Regeneration

>People could only believe in infant baptism if they don’t truly understand and believe God is Sovereign, as you said they are man-centred rather than God-centred. Our regeneration and justification could only have come from one place, and that isn’t from the creation. You can’t be regenerate and not see these things, at least when you read them or someone points them out you should be able to accepted them as spiritual truth. -W

Agree. Direct engagement of the living, quickening word of God is how one is regenerated by the Holy Spirit. I don't ever want to limit the Holy Spirit though, it should be stated. He can regenerate going back in time even with a direct touch. He uses the Bible though because it so goes against everything fallen in us. It's an epic struggle to engage the Bible complete with tremendous friction at every step, but that in itself is what changes us. Then to get to understanding the parts in relation to the whole is even more epic struggle, yet the Holy Spirit guides and helps. Pastors and theologians who think it's too difficult or impossible for an everyday person to accomplish are engaging in academic vanity and shallowness. Also, if they think they need to mediate it all they are just operating in a hazy, half Romanist state.

Glorified bodies

Reading a biblical description of glorified bodies it's fair to conclude that we will be similar to Olympian gods and goddesses. 

Thomas Boston in his Human Nature in its Fourfold State, starting on page 387 describes glorified bodies. The Banner of Truth edition. If you have an electronic edition its in the section titled the Resurrection. Which is section 3 of the Eternal State.

The Bible really requires us to focus and intentionally envision what is being stated. Just like when supernatural things that happen in our daily lives just fly past our consciousness. 

Very few true Christians

There Is No Such Thing As A “Five Point” Calvinist

There are, therefore, more than five points and — as far as the confessions and the Reformed dogmaticians from Calvin to Kuyper are concerned — there cannot be such a thing as a “five-point Calvinist” or “five-point Reformed Christian” who owns just those five articles taken from the Canons of Dort and who refuses to accept the other “points” made by genuinely Reformed theology. The issue here is more than simple confessional allegiance. The issue is that the confessions and the classical dogmatic systems of Reformed theology are not an arbitrary list of more or less biblical ideas — they are carefully embodied patterns of teaching, drawn from Scripture and brought to bear on the life of the church. They are, in short, interpretations of the whole of Christian existence that cohere in all of their points. If some of the less-famous points of Reformed theology, like the baptism of infants, justification by grace alone through faith, the necessity of a thankful obedience consequent upon our faith and justification (the “third use of the law”), the identification of sacraments as means of grace, the so-called amillennial view of the end of the world, and so forth, are stripped away or forgotten, the remaining famous five make very little sense. Read more»

RICHARD A. MULLER, “How Many Points?” Calvin Theological Journal 28 (1993): 428–29

This article is absolute, total bullshit. If you don't know, Richard Muller is a Christian academic that other Christian academics go into a swoon over when he walks into a room. 

In this article he's using a tactic of cultural Marxists, the taking away of choices. I.e. if you're not a formal, ritualized, unregenerate Reformed Christian then you are a silly Dispensationalist. (If you're not a communist then you're a fascist, no other choice.) 

John Owen stated that the doctrine - the reality - of regeneration by the word and the Spirit was the most hated doctrine than any other by establishment churchians. Owen for whatever reason was not consistent in his understanding and practice in that he never came away from the Romanist fetish of infant baptism. Whatever. He wanted to keep his job perhaps. 

So-called sacraments are visual parable. Zwingli said they are for stupid people. Bunyan said if you think ritual water baptism regenerates you you're an idiot. Satan wants you to think baptism regenerates you. When the Roman Catholic Church had the power of the sword and the stake they called people to baptism all day and all night; yet they kept people away from the living, quickening word of God upon penalty of torture and death. Satan knows what regenerates. 

The five points of Calvinism have nothing to do with infant baptism. They have to do with the inner orientation of a true believer who is God-centered rather than man-centered. Who fears God alone and not the world or the world's opinion. This doctrine does not belong to infant-baptists. Classical Covenant - Federal - Theology does not belong to infant-baptists. Amillennialism has nothing to do with infant-baptists. 

Meet Our Pastor

Meet the Pastor of Reformed Apple Hill Church, Chadwick Bincey

Chadwick is married to Emilia, and they have three children and a fourth adopted person from their missionary work in Changaland, where they were missionaries for three wonderful weeks (thank you American special forces).

Chadwick graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary and did his post-graduate studies (on American Marxist terrorist William Ayers) at Princeton University off-campus web portal. 

Chadwick also has a keen interest in all things Roman Catholic as well as Karl Barth and Michel Foucault.

Chadwick is also a keen collector of Maoist propaganda posters from the 1960s. 

Chadwick has published three books: KJV-LOL; Holy Spirit-LOL; and Sin-LOL. All a part of Chadwick's popular LOL series of books, mentioned by Christianity Today as "...just what the modern church needs more of." Chadwick is currently working on a fourth book in the series: Spiritual Warfare-LOL.

Chadwick was a pioneer in the Critical Race Theory approach to preaching. He's taught seminars on CRT to disadvantaged black youth in urban areas of the United States. Chadwick is considered a national authority on CRT. 

Law of church

Here's how you know your church is not a good church: it's being led by a human being.

(Your first reaction to that statement is wrong. You have to think about it.)

Some true worldview influences for a Christian

If you're a Reformed Christian, or even if you're not: you have to untie yourself from the influence of shallow pastors and the modern seminary educated (and their books). 

Why? Because other than being overall shallow they've wandered far afield from the real, deep Christian worldview. One thing is they are all surfacy with their knowledge, like academics and philosophers. They don't understand or even know of the deep language of the faith. Another thing is they've fallen into the bad habit of the scholastics in posing a thousand silly questions that eventually change how they see the very basics of the faith. 

Another thing they do is lose valuation for the basics of the faith because they want to impress their academic peers with originality which causes them to inevitably veer leftward into liberal theology. For instance, they see cutting edge knowledge in the writings of Cornelius van Til, then the mutation appears and they start sounding like Unitarians. Which is the typical, historical glide path of Reformed types who don't really value the basics. 

A true Christian knows that once you learn the basics the next stage is to become experiential with the basics. But that requires valuation of the basics. (It also requires regeneration by the word and the Spirit, something ritual water baptism, in infants or adults, doesn't accomplish.)

Now here's an interesting list of influences to be immersed in the Christian worldview:

Holy Bible, AV1611 

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Gibbon 

Decades - Bullinger

Iliad & Odyssey - Homer

Fourth Way - Ouspensky

Why is this list interesting? Let me make a few notes about each...

Holy Bible, AV1611 

In our day scholars want to look down at the Bible either to deconstruct it or to determine themselves what is should consist of. To have a Bible you're forced to look up to is anathema to their pride and vanity. Even more, to have a Bible shepherded into time and physical existence by the Holy Spirit is something that makes their heads explode. They want to be the authority. So if you ask, which Bible is the true Bible, it's the one the scholars and anyone under the control of their pride and vanity most don't want to read. It's the one they mock. It's the one that angers them by its very presence. It's the King James  Version. Remember: you need the Bible more than the Bible needs you. This first influence on the list puts you in the right orientation towards the authority of the very word of God.

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Gibbon

This is going to confuse many, mostly because Gibbon comes across as a straight up atheist. He does, but a preliminary note:

***My take is Gibbon is closer to an atheist than he's thought to be generally. So, he doesn't factor in God's providence or the work of the Holy Spirit. To him everything is merely political and social. To him everybody is credulous and naive, including the pagans. And everything's a power play by worldly manipulators. 

Having said that he articulates his approach as an historian which is to relate what is actually happening on the ground. Facts, events, self-interest, human nature in all its weakness and so forth. I actually find this approach interesting because it is helpful to see the church history from the angle of real politik. There is politics and power moves involved, and it gives understanding to see it all from that angle. 

Obviously you don't want to learn biblical doctrine from Gibbon. His long narration of the Trinitarian battles doesn't include understanding of the Trinity or why such doctrinal debate was important. He writes it off as splitting hairs over mere words. He also overplays things like Plato's anticipating of the Trinity. He doesn't see the heresy of Arianism nor does he think heresy is really a thing. 

But, again, the history he relates is real nevertheless. It's just seeing the events at a secular level. I have to say he's also honest in relating things that are supernatural in nature, like what happened when Julian the Apostate attempted to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Earthquakes, strange fire balls, the workers having to give up the attempt. Because in God's plan of redemption that Temple was never going to be rebuilt. Also, when he notes that famine seemed to follow in Julian's footsteps. Gibbon doesn't think these things are supernatural, yet he relates them nevertheless. 

I don't recall him going much into how Christianity grew so quickly within Greek and Roman civilization. Other than all the parts about Constantine and his conversion and so on.*** 

That was from an email. Now here's why Gibbon is unique.

Gibbon gives the needed context for seeing the power of Christianity in history. Gibbon's Decline and Fall is also a deep language. In this case a language of history. The people, events, and ideas are universal. You see universal patterns and types and categories. It's also narrated from a high perspective, almost like a God-like perspective. The typical activities of fallen man in the fallen world. Yet it's the context for seeing the Christian faith that makes it unique for understanding overall. Gibbon also gives you human nature, the nature of power, the ways of the world, it has many points of value, yet it's unique for a Christian. It imparts power in understanding the faith. Things that seem confusing or strange, then they get clear, then you get on top of them in understanding, this happens with Gibbon. The monumental length and breadth of the work enables high influence and potential great understanding to develop in the reader who is dedicated to reading it. It, though, undergirds the true Christian worldview in terms of historical impressions and language. I'm trying to give small impressions that carry the big picture, but here's another: if you read about Athanasius in some article or whatever you'll get the basic facts, but if you read Gibbon you'll really know who Athanasius was, and he'll be part of your Christian worldview. Because you'll have the great sweep of the context. And not Church history, but real historical context. There's a difference. 

Decades - Bullinger

I was listening to a Reformed podcast, and the host was talking about how people used to see great, deep mystery in the sacraments and how it was wacky and nutty and so on. These people are so shallow I tend to lose it when talking about it. When you go back to the century of the Reformation and read a popular work of theology from that day like Bullinger's Decades you can really see how far into the inane and shallow modern Reformed theologians have progressed. You start to see their smug, giggling faces and sub-adult nature for what it is. 

I'm going to leave it there. Monergism Books has a very good free eBook of the Decades available. Read it to see what I'm getting at. Read the sermon on the Trinity. Or the sermon on Angels and Devils. You don't get the shallow concern trolling of pastors and scholars who don't have a connection to the depth of the faith to begin with. 

Iliad & Odyssey - Homer

These works are foundational higher, visual language depicting inner, spiritual development. As Christian influence they are through a glass, darkly. Obviously they are pagan, yet at the same time they are not crudely pagan influences. For one thing they are epic poems. Where's the epic poem for Molech? 

What the Homeric epics are is something that is off the radar of academia. Most deep things are off the radar of academia. 

The Reformers often made Homer an exception in their condemnation of false religious beliefs, but we don't need that; we just need to read them and see for ourselves. 

Remember: deep language as an influence is how real understanding develops. Scholars, academics, philosophers - Christian or not - are all about surface knowledge and reason (rationalism) not knowing there are more ways to take in and develop knowledge, understanding and wisdom. To develop being. Understanding is seeing parts in relation to the whole. Surface thinkers major on the parts and never see the whole. 

The Homeric epics give us visual language to be able to see new things in ourselves and in the world around us. Subtle things. Things that often can't be spelled out in a proposition. Ultimate universal things thus worthy of the attention and engagement of a Christian. (Also, works of great literature that have mysterious authorship and seem to appear organically from a larger collective consciousness than what can come from a single author tend to be of great worth. Grail legend, especially a work like Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival is like that. Some see Shakespeare like that. Even Grimm's Folk Tales can be like that. They're usually imparting deep language of inner development and the unseen world. Often visually. 

Fourth Way - Ouspensky

This is just simply ancient psychology, or, New Testament psychology. It's used by cults but so is the Bible. Call it a base language that other languages draw from, for better or worse (usually worse, because partial and in a shallow way). It's not for everybody. If you're a worldly knight (or lady) of the Round Table realm you don't need it and won't value it. If you're on the other hand a Grail knight (or lady of the Grail realm) you'll not only want it, but you'll need it and value it like it's a language of the Holy Spirit. 

It's dangerous, though, in that it puts you on the spiritual battlefield. You need the armor of God. Without it you're naked on the battlefield and vulnerable, and God protects you in the beginning, but not forever. It's also difficult to learn. You have to see the parts in relation to the whole. For progressive sanctification there is no more sophisticated language available. If you mock that statement, stay far away. Mockers get hammered on the battlefield. 

So there it is. A list of influences for a true Christian worldview. I could make it longer, but so could anybody who truly knows those five or so. I'm an idiot, and I caught on. By idiot I mean not perhaps the fastest climber, but I make it to the summit one way or another, in my time. Most never get off the valley floor.

More evidence why Bullinger's Decades has been out of fashion with the shallow world of seminaries

"There are some (and that is no small number) who think it very profitable and an excellent thing to construe Homer and Virgil allegorically. In divine ceremonies, only foolish heads are persuaded that no profit or wisdom lies secretly hidden — when indeed, in the whole world there is nothing more profitable, pleasant, excellent, or full of wisdom in allegorical types, than the ceremonies that God has ordained. For in them the mysteries of Christ and his catholic church are very finely, plainly, and notably described."

Wacky! Nutty! (Words of the shallow, concern troll modern theologians)

An email exchange:

Me:

I've been reading Bullinger's Decades. Written in Shakespeare's day. Look at this paragraph on sacraments:

"The ancient writers therefore applied this word symbol to our sacraments, because they represent and show us the exceedingly great and deep mysteries of God. They are allegorical and enigmatic, hard and dark to understand. And lastly, by the institution of his sacraments, the Lord himself has bound himself to us; and by partaking them, we in turn bind ourselves to him and to all the saints, testifying and openly professing to fight stoutly and valiantly under the Lord's banner."

The deep mystery of the sacraments is this: to be given by the Holy Spirit to see them as the two conscious shocks: Conscious Labor, Intentional Suffering. Let's not be fearful of going with what we've come to learn. 

As for Church, it too has higher meaning once you make contact via the two conscious shocks. 

_____________

Simon of Australia:

As soon as they say deep mysteries, I always instantly think Ouspensky Fourth Way... 

Maybe this is why valuation of the Work is stressed so often. Not only so that you'll do it, but because others yearned for the knowledge you have in your hand. They sensed that it was there but it eluded them.

______________

Me:

Exactly what I was thinking as I wrote that. 

I like these older theologians. Many of the truths they taught, or alluded to, have been waved off my modern, more shallow theologians. 

______________

Simon of Australia:

>>Many of the truths they taught, or alluded to, have been waved off my modern, more shallow theologians. 

You can see the hand of the Devil in that... It is, actually, putting man above God to "wave off the mystery"...

______________

Me:

And to use a modern phrase, these modern theologians play the role of concern trolls. They're concerned that "lay people" can't handle such things. We'll go off into silly realms. Get wacky and nutty. Etc. Not that they understand the deeper meanings themselves.

The concern troll theologians then inevitably veer into liberal theology one way or another. They don't value the basics. 

As a true Christian you have to get experiential with the basics. (You also have to believe in the supernatural and sin and little things like that which embarrass modern theologians who fear the opinion of the world and the opinion of their academic peers  more than they fear God.)