<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d8382812700944261936', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


Devil-run hierarchies

Societies seem to naturally organize themselves into a hierarchy of Devil-run activity. It is the spirit in the air doing it. People are hollow. They channel the spirit with no resistance. This explains the organization and the hidden in plain sight aspect of it. The people making up the Devil-run hierarchy are dead asleep to most all of it. They may know they are getting power or money or what have you, but that probably is about all they know. They're puppets to the spirit of the Devil.

If Satan is the power of this world currently it follows that his spirit would be powerful to organize everything into structures to carry out evil.

So silly conspiracy theory can be laughed off legitimately by even the people most involved in the power structures that naturally get organized in all societies. They don't know what they are a part of. Again, they may be awake to a sense of having power, of being above the masses in some way or another, of having access to knowledge or money or what have you that others don't have access to. They may be aware of their status as wise men, etc.; but they will still be dead asleep to the spirit organizing them, and even probably to the organization itself.

We're getting closer

We're getting closer to seeing all that is going on in the world. Getting closer just usually means seeing the obvious in a clearer light.

A priest in France has now stated that Islam worships Moloch, and that their behavior is the behavior of a people that worships a god that demands human sacrifice.

In Western Europe and America and elsewhere the same god is being worshiped, though in the pure child sacrifice way. Abortion has been exposed lately as a crazily barbaric act. Videos have not only shown the viciousness of the abortionists, but the dead-soul mocking of it that comes out of them. They laugh even.

I am not holier-than-thou towards anybody who has had or been pro-abortion. What I am saying is the practice itself carried out by the people who are dedicated to doing it is evil practiced as worship to a god-front for Satan himself. The Kingdom of Satan is fed by human death.

I'm drawing the parallel between Islam and their supporters on the left in the West. The bizarre enabling of Islamic evil that is taking place in these leftist, socialist governments has to have a common motive. It is the worship of a god like Moloch (or Molech) who demands human sacrifice. This is why Muslims murder their own (their own children even) when they don't have other victims to kill. The leftist types have had abortion to fulfill their worship needs for going on many decades now. Prior there were massive wars (WWI, WWII) and actual genocide in recent history to satisfy the demand for human sacrifice to the Kingdom of Satan.

This is powerful to see. This is seeing lines. Battle lines. Instead of just shaking our heads in a kind of resigned, abstract bewilderment towards all this lunacy and evil, or just chalking it up abstractly to the fallen state of man and of evil on this planet, we see it in simple and real terms. Practical terms. False god being worshiped. Actual deeds being carried out in worship of this false God. All false gods are fronts for Satan, ultimately. Seeing all this simply but also in practical terms. It's powerful.

The motivation of Christians who pile on Trump

It's very easy for an evil government to control people via money and promises (though more accurate to say, evil establishment-in-power because the government system can be good though the people running it be thoroughly corrupt and evil).

When I read Christians sounding just like the globalist parasites (who have been calling themselves, dishonestly, conservatives) on the subject of Trump and this election I have to assume they are as bought off by establishment money as the latter group. Because their case against Trump is cartoonishly intellectually dishonest. Trump is not an unknown individual who has just appeared on the scene. He has a long history of being in the public limelight. He's given many interviews (and even political speeches) over the years. He's written books. It's fairly easy to see who he is and what drives him. His policies are common-sense and well-within the boundaries of what our system of government is all about. His history suggests he has nothing to do with racism, bigotry, fascism, etc., all the evil buzzwords the left (and now the establishment so-called 'conservatives') are using against him.

So when I read Christians - who are otherwise at least semi-intelligent - sounding like the freaked-out globalist establishment parasites I have to assume there is a similar money motive in their dishonest, disingenuous behavior.

We know the Washington establishment has involved churches in the human trafficking that is taking place in this country (United States) with federal money. The churches are being corrupted in this manner. This is how a tyrannous establishment operates. Could they also have corrupted other Christian institutions such as seminaries and colleges? It's very possible.

It all amounts to treason. What these people are involved with is Satanic to begin with. Globalism, it's goals, what drives it, is Satanic through and through. To take part in it by selling out your own country is treason. God knows what is in their hearts. Do you think God will allow somebody He can't trust into His Kingdom? If your fellow Americans can't trust you it's not a good sign.


Rare occurance

This is a rare case of a cleric calling a spade a spade. He'll probably back off of it later, nuance it to death, but just on the face of it now it is a rare event coming from establishment Christianity.

I also find it inspired to associate Islam with a god like Moloch. When we call them Satan worshipers (which they are) it actually flatters them and their evil persona. Moloch is an old front for Satan of course, but it's much better to associate Islam with such an old front, especially one connected with human sacrifice.

This is the end

When people assert their Satanic way of life on you they are making war upon you, and you then have to make war upon them.

Moving along... This article shows that seemingly only people in Poland can see what here seemingly only a street Calvinist like myself can see: that the Devil is asserting dominion over the entire planet, and doing it rather quickly and successfully. In a total way. I believe the Devil must always be confronted, but practically speaking what can an individual do? Anyway, there is only so much real estate on this planet, and when the Devil asserts dominion of it all he is cutting off the branch he is sitting on, and God then brings His fist down upon the entire play. It probably gets very bad for likely a long time (by our desires a long time) before that happens.

Get the real, pure and whole, word of God and its sound doctrine (the actual armor of God) fused into memory, will, and understanding; and go into survival mode preeminently, but also spiritual warfare mode which includes calling other elect to the faith and building up oneself and others in the faith. Then with power running the race to the finish, with discernment and inspiration of the Spirit, under the banner of Christ, conformed to His godliness, fearing God alone.


Two long-standing questions answered

[UPDATE: On the 2nd question below here is my position today on the question of race. What is below was written when I was finally (and once and for all) trying to come to understanding of why there are different races of humankind as I had lost patience with the politically-correct answers I was solely finding from Christians and Christian organizations on the internet. What is written below actually shows the direction of the road I was on in finding the truth (it's all speculation, yet if it comports to what the Bible says then so be it).]

[This was an email.]

1st Question: In biblical doctrine the Bible says we will rule with Christ over his creation. Yet, the question has always been, who is the ruled in this scenario? We seem to be rulers with no one to rule. I.e. everything, every creature that dies in rebellion to God is put away in hell, or the lake of fire. Everyone else is in a glorified body. I came close to an answer awhile back, but it didn't really satisfy. Something about ruling ourselves, etc.

So I came across this article, and it at least had something new in it.

Read the whole thing (it's short and really just a set of quotes), but here is a little: "The discovery of the immensity of the universe does not diminish but actually magnifies man's role in the cosmos. For if Christ is to rule over all things and we are to reign with Him, then we will be ruling over all the galaxies, affirming Christ's Lordship over the whole universe."

2nd Question: This might actually pertain a little to the above question as well, but it's the question of why are there different races of man? The standard answer from Christian theologians is horridly politically-correct. I myself wrote a post that is horridly politically-INcorrect that said some things I'd change now after what I've found, but here is that post.

So I decided to search for classic books on the subject that were very much not mainstream. Google was zero help. Google seems to censor search queries, by the way. I've seen this a few ways lately. But anyway, I finally had to go to the Stormfront website (Aryan, etc., site), and they came through. I found references to a couple of books. One didn't have much, but another turned out to be a goldmine.

The Origin of Race and Civilization by Charles A. Weisman

Out of print.

But lo and behold I found a very well formatted pdf (basically the pdf is the original pages of the book) here.

This book has a Chapter 3 titled Race and Scripture, which is exactly what I was looking for. A politically-incorrect book on the subject just to see what those types have said. This book kind of includes the best of similar books that came before (I get that sense). The guy seems to be a real Christian, but there is one thing missing: he doesn't mention the Gospel, and ends up giving the impression that only Adamic white individuals will be saved. I don't think he means to say that, but since he never mentions doctrinal things past the Old Testament it comes across like that, but this doesn't invalidate what the book is about.

Remember, the above book is severely politically-incorrect. It will make mainstream, establishment Christians very, very outraged. It will then inspire them to mock like the devil. Wacky, they will say. Nuts. But also, "RACIST!!!!!!!" will also come out of their world-fearing mouths. Fear God alone, it is the beginning of wisdom.

The author is very good at dismantling the ways mainstream, world-fearful Christianity tries to wave off these difficult questions of race.

I've been back and forth on the pre-Adamite question, for instance. It was debated by Calvinists early on, whether any humans existed before Adam. It's a difficult question to put forward because people will jump all over the notion accusing it of this and that and seemingly presenting biblical arguments against it, including soteriological arguments, which are serious. But if you read the chapter you will see the author is very impressive in calling out the shallowness and fear and lack of reason of the critics of the argument.

I've always said I'm Young Earth Creation, just to say it's all supernatural anyway, so... But maybe not so now. I do suspect Adam is around 6,000 years ago though.

By the way, the author is not an evolutionist either. You just have to read the chapter.

The quick answer to the question, though (why are there different races) is because there aren't different races but different species of one race. This is what I was always stuck on, the fact that Asians and Blacks are SO different from whites. Not just a little, or different by a little degree, as the mainstream tried to put forward. But REALLY different. (Remember Mouravieff on this subject? a different soul even). And each species was a different, unique creation. The creation of Adam was the creation of the white species. But you have to read it. The argument is forceful by illustrations from ancient Egypt and also bringing up much regarding ancient human types that we know exist and existed. He is also good at portraying the silliness of saying such differences can be accounted for by micro evolution in a short span. Etc.

One other point on this: this is a scary subject. God obviously controls these dark races from exterminating (or trying to exterminate) the white race. We know they want to. We know they have it in them to do it. We know they've attempted it, and are attempting it today. Kline's notion of 'Pilgrim Politics' also plays a role in all this. It means we are suppose to sort of pretend that the 'nations' that surround us are just like us, and we aren't to act as if they are different. Sort of, we're in their territory, currently. Don't congregate with them, but don't make war on them based on the racial (or species) difference. This approach obviously slips and slides into worldly fear and naivete considering the nature of the world we live in. Also it slips and slides into Satanic political-correctness.

So anyway, there are different races because there have been different creations of species of humans. Blacks and Asians didn't derive from Adam and Eve. How this effects soteriology is not a difficult matter regarding orthodox doctrine. And it's NOT about evolution, as the mainstreams world-fearers always accuse. Anyway, read the book and see for yourself. - C.

ps- And it goes without saying that anyone, any race or species, if you will, or nationality or whatever can be elect and regenerated by the word and the Spirit. After the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Also, a pure Adamic white person can be cast off, or cut off, and the lowliest (however defined) can be spliced in to the branch in their place.

Establishment Christianity in Hare Krishna robes, baking cookies

It's absolutely strange how clerics today say nothing about the evil that is currently rolling over every landscape on the planet. They seem to have a spirit of Hare Krishnaism. Mixed with an academic style separation from reality.

It may be due to the typical shallowness and fecklessness one sees in people who have gone through institutions of so-called higher learning that are thoroughly marinated in cultural Marxism.

It may be that they are just churchians more than anything else. Which implies shallowness.

They don't seem to be able to set realities of sin and spiritual warfare, anti-Christ and suffering, in anything close to a historical context let alone current events. They talk about baking cookies with their wife, how cute their babies are, what's the next great conference they're going to.

One would be tempted to suspect the Beast system has made it a part of their strategy to pay off the churches. With the goal to keep Christians subdued as they go about their evil.

I think the Marxists already accomplished that regarding the churches and church leaders during the 20th century when they set up the Marxist front groups intended to target Christian churches and neutralize them by making them liberal and shallow, culturally Marxist and dead asleep. If not dead.


Horrid, odious, blood-drenched atheists

Atheists cringe when it is pointed out that they murdered upwards of 100 million people in the last 100 years. Not to mention the mere suffering they caused in innumerable evil ways.

The one thing that united the disparate factions that came together as the horrid, odious, blood-drenched Bolshevik party was their shared militant and vicious atheism.

Here is something from an historian to give a sense of the vicious evil of these God-hating atheists:

Here is a quote from Stark in "Bearing False Witness," p. 201, though he himself is quoting Alexander Yakolov, the who chaired a Russian committee after the fall of the Soviet Union investigating such matters.

"Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev was mutilated, castrated, and shot, and his corpse was left naked for the public to desecrate. Metropolitan Veniamin of St. Petersburg, in line to succeed the patriarch, was turned into a pillar of ice,; he was doused with cold water in the freezing cold. Bishop Germogen of Tobolsk...was strapped alive to the paddlewheel of a steamboat and mangled by the rotating blades. Archbishop Andronnnik of Perm...was buried alive. Archbishop Vasily was crucified and burned."

About 200,000 clergy were murdered, To quote again about what was done to priests, monks, and nuns, "[T]hey were crucified on the central doors of iconostases, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled with priestly stoles, given Communion with melted lead, and drowned in holes in the ice." Over 20,000,000 Russians were murdered at least partly because of their religion.

A lot of atheists are really God haters, and express their hatred by torturing and killing religious people.


Ha, ha, the little angry cuck nevertrumpers are sad and confused

Here's the latest public pronouncement from confused cuck Jonah Goldberg. Don't bother reading it, he's basically announcing for the 87,000th time that he has successfully gone no. 2.

Now here is a pithy comment following the brilliant cuck column:

Veritas • 11 hours ago

This author has way too high of an opinion of him self. Even if I agreed with him, which I doubt, he comes across as a condescending, overwrought, self/absorbed loon.

Unfortunately, though, he doesn't come across as that in the super bubble he lives in. In that bubble he lacks self-awareness and anybody like Veritas who can talk straight to him.

In one part of the article, by the way, he breathlessly announces that he and his fellow defeated nevertrumpers are now "anti-establishment." Um, no. People don't automatically reverse roles when a war is won (and if Trump loses to Hillary there *will* be an insurrection, and you will pay a bigger price). You're still nazis/communists/globalists/feckless-dupes-of-evil.

Now be obedient, demon. Beg us not to send you to hell.


To hell with them all

Here is a good example of how feckless and ignorant Christian clerics are of politics and the realities of liberty vs. tyranny. The stupidity on display in this discussion is alarming. The fear of the world on display in this discussion is predictable, and no less alarming. These clerics all seem to have been neutered by culturally Marxist institutions of so-called higher education; and one has to always add they seem to have had no ability or curiosity to get an alternate take on things. Overall the shallowness of these individuals and their discussion reminds one of the hollow souls currently in western Europe. Also, I have to go back to their fear of the world...the actual fear you can hear in their voices in not wanting to say anything 'incorrect' is beyond obnoxious. It's obnoxious to hear people who put themselves forward as leaders or teachers of Christians to have this shallowness and fear of the world. These feckless souls have bowed their knee to the Devil. They are worthless in Christ's army. To hell with them.


The globalist parasites lost (somebody explain it to them)

Some comments under a David French (All Hail) article at National Review Online:

- Neoconservatives are a bitter, vengeful lot.

- As a liberal - I would say they're principled. Stubborn to a fault, intolerant, but def sticking to their principles on this one.

- It is really not so much an issue of principles but rather maintaining influence and control. If Trump wins, neoconservatism will suffer a major defeat in the Republican party. They could try to go to the Democrat party from whence they came but the Democrats are in a progressive cycle and would not be interested.

- Eh, not so much sticking to principles as what Dantes said - sulking. They did a full court press against Trump, backed a failed Jeb early on because of his open border immigration policy and then reluctantly endorsed Cruz at like 11:59 pm. They've been never trumping all along and I don't think they can get out of their rut even knowing what a Clinton restoration would be like. French and some of his cohorts even deludingly thought he might be the savior of the western world until they/he realized he had nothing to offer. And that was French's last rational epiphany. The rest is just more of the anti trump same.


The Hidden Life

[From Warfield's Faith and Life .]

"If we be Christians at all, we are such only in virtue of the fact that when He died, He died for us, and we, therefore, died as sinners with His death; and that when He rose again for our justification, we rose again into newness of life with Him,—the life that we now live is a new life, from a new spring, even the Spirit of Christ which He as the risen Lord has sent down to us. This is the great fact of participation in the saving work of Christ, with all that it involves. And what we have here is an assertion that such a participation involves seizing of us bodily and lifting us to another and higher plane. We were sinners, and lived as sinners; we lived an earthly life, in the lowest sense of that word. But now we have died with Christ as sinners and can live no more as sinners; we have been raised together with Him and can live only on the plane of this new life, which is not in sin, not "in the earth," but in heaven. In a high and true sense, because we have died to sin and been raised to holiness, we have already passed out of earth to heaven. Heaven is already the sphere of our life; our "citizenship is in heaven"—we are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, and have the life appropriate thereto to live.

And now we observe, secondly, that on this fact the Apostle founds an exhortation. "If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above." The exhortation is simply to an actual life consonant with our change of state. If we have participated in Christ's death for sin and rising again for justification; so that with Him we died to sin and rose again unto holiness; live accordingly. If we have thus died as sinners, as earth born, and earth confined crawlers on this low plane, and been raised to this higher plane, even a heavenly one, of living—show in walk and conversation that the change has been a real one. It is an exhortation to us to be in life real citizens of the heavenly kingdom to which we have been transferred; to do the duties and enter into the responsibilities of our new citizenship. It is just as we might say to some newly enfranchised immigrant: You have left that country of darkness in which you were bred, where no liberty of action or of worship existed; you have been received into our free America, and have been clothed with the rights and duties of citizenship in this great Republic; now live worthily of your new citizenship; be now in life and thought no longer a serf but a freeman. So, Paul says in effect, you have passed out of the realm of sin and death, out of the merely earthly sphere; you have been made a citizen of the heavenly kingdom; do the deeds and live the life conformable to your great change."


The opposite of faith

A prominent Christian blogger has stated, in so many words, the Bible doesn't say much about atheists.

This is because the opposite of faith, or belief in God, is not atheism: it is idol worship; and the Bible says a whole lot about idol worship.

Common idols atheists worship in place of their Creator:

The planet (environmentalism)
Multiculturalism (the myth of the Noble Savage)
Centralized government power
The Devil (unwittingly, in just about any guise)

Notice I didn't list temptations (money, power, fame, sexual pleaure), but actual idols that are sacrificed to and that a sense of expiation is received in return for.

Orwellian establishment speak

'Principled Conservatism' - Talking liberty, but veering left when it matters. I.e., take part in the impotent chorus against the left, but always join the left at times when liberty actually threatens to get the upper hand.

#nevertrump are snowflakes, because principled conservatism

"Liberals and conservatives who pretend otherwise are fooling themselves, which is fine. But I wish they would stop trying to fool me."

- Star Trek philosopher and noted NRO establishment blogger Jonah Goldberg

This cuck thinks the world exists to win over his hard-to-get ass. Fucking snowflake.

Trump will win in a landslide, and establishment parasites like Goldberg, thoroughly exposed, will have to get real jobs.

If you live in the intellectual environment Jonah lives in all you have to do to be declared a genius is write a book saying communism was evil. What tipped you off? The massive, never-let-up genocide? The thousands of work/death camps? The secret police terror? The soul-crushing police states? You're a genius, man. Oh, and, as a "principled conservative" don't forget to veer left when it matters.


The Smug Style

"P.C. is the hard edge, the business end of what Emmett Rensin, on Vox.com, has called “the smug style” in American liberalism. Ever since the Democrats lost the working class, he argues, they signed their souls over to “the educated, the coastal, and the professional” classes. These overlords invented the smug style to answer the question, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” as Thomas Frank titled his 2004 book, or more generally, How could the working class vote against its own obvious (to a liberal) economic interest? The answer: “Stupid hicks don’t know what’s good for them.” In this view, conservatism is not an attractive set of arguments or principles but a form of stupidity, of unknowing. Liberalism, by contrast, is a form of shared “knowing,” based not on knowledge, exactly, but on the presumption of knowledge. Hence the smug “knowingness” of the contemporary Left, most apparent and irritating in its smug contempt for working people who have rejected it."

From here.


Peace, Love, and Genocide

What is Satan's gospel?

Peace, love, and genocide.


Roger E. Olson brain matter everywhere

There's an arrogant little theologian named Roger E. Olson. He's a committed Arminian, of course. He hates Calvinism, of course. Here, though, is a good example of how unteachable people like him can be. This is an exchange on his blog between him and guy who made a comment... (Roger Olson was complaining that he was being called "neo-orthodox" by various people.)

OLSON: "But I'm still not quite sure what "neo-orthodox" means until someone tells me."

KEITH ALLVER: "Neo-orthodoxy is a religious movement that began after World War I as a reaction against the failed ideas of liberal Protestantism. It was developed primarily by Swiss theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. Others called it “neo-orthodoxy” because they saw it as a revival of the old Reformed theology. Neo-orthodoxy differs from “old” orthodoxy in its views of the Word of God and sin.

The orthodox view holds that the Bible is the revealed Word of God, given by the inspiration of God. By inspiration, both verbal and mechanical, it is meant that the Holy Spirit was in full control of the Bible writer, by either verbally dictating everything he was writing or using the person as a tool to work through. This doctrine of inspiration comes to the logical conclusion that the original manuscripts are without error or contradiction. The Bible is the complete and sufficient revelation of God. Two passages that support this view are 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Neo-orthodoxy defines the Word of God as Jesus (John 1:1) and says that the Bible is simply man’s interpretation of the Word’s actions. Thus, the Bible is not inspired by God, and, being a human document, various parts of it may not be literally true. God spoke through “redemptive history,” and He speaks now as people “encounter” Jesus, but the Bible itself is not objective truth.

Neo-orthodoxy teaches that the Bible is a medium of revelation, while orthodoxy believes it is revelation. That means that, to the neo-orthodox theologian, revelation depends on the experience (or personal interpretation) of each individual. The Bible only “becomes” the Word of God when God uses its words to point someone to Christ. The details of the Bible are not as important as having a life-changing encounter with Jesus. Truth thus becomes a mystical experience and is not definitively stated in the Bible.

The neo-orthodox view of sin is that it is a rejection of our responsibility to treat our fellow man well. The result of sin is dehumanization, accompanied by unkindness, unforgiveness, loneliness, and a myriad of societal ills. Salvation comes to those who have a subjective encounter with Christ—no acceptance of a set of truths is necessary. Neo-orthodoxy places an emphasis on social work and our ethical responsibility to love others.

Neo-orthodoxy has influenced the less-conservative branches of Presbyterian and Lutheran churches in America, along with other denominations. While its original purpose, to provide a more biblical alternative to liberalism, is commendable, neo-orthodox teaching nevertheless carries some inherent dangers. Any time that truth is determined according to what is relevant to my experience, the possibility of relativism exists. Any doctrine that sees the Bible as a wholly human document containing errors erodes the very foundation of biblical Christianity.

We cannot truly have a life-changing “encounter” with Jesus without also believing some facts as presented in the Bible. “Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). The content of our faith is the death and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

The disciples had an “encounter” with Jesus in Luke 24. The disciples initially misinterpreted the event, however: “They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost” (verse 37). It was not until Jesus informed them of the truth (that He had been bodily resurrected) that they grasped the reality of the situation. In other words, we need an encounter with Jesus, but we also need to have that encounter interpreted by the truth of God’s Word. Otherwise, experience can lead us astray.

Jude 1:3 tells us “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” The faith was entrusted to us via the Bible, the written Word of God. We must not compromise the truth that God has spoken inerrantly and fully in His Word."

OLSON: "What are your credentials for defining 'neo-orthodoxy?' ... Pleae [sic] don't use my blog to post your own essays like this. It is a place for dialogue, not sermonizing or posting one's own essays."

So basically Olson gets an answer to his question and his head explodes. And I love the "what are your credentials for defining..." Defining/redefining terms is so powerful a thing in Satan's Kingdom that only the correctly credentialed are allowed to engage in it.

Postscript: I googled some of the text and found that Keith Allver had merely pasted the definition of neo-orthodoxy from the Got Questions site here. So anyway, nothing wrong with that. He should have linked it, but Olson asked for a definition, and the guy found one and presented it. It's a very good definition of neo-orthodoxy though. Very, very good. It doesn't pull punches (though it just states the obvious), and this is why Olson's head exploded.


You don't acquiesce

When the Devil's taking over the world, asserting dominion over the entire planet, you don't, as a Christian, say, "Well, it's part of God's plan that this happen." Then acquiesce. No. The Bible tells us to confront the Devil. It's in that confrontation that God's elect are called and all God's people are sanctified. Tempered. You don't acquiesce. You don't reluctantly give no protest. You confront the Devil. Until the end.


How a minister should think of himself

I'm looking at the table of contents of a Ryle book titled Christian Leaders of the Last Century. For instance some chapter titles: George Whitefield and his Ministry; Toplady and his Ministry; John Berridge and his Ministry, etc. This is a good way to see a minister: the minister and his ministry.

What does that mean?

It obviously doesn't mean a unique Gospel associated with that particular man. Obviously, but what it can mean is this: a particular school of Christ associated with that minister.

How do you define 'school' in that sentence?

First of all you can define it by a list of books, as on-the-surface-boring, or mundane, as that may sound. Why should it be boring or mundane? Books are powerful. Great books read in a dedicated manner are obviously very, very powerful influences in the lives of human beings. Each minister should be - if he is truly educated, formally or otherwise - in possession of a body of knowledge that has a distinct tracing to certain authors, traditions, eras of history, schools, etc.

Ministers don't think in these terms, I think because the prevailing assumption is each minister (within the confines of his confession or denomination) is supposed to represent a sort of cookie cutter universal teaching to his church audience. This is losing a lot. Some ministers are apologetics oriented, some sanctification oriented, some oriented to one or another great era of Christianity (Puritan era in England or the Netherlands, or the Geneva school of Calvin's day, or what have you), maybe some are spiritual warfare oriented. This doesn't mean if you sit under an apologetics oriented minister you won't get a complete, or universal teaching of Christian doctrine, it would just be an angle towards the universal. Allow providence to direct students to one or another of the uniquely angled ministers, so to speak.

Imagine a minister who if you come into his school you specifically are made to read (and read very complete and well) Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, Boston's Human Nature in its Fourfold State, and Fisher's Catechism. That's it. Now listen carefully: you can't be simple minded or shallow about this. You can't say, "Well, that's just three random books. So what?" No, it's a work of imaginative literature, a work of history (the history of redemption via the creation, fall, regeneration, and glorification of human beings), and a work of doctrine. You see? It's balanced, for one thing. (And I'm just throwing out there this one example, there are obviously numerous good examples.)

That would be a simple school, but a worthy one. It would be a sort of school of Christian folk classic works. Not highbrow academic, though not by any means middlebrow or lowbrow either. If you came into contact with Minister A and his ministry of those three books and you completed your time there you would come away with a strong foundation. Of course the minister doesn't want people leaving his church, necessarily, and could have a further higher up three influences, and then maybe a final three influences above that, and the Holy Bible of course being involved from the start and being inexhaustible. Most well-educated ministers could present a worthy set of nine influences based on his particular unique school. What he's able to teach well and enthusiastically.

Every individual who studies a big subject (like theology) gravitates towards one or another author, book, school, era, etc., in his developing of his understanding. He will tend to be enthusiastic about teaching those particular influences to others. He will be knowledgeable of them. Of course he will have to know how to teach to begin with. How to impart understanding to other people. He's not, even though he is a Vosian, going to say, "All you newcomers here, read Vos' Biblical Theology." But he might have them read Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine. Because he's tuned in to the particular Dutch Reformed river of influence. Bavinck, Vos, Berkhof (as digest). Maybe going back to a'Brakel. Christianity has a wealth of influences that can reach beginners. We have no shortage of good books to choose from, but a powerful school will be simple and offer little choice because something has to get absorbed and understood at some point.

Complete readings of the Bible with no fear or hand-wringing from the minister worrying that nobody could possible get anything out of direct contact with the word of God unlike him and other ministers like him. That is a very wrong approach. An approach based on a shallow vanity and fear. Christians have to start with the real thing at some point in a real way. Allow the Holy Spirit to do His work. Don't be a filter between your audience and the direct word of God, the Old and New Testaments.


I'll try to articulate this strange thought...

[an email]

This may not connect at all, but watching a Euro16 soccer match, or at least casually just having it on in the background, it reminded me (the players, the whole thing) of something I'd thought and seen for many years now. How Euros, all seem to be soulless in a really troubling way. I defined it as atheism/hedonism/socialism creating soulless vessels that are either out to engage in violence, pleasure, or mocking of some kind or another. Just shallowness to their core. And today it occurred to me this is the goal of an anti-Christ movement, to create a society of people like this.

I always want to stay away from zombie analogies because it seems too easy or facile, but entire nations of zombies like this seems to be what I am seeing.

Maybe I should concisely illustrate this. I tried to envision Cristiano Ronaldo in his hotel room with his model girlfriend, and I tried to imagine what on earth two people like that, two of what has to be the most shallow, empty vessels in perhaps world history could possibly be communicating between each other. "Today I found my perfect eye shade." "My endorsement company brought me new shoes. I will wear them tonight at dance club." "My butt should be seen by the masses." "Yes, it is perfect butt. This is good life. We must think correctly nevertheless and speak the right things and all is good." "You are genius, Cristiano."

A lot of this might be Europe being (for some reason) rich as hell. No economic struggle, no inward thoughtfulness, no self-awareness. No development. ALSO, don't discount the presence in the 'air' (where the devil resides) of deathly political-correctness in all its deadly forms. That's the socialism aspect I mentioned above. The lack of real education too that happens in socialist societies. No history is learned (think about that and how that too plays a really big role in creating shallow zombies). How even soft tyrannous societies enforce lying as reality. That kills the soul.

Obviously Christianity as only a formal, outward thing, if present at all. No awareness of sin, the human condition (suffering being merely an opportunity to show fake charity and concern before getting back to the hedonism). It's not real. Not even ghastly acts of terror by Muslims can wake them up to sin and evil and a deeper awareness of reality and themselves and their condition ultimately. - C.


This is an example of doctrine as armour

[An email]

This old bit of writing is what strikes me as on-the-mark doctrine actually seeming like armour; like chain mail and swords and shields. This is about the ultimate thing, the Covenant of Redemption. You won't get a description of it like this in contemporary systematic theologies.

- C.

That link is chp. 4 of Dickson's book. Here is chp. 5 on the Covenant of Works; and chp. 6 on the Covenant of Grace.