily know first their own faults and confess them. For hence it comes, that hatreds take root, yea, and increase and become irreconcilable, because every one perniciously defends his own cause. Many therefore think that James points out here the way of brotherly reconciliation, that is, by mutual acknowledgment of sins. But as it has been said, his object was different; for he connects mutual prayer with mutual confession; by which he intimates that confession avails for this end, that we may be helped as to God by the prayers of our brethren; for they who know our necessities, are stimulated to pray that they may assist us; but they to whom our diseases are unknown are more tardy to bring us help."

What Calvin is saying is it is more than mere offenses to other individuals we should confess to our fellow Christians, it really is our general sins or things we need the prayers of our fellow believers to help us overcome. Yet Calvin doesn't say a person needs to unload the dump truck of their past lives, but in a voluntary way if there is a specific problem let others know so they can pray for you. That's how I read Calvin here.

Ultimately sin is between you and God. Confession to humans always has a self-indulgent aspect to it too, which obviates against the reading of the James verse that says Christians must confess sins to their fellow believers. The word of God does not propose impractical, juvenile behavior.

I will add that confession to other humans also has an inherent dynamic of making deviancy more acceptable in ways that works itself through an immature group subversively. And there really is no such thing as a mature group.

I see a sea of laymen, in Saint Peter's Square

Apparently the Southern Baptist Convention has denounced the latest NIV translation product, which inspired someone to write this statement in a comments thread:

>It's problematic when laymen like the messengers in the SBC feel qualified to judge what is proper Bible translation.

Yes, much better that a priesthood of scholars, 90% avowed atheists, make that call for you.

By the way, pilgrims, when you see the word 'laymen' or any variation of that word being used know that you are in the shadow of the Beast.

A Christian is a prophet, a priest, and a king. If you can't yet discern the pure and whole word of God; if you can't yet accept the Received Text; know that you still fear man and not God alone.

A Randian contemplates the Devil

Atheist said:
"Of course Ayn Rand dismissed all forms of altruism, including Christianity. I reject both of Christianity’s deities, Jesus or the Devil; but if I were forced to choose one, I would have to agree with Eve. Given the choice of mindless bliss zoned out in the Garden, if I just agreed not to ask the “jealous” god any questions; or a functioning inquisitive mind and a “devil” god responsive to my inquiries – I gotta go with the Devil. My rational mind is short on “faith”; it desires to know, even if said knowledge is not always blissful."

ct said:
"For Christians the devil is not a deity. He is a fallen angel. He wanted to put himself in the place of Deity. He failed." (The site this took place on would have banned me if I'd answered initially to greater length covering all the doctrinal subjects the atheist's comment brings up.)

Atheist said:
"An omnipotent god could, by definition, eradicate a “fallen angel,” whatever that might be. One wonders how many of those there might be flitting about. The notion of an eternal celestial battle between the forces of good (God’s camp) and evil (Devil’s camp) that is supposed to affect our daily lives, necessarily posits at least two powerful gods – neither of which can overcome the other – presumedly using Earth as a game board and humans as cannon fodder for their amusement. However do they keep score?"

ct said:
"Why assume equality? Satan is God’s monkey, as Luther said.

God’s plan of redemption exists for a reason. The mechanics of it. The forces involved. Real understanding, real consciousness, real will has to develop in individuals in God’s plan. To create such beings by fiat obviously would result in a different kind of being.

To know good and evil is part of God’s people developing in a real way. Jesus himself says that the negative part has to exist, yet woe to those who play that part.

Satan fell like Adam fell, and in Satan’s case God uses his evil and evil influence for the purposes of His plan."

Remnant Christians - Use to the Fire

Subject matter on this blog the average Christian is asleep to. Hence they mock and accuse when confronted with it and with themselves.

Once you get the foundation of the living word of God in you, and you are quickened, regenerated, you have saving faith, are justified, sanctified in the definitive sense, then you will find you are on a battlefield. A three-front war. Ongoing.

Progressive sanctification is your interest at this point; and spiritual warfare of necessity. The armor of God. Establishment Christianity talks of man and ritual as means of grace. Regenerate Christians have the word and the Spirit. The pure and whole word of God, and the Holy Spirit Himself.

While we of God's remnant are busy provoking our limits to extend our limits, establishment Christianity is obediently sitting in the nursery sucking their thumbs, and showing resentment and wrath towards anyone who seems to be of a different nature.

We of remnant Christianity feel the fire one way or another. If not from one direction then from another. Better to feel it from the direction of storming Heaven.

John Owen, Biblical Theology - extract: Anger toward the Spirit; dead to the mysteries of the Gospel

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

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

From page 610-11 of Owen's Biblical Theology.

John Owen, Biblical Theology - extract: Romans and the King of kings

Speaking of natural theology and how knowledge of Jesus can only come from special, revealed revelation, here is an interesting passage where Owen quotes Cicero on the Sibylline oracle, or Sibylline Books:

Cicero, accusing a politician of using the Sibylline oracle for political purposes by claiming a real king needs to appear for the safety of the Roman state to be truly achieved puts it this way:

"There are certain verses of the Sibyl which they claim were composed in her sacred frenzy, and not so long ago it is believed that an interpreter of these verses plotted to pass some lies upon the Senate, to the effect that our leaders are but "de-facto" kings; but if we wish our state to remain in safety we must find one who is the king of kings. But if this is really in the Sibylline Books, to whom and to when can it apply?"

Owen then goes on to remark that there was this vague folk belief among the Romans that a great Ruler, or king of kings was going to appear, and he quotes Seutonius (who called it "an old and constantly held belief") and Tacitus (who called it "a belief handed down from the oldest priestly books").

Extract from page 225 of Owen's Biblical Theology.

How churchians ultimately end debate

Randall van der Sterren said...

Rev. Winzer:

Please realize that your accuser, who sometimes uses the name "CT" or Catherine Trace, is believed to be suffering from grievous maladies and melancholy.

CT refuses to attend church and claims every congregation is apostate, and scoffs at the means of grace and sacraments. She twists the pro-KJV position to support her opposition to the institutional church.

CT also calls herself a "Fourth Way" Christian and follows the occult teachings of P. D. Ouspensky and Maurice Nicoll. She has other blogs where the oogie-boogie stuff gets greater emphasis. Like this one:
http://0140190112.blogspot.com/

CT also tends to go on public tirades which are leaden with obscene language, such as this:
http://thucydides67.blogspot.com/2005/07/devil-attacks-and-defiles-word-of-god.html

So take her diatribes with this in mind.

And Calvin 'told' a Romanist priest that he, Calvin, was a homosexual.

And the communist/atheists diagnosed all Christians with mental disease.

If you truly believe this Christianity stuff you get attacked. If you fear God alone and not man you get attacked. I'm use to it.

My tirades are borne of interactions with the most shallow, creepy people on the internet. Churchians. If I'm crazy it's the craziness of a missionary to Churchianity.

As for "oogie boogie" stuff, modern day churchians consider belief in the existence of angels and demons as "oogie boogie" stuff. Corollary to that churchians consider the very subject of spiritual warfare to be "oogie boogie" stuff. Spiritual development? New Age, "occult" nonsense. Christianity is about sitting in the nursery and sucking your thumb. Yes, and not even reading the word of God. Why? Because it leads to weird behavior and beliefs.

Churchians, you don't define the faith. Maybe for the unregenerate fools who walk through the doors of your synagogues of Satan, but not for followers of Jesus Christ who fear God alone and who are on the Way that is the straight and narrow path towards Glory.

Keep sucking your thumb and being afraid of the world and the devil, and blind to your fallen nature.

A rather big final note: notice that in the thread this comment above was written I had rather schooled Mr. Winzer at a deep level. That was witnessed by the churchians who hang in the same environment as Mr. Winzer. So now this churchian felt a necessity to come over and 'protect' Mr. Winzer from me, in a very belittling move towards Mr. Winzer. I.e. Mr. Winzer lost the debate, so now he must be shuffled away and protected from the scary Christian. And all argument involved in the thread are capped by the churchians with you are "suffering from grievous maladies."

There is no equality between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology

This post by a dispensationalist comes across as written in almost a 'stuck in a bubble' state. It's uncomfortable reading these dispensationalist Calvinist guys because really to disabuse them of their stance you have to convince them of their denseness on the subject at hand.

It's more than that, though. You have to witness them being in a state where they clearly don't know history, and if they do they can't discern the difference between a Brakel, or Witsius, or Geerhardus Vos (to bring it up to the 20th century) and their motley crew of 19th and 20th century guys. It's like listening to a kid who is yet to be able to discern the difference between a Harry Potter book and Dostoevsky. I.e. you both sense the innocence and earnestness you are dealing with, and don't want to harm (or shock too much) that innocence and earnestness, yet you also don't want the child to remain in such a state.

When you become a regenerated believer and you come to the point of wanting to understand biblical doctrine in a serious way you are in a state of tension (as in seeking on-the-mark teaching, yet not having it yet). The Spirit is in you, discernment from the Spirit guides you, but you have to come upon teachings that will relieve the tension you feel. You're looking for on-the-mark/off-the-mark; and you are looking for teaching that sees the parts in relation to the whole, which is true understanding.

Usually, in this era we live in, the first teachings you come across are dispensational. (That actually may not be the case now with the explosion of Puritan and Calvinist and Reformed literature and interest in it.) So you study the dispensationalist sources. You aren't negative towards them, in fact in your state of just having begun your search you are sort of quietly (if naively) impressed with their widespread acceptance and seeming legitimacy. Yet those dispensationalist teachings don't relieve the tension within you. They fail even further the further you investigate their teachings and schools. With the Spirit of discernment you just sense they aren't right. Something's missing there. Something is off.

But as a regenerate Christian you are by your new nature gravitating towards the truth, and if you are truly seeking you will find it. You begin to come into contact with other schools of thought. Other theologians. The five solas enter your vocabulary. The doctrines of grace. Then as you search for the 'whole' that those things reside in you begin to discover covenant theology. But it doesn't end there. You then discover Federal Theology. You discover the unity of the Bible, the spine of the two Adams, the covenants of Redemption, Works, and Grace, and the tension is relieved because you know you have come to the truth of what the Bible teaches. (I would add you usually naturally accept the amillennial position because of its gracefulness and simplicity and lack of shallow - or fearful - skepticism towards some of the mystery in the time elements of prophecy.)

It's not easy. We know Reformed theologians don't make understanding covenant theology very easy. There is petulance among them in demanding to use different terminology, for instance. Also to deny this or that main ingredient. There is also much lack of real understanding of both biblical theology (as a discipline) which covenant theology resides in and Federal Theology itself (which is covenant theology systematized) among people who write about those two subjects. Not to mention all the false teachers who target classical Covenant - Federal - Theology because that is where the truth resides; and who sow confusion into it in seemingly six hundred and sixty-six different ways - but you find your way. The tension you have needs to be relieved, and it won't be relieved by anything but the truth. Along the way you find you are in the midst of a great, mighty river of influence whose headwaters are the Reformation (the high altitude of Switzerland in God's providence) and whose ultimate oceanic source is the word of God itself and apostolic biblical doctrine.

7th Complete Reading of the Bible, AV1611 (King James Version)

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth ISamuel IISamuel IKings IIKings IChronicles IIChronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans ICorinthians IICorinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians IThessalonians IIThessalonians ITimothy IITimothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James IPeter IIPeter IJohn IIJohn IIIJohn Jude Revelation

Begun June 5, 2011
Finished November 28, 2011

Some scattered notes...

Here's a quiz for those currently residing in Bunyan's Village of Morality:

Which is more of an offense to God, a person who uses the word shit, or a person who uses words that express the respecting of persons?

+ + + + + + +

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

As a lowly street Calvinist why was I able to get terminal understanding of every biblical doctrine I came upon, and to see what was on-the-mark and off-the-mark? To come to the knowledge of the truth? Because my fallen nature is not making demands on the Bible, on God, on biblical doctrine.

Why are the seminary priesthood so incapable of coming to knowledge of the truth? Because their fallen nature is making demands on the Bible, on God, on biblical doctrine. For instance in the area of regeneration. Our fallen nature demands that *we* be in control of regeneration. Our fallen nature detests the fact that God is in control of regeneration. So the seminary priesthood demands their unbiblical infant baptism, which brings along with it, unspoken by them, the unbiblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration. This is what they demand. This is what their fallen nature demands. Along with this particular demand they cause themselves to never completely accept justification by faith alone (not to mention their rejection of the Received Text which forces a humility to something higher than them on their part). Once they allow one 'work' (one area where they are in control rather than God) it vitiates the doctrine of justification by faith alone in their minds. This is why they are ever wobbly on that doctrine, and ever the easy victims of false teachers who come along every generation with a new attack on justification by faith alone.

+ + + + + + +

Are the leprosy chapters in Leviticus grand, extended metaphor for sin? I think yes. When one first reads through those chapters one has engrafted into them the odiousness of leprosy (whether it is what we think of as leprosy or not, it is an odious disease - myriad skin diseases - with odious descriptions). And that is the odiousness of sin. Of our fallen nature. Of us not clothed in the righteousness of Christ. If not a grand, extended metaphor for sin then why not a separate chapter on toenail rot, or jaundice? Priests aren't doctors, and these chapters are talking about the odiousness of fallen man in God's eyes and the odiousness of sin. The metaphor of leprosy does not enable our vanity and pride any explaining away of the odiousness. It also includes alienation. Our condition in general. Without Christ we are odious lepers.

+ + + + + + +

Did I just coin the phrase 'terminal understanding'? I've heard the word terminal used with academic degrees, like a Ph.D is a terminal degree. Terminal understanding would just describe what the 2 Timothy 3:7 verse is saying: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

For Reformed Christians who are otherwise able to accept the five solas, the doctrines of grace, Reformed soteriology, etc., it is usually in the areas of ecclesiology and sacramentology that their fallen nature breaks through and begins to assert itself and to make demands. Then this infects their relationship with the other 'loci' of Reformed systematic theology. Man and ritual is exalted above the word and the Spirit, for instance, and then despite the lip service they may still give to understanding Reformed soteriology they really don't buy it at the essential level of their being.

+ + + + + + +

Just some scattered notes here, as they come to me...

Ecclesiology and sacramentology... The two areas of biblical doctrine that the Bible is less clear on. And when the Bible is less clear on something it is intentionally less clear. God puts stumblingblocks along the way.

Why would the Bible be less clear on some things? Probably because different things are called for in the different eras of God's plan of redemption. Also probably because not all are in the same stages of development in the faith. Some, for instance, need the visual parable of the two sacraments. Some don't. Some see deeper practice in them, given such teaching by the Holy Spirit Himself. This is why the Bible leaves these two areas intentionally less clear.

This lack of clarity is also why the Devil is able to exploit these two areas of doctrine to insinuate himself into the lives of Christians and bring them into bondage to his kingdom. Again, stumblingblock. Discernment necessary, pilgrims.

+ + + + + + +

In the comments somewhere I wrote that Church should be a gathering of kings. Maybe only ideally, but still. And then I observed: where in history do you usually encounter a gathering of kings? On the battlefield! So, Church, ideally, is a gathering of kings, on the battlefield. That's what I say. But different people in different stages need different things...

Curing shallowness

The only cure for shallowness is the oceanic word of God. That and having the fear of God alone and nothing of the fear of man. Just having a physical Bible is not enough. You have to have a humble approach to the Bible. You have to fear God alone. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

The priesthood of scholars, and those of you who so eagerly and obsequiously follow them, and appeal to them, don't have a fear of God. They reverence their own asinine selves. The one thing they most refuse to do is what? Except the Received Text. Why? Because it takes away their perceived power to dictate to the word of God what it is, what it will be, what it's worth is, what it means, etc., and to lord it over all the fools who would give them the time of day to begin with.

To put it concisely: they consider the word of God to need *them* more than they need *it.*

If you're engaging the Bible - at all, to any degree - while seeing it as a mere document that needs man to determine its very existence and that is something you *look down on* in the sense that you would judge a novel or work of history written by man, then you will get nothing from the living word of God. Can you approach a mutilated Bible humbly and get anything from it? Of course you can. Depends on how mutilated, of course, and the critical text scholars are getting more and more wickedly brazen in how much they are willing to mutiliate their products these days. It's been progressive, so it will get worse, if that can be imagined.

But once you know of the existence of the Received Text and you dismiss it then you are in territory that is defined by your pride, your asinine vanity, and your desire to live in darkness to protect what your fallen nature is demanding.

Let's go further here... People who reject the Received Text after knowing about it don't even have a real connection to the Bible. They don't truly read it for guidance and understanding and for taking in something that is higher than them. They 'access' it for whatever worldly job they are doing at the moment. The Bible never takes over their lives, it is always something to be used for their worldly power and means. They characteristically never get the living language of the Bible, they never see inner meanings and interconnections, they mostly engage in the debunkers game of constantly having to be seen as more smart, less 'easily fooled', better at debate (all shallow, empty victories only impressive in the eyes of a shallow audience and world). They also never connect with the literary aspects of the word of God. The Bible to them is like today's newpaper. They deny even that anything literary carries any meaning beyond what a newspaper would carry. Again, they are shallow. Shallow in many ways, and shallowness within Christian environments carries water for the devil as much as any active evil does.

Embarrassing good Christians in good standing with the world and their consciences since 2005

What makes me so damn mean on this subject? Totally out of tune with the times, isn't it? CRAZY!!! Getting angry over the Bible, imagine that. It's just a bunch of nice atheist scholars corrupting the Bible, and getting a bunch of useful idiots in seminaries and churches to follow along. No big deal, right?

It gets back to regeneration. The hatred Cain had for Abel is the same hatred the devil has for the word of God. The hatred atheist scholars have for the word of God. Why? Again, because it is the living word of God and the Holy Spirit that regenerates God's people.

You saw the Roman Beast church torture and murder Christians who tried to bring the word of God to people. Imagine that, Christians bringing the word of God to people. Those same Beast priests had no problem with people being baptized and given the other big ritual. Because they and the devil know those things don't regenerate. The word of God regenerates.

At some point figure it out.

When you have discernment for evil given by the Holy Spirit you can kind of lose it every now and then, and I am unapologetic about it. I don't fear you, reader. You or any man. I fear God alone.

When I see the face of a typical false teacher sap like a Peter Enns I see the grinning face of the devil. When you see Peter Enns you see a fine looking chap with a good, serious degree in theology, and something to be respected and looked up to. By golly. The little fact that he's carrying water for the devil every day of his life means nothing to you. That's like a little footnote, if it's even taken as something serious.

Oh, we kicked him out of our seminary. Yeah, after decades of his teaching his atheistic sh*t. Good job.

Multiply Peter Enns by 10,000 and you have the priesthood of scholars currently holding reign over the useful idiots of the modern day 'church.'

No, nothing to get all worked up about there.

Then you try to pull me into one of your synagogues of satan. Yeah, that's gonna work with a Christian. I have the Spirit of Christ in me. You're going to draw the Spirit of Christ into your synagogue of satan. You really think that? I think you're so shallow and dead asleep (Rom. 13:11) you have no clue who you are carrying water for. I think you do a little, enough to convict you, which is a lot. It's hard though to think that you are too conscious of what you are doing.

Hey, let's get into endless debates with atheists! People who are even more shallow than us! What did the reformers do with those village idiots of their day? Patted them on top of the head. If that.

Spiritual warfare and sanctification, the two subjects that should be preeminent in our day are the two subjects the church level knows least about, cares least about, and 'cautions' their 'lay people' against being 'too involved in.' 'Enthusiasm', you know. Not good form. Might upset the world and the devil, and God forbid, our good conscience. Which is more deeply buried than the foundations of an ancient city. Down there with the rats and slime.