Rachel, from Smilesback’s Blog, has written a good article exposing John Calvin entitled, “The Evil Theologian, John Calvin.” Please have a look. The first paragraph is posted here:

“Once upon a time there was this certain boy…  He grew up.  He studied law.  Got his doctorate in law and became an attorney.  After reading philosophies of “admirable” religious philosophers, he had a “conversion experience” and started reading his Bible.  He then proceeded to write things about the Bible himself, but alas, since his opinions were quite “unorthodox” for the era, he was banished from his town.  No matter.  He took solace with a friend and writing more and more, became a self-proclaimed theologian and “authoritative” writer…” READ MORE

A nossa avaliação do livro A Cabana gerou bastante interesse.  Muitas pessoas me falaram coisas assim: “Queria que meu amigo ‘Sinfrônio’ lesse esse artigo, pois ele está lendo A Cabana agora.”

Claro que você pode dar para o “Sinfrônio” o url deste site, mas caso ele não tem conexão à internet, ou disposição para ler o blog, resolvi fazer uma versão da minha análise em formato pdf.

Você pode baixar o documento gratuitamente aqui, imprimir, e dar uma cópia para o “Sinfrônio”.

Paul Proctor has written a much needed piece on the idolatry of celebrity worship, something that has taken our culture by storm. Here’s a quote from the article:

Under their exploited influence, our envy and infatuation often bypasses logic, reason and sound judgment, persuading us to listen and follow their lead even though they don’t know us and we don’t know them beyond the manufactured and well-guarded image we see and hear in the media.

This is the mysterious power of celebrity – a seductive and intoxicating force that too many covet and too few fear – a form of inebriation and delusion, and at times, insanity that incites brazen and bizarre behavior from those who fawn at the feet of fame, making them say and do things they would not otherwise.

The next time you happen to be anywhere near a celebrity, don’t watch them – watch the people around them and you’ll better understand what I’m talking about. Hopefully, what you see and hear will be offensive enough to keep you from being brought under the celebrity’s spell.

Proctor also addresses this same phenomenon within the church as he cites one pastor’s starry-eyed infatuation with the universalist Billy Graham. To read Proctor’s entire article, click here.

Prior to his conversion to Catholicism, John Henry Cardinal Newman, soon to be Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman,  preached in 1838 a series of Advent Sermons on the Anti-Christ.  I have always found them extremely intriguing, and I am going to present them on each of the Sundays in Advent this year.

In this first sermon Newman gives us an overview of the Anti-Christ and the time of his appearance.  We see in this sermon Newman’s total command of history and how he uses this knowledge to draw out the implications of the few mentions of the Anti-Christ in Scripture.  Newman intellectually was always first and foremost a historian of the highest order and he puts this talent to good and instructive use in this sermon.  When Newman converted the Church gained one of the finest intellects of the Nineteenth Century or any century for that matter.  Much of Newman’s work concerned the working out of God’s plan for salvation through human history, and his examination of the Anti-Christ places that mysterious part of revelation into that plan.

“Let no man deceive you by any means:
for that Day shall not come,
except there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”

THE Thessalonian Christians had supposed that the coming of CHRIST was near at hand. St. Paul writes to warn them against such an expectation. Not that he discountenances their looking out for CHRIST’S coming,-the contrary; but he tells them that a certain event must come before it, and till that was arrived, the end would not be. “That Day shall not come,” he says, “except there come a falling away first.”

As long as the world lasts, this passage of Scripture will be full of reverent interest to Christians. It is their duty ever to be watching for the advent of their LORD, to search for the signs of it in all that happens around them; and above all to keep in mind this great and awful sign which the text speaks of. At this season of the year, then, when we turn our thoughts to the coming of CHRIST, it is not out of place to review the intimations given us in Scripture concerning His precursor: this I shall now do in several Sermons; and, in doing so, I shall follow the exclusive guidance of the ancient Fathers of the Church.I follow the ancient Fathers, not as thinking that on such a subject they have the weight they possess in the instance of doctrines or ordinances. When they speak of doctrines, they speak of them as being universally held. They are witnesses to the fact of those doctrines being received, not here or there, but every where. We receive those doctrines which they thus hold, not merely because they hold them, but because they bear witness that all Christians every where then held them. We take them as honest informants, but not as a sufficient authority in themselves, though they are an authority too. If they were to state these very same doctrines, but say, “These are our opinions; we deduced them from Scripture, and they are true,” we might well doubt about receiving them at their hands. We might fairly say, that we had as much right to deduce from Scripture as they had; that deductions of Scripture were mere opinions; that if our deductions agreed with theirs, that would be a happy coincidence, and increase our confidence in them; but if they did not, it could not be helped-we must follow our own light. Doubtless no man has any right to impose his own deductions upon another, in matters of faith. There is an obvious obligation, indeed, upon the ignorant to submit to those who are better informed; and there is a fitness in the young submitting implicitly for a time to the teaching of their elders; but beyond this, one man’s opinion is not better than another’s. But this is not the state of the case as regards the primitive Fathers. They do not speak of their own private opinion; they do not say, “This is true, because we see it in Scripture” -about which there might be differences of judgments-but, “this is true, because in matter of fact it is held, and has ever been held, by all the Churches, down to our times, without interruption, ever since the Apostles:”-where the question is merely one of testimony, whether they had the means of knowing that it had been and was so held; for if it was the belief of so many and independent Churches at once, and that as if from the Apostles, doubtless it cannot but be true and Apostolic.

This, I say, is the mode in which the Fathers speak as regards doctrine; but it is otherwise when they interpret prophecy. In this matter there seems to have been no Catholic, no universal, no openly declared traditions; and when they interpret, they are for the most part giving, and profess to be giving, either their own private opinions, or uncertain traditions. This is what might have been expected; for it is not ordinarily the course of Divine Providence to interpret prophecy before the event. What the Apostles disclosed concerning the future, war, for the most part disclosed by them in private, to individuals-not committed to writing, not intended for the edifying of the body of CHRIST,- and was soon lost. Thus, in a few verses after the text, St. Paul says, “Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” and he writes by hints and allusions, not speaking out. And it shows how little care was taken to discriminate and authenticate his prophetical intimations, that the Thessalonians had taken up an opinion, that he had said-what he had not said-that the Day of CHRIST was immediately at hand.

Yet, though the Fathers do not convey to us the interpretation of prophecy with the same certainty as they convey doctrine, yet in proportion to their agreement, their personal character, and the general reception at the time, or the authority of the sources of the opinions they are stating, they are to be read with deference; for, to say the least, they are as likely to be right as commentators now; in some respects more so, because the interpretation of prophecy has become in these times a matter of controversy and party. And passion and prejudice have so interfered with soundness of judgment, that it is difficult to say who is to be trusted in it, or whether a private Christian may not be as good an expositor as those by whom the office has been assumed.

1. Now to turn to the passage in question, which I shall examine by arguments drawn from Scripture, without being solicitous to agree, or to say why I disagree, from modern commentators: “That Day shall not come, except there come a falling away first.” Here it is said that a certain frightful apostasy, and the appearing of the Man of sin, the son of perdition, i.e. as is commonly called, Antichrist, shall precede the coming of CHRIST. Our SAVIOUR seems to add, that it will immediately precede Him, or that His coming will follow close upon it; for, after speaking of “false prophets” and “false Christs,” “showing signs and wonders,” “iniquity abounding,” and “love waxing cold,” and the like, He adds, “When ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.” Again He says, “When ye shall see the abomination of desolation . . . stand in the holy place then let them that be in Judea flee into the mountains.” Indeed, St. Paul implies this also, when he says that Antichrist shall be destroyed by the brightness of CHRIST’S coming.

If, then, Antichrist is to come immediately before CHRIST, and to be the sign of His coming, it is manifest that he is not come yet, but is still to be expected. Further, it appears that the time of Antichrist’s tyranny will be three years and a half, which is an additional reason for believing he is not come; for, if so he must have come quite lately, his time being altogether so short; and this we cannot say he has.

Besides, there are two other attendants on his appearance, which have not been fulfilled. First, a time of unexampled trouble. “Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be; and except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved.” This has not come. Next, the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world-”And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” Now it may be objected to this conclusion, that St. Paul says, in the passage before us, that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work,” i.e. even in his day, as if Antichrist had in fact come even then. But he would seem to mean merely this, that in his day there were shadows and forebodings, earnests and operating elements of that which was one day to come in its fullness. Just as the types of CHRIST went before CHRIST, so the shadows of Antichrist precede him. In truth, every event in this world is a type of those that follow, history proceeding forward as a circle ever enlarging. The days of the Apostles typified the last days: there were false Christs, and troubles, and the true CHRIST came in judgment to destroy the Jewish Church.

In like manner every age presents its own picture of those future events, which alone are the real fulfillment of the prophecy which stands at the head of all of them. Hence St. John says, “Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that the Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” Antichrist was come, and was not come; it was, and it was not the last time. In the sense in which the Apostle’s lay was the end of the world, it was also the time of Antichrist.-However, a second objection may be made, as follows: St. Paul says, “Now ye know what withholdeth, that he (Antichrist) might be revealed in his time.” Here a something is mentioned as keeping back the manifestation of the enemy of truth. The Apostle proceeds: “He that now withholdeth, will, until he be taken out of the way.” Now this restraining power being generally admitted to be the Roman empire, and the Roman empire (it is argued) having long been taken out of the way, therefore Antichrist has long since come. I grant that “he that withholdeth,” or “letteth,” means the power of Rome, for all the ancient writers so speak of it. I grant that as Rome, according to the prophet Daniel’s vision, succeeded Greece, so Antichrist succeeds Rome, and our SAVIOUR CHRIST succeeds Antichrist. But it does not hence follow that Antichrist is come; for I do not grant that the Roman empire is gone. Far from it: the Roman empire remains even to this day. It had a very different fate from the other three monsters mentioned by the Prophet; as will be seen by his description of it. “Behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.” These ten horns, an Angel informed him, “are ten kings that shall arise out of this kingdom” of Rome. As, then, the ten horns belonged to the beast, and were not separate from it, so are the kingdoms into which the Roman empire has been divided, part of that empire itself,-a continuation of that empire in the view of prophecy, however we decide the historical question. And as the horns, or kingdoms, still exist, as a matter of fact, consequently we have not yet seen the end of the Roman empire. “That which withholdeth” still exists, though in its ten horns; till it is removed, Antichrist will not come. And out of them he will arise, as the same Prophet informs us: “I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn …… and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.”

2. Now, in the next place, what is told us about Antichrist by the sacred writers? This first of all, as has been already noticed, that he embodies a certain spirit, which existed even in the days of the Apostles. “The mystery of iniquity doth already work.” “Even now there are many Antichrists.” And what that spirit is, St. John declares in a subsequent chapter. ” Every spirit that confesseth not that JESUS CHRIST is come in the flesh, is not of GOD; and this is that spirit of the Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world.” Here we see what its doctrine is to be; but on that I shall not here enlarge. I am speaking of its working, which had begun in the days of the Apostles, and has doubtless continued ever since. Doubtless this malignant principle has been at work since from time to time, though kept under by him that “withholdeth.” Nay, for what we know, at this very time there is a fierce struggle, the spirit of Antichrist attempting to rise, and the political power in those countries which are prophetically Roman, firm and vigorous in repressing it. What that spirit is, it would be beside my purpose here to attempt to ascertain, any more than to enlarge upon its doctrine; though certainly there is at this very time, as in the days of our fathers, a fierce and lawless principle every where at work,-a spirit of rebellion against GOD and man, which the powers of government in each country can barely keep under with their greatest efforts. Whether this which we witness be that spirit of Antichrist, which is one day to be let loose, this ambitious spirit, the parent of all heresy, schism, sedition, revolution, and war,-whether this be so or not, certainly the present framework of society and government, as far as it is the representative of Roman power, would seem to be that which withholdeth, and Antichrist is that which will rise when this restraint fails.

3. It has been more or less implied in the foregoing remarks, that Antichrist is one man, an individual, not a power or a kingdom. Such surely is the impression left on the mind by the Scripture notices concerning him, after taking fully into account the figurative character of prophetical language; and such was the universal belief of the early Church. Consider these passages together, which describe him, and see whether we must not so conclude. First, the tee and following verses: “That day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who is the adversary and rival of all that is called GOD or worshipped; so that he sitteth as GOD in the temple of GOD, proclaiming himself to be GOD . . . Then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming . . . whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders.” Next, the following passages in the prophet Daniel: “Another shall rise after them, and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the MOST HIGH, and shall wear out the saints of the MOST HIGH, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” Again: “In his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom; but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries……And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries; but the people that do know their GOD shall be strong, and do exploits……And the king shall do according to his will, and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the GOD of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished……Neither shall he regard the GOD of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces, and a God whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.” Let it be observed, that Daniel elsewhere describes other kings, and that the event has shown them to be individuals, as is generally confessed. And in like manner St. John: “There was given unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against GOD, to blaspheme His Name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them; and power was given him over all kindreds and tongues and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Further, that by Antichrist is meant some one person is made probable by the anticipations, which have already occurred in history, of its fulfillment in this way. Individuals have arisen actually answering in a great measure to the above descriptions; and this circumstance creates a probability, that the absolute and entire fulfillment, which is to come, will be in an individual also. The most remarkable of these shadows of the coming evil appeared before the time of the Apostles, between them and the age of Daniel, viz. the heathen king Antiochus, of whom we read in the books of Maccabees. This instance is the more to the purpose, because he is actually described, (as we suppose) by Daniel, in another part of his prophecy, in terms which seem also to belong to Antichrist, and as belonging, imply that Antiochus was what he seems to be, a type of that more fearful enemy of the Church. This Antiochus was the savage persecutor of the Jews, in their latter times, as Antichrist will be of the Christians. A few passages from the Maccabees will show you what he was.

St. Paul in the text speaks of an apostasy, and of Antichrist as following upon it; thus is the future typified in the Jewish history. “In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen that are round about us: for since we departed from them, we have had much sorrow. So this device pleased them well. Then certain of the people were so forward herein, that they went to the king, who gave them licence to do after the ordinances of the heathen; whereupon they built a place of exercise at Jerusalem according to the custom of the heathen; and made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and were sold to do mischief.” After this introduction the Enemy of truth appears. “After that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again, . . . and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, and entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light and all the vessels thereof, and the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off. And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly.” After this, he set fire to Jerusalem, “and pulled down the houses and walls thereof on every side. . . . Then built they the city of David with a great and strong wall, . . . and they put therein a sinful nation, wicked men, and fortified themselves therein.” Next, “King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be one people, and every one should leave his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king. Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the sabbath.” After this he forced these impieties upon the Israelites. All were to be put to death who would not “profane the sabbath and festival days, and pollute the sanctuary and holy people: and set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine’s flesh and unclean beasts,” and “leave their children uncircumcised.” At length he set up an idol, or in the words of the history, “the Abomination of Desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side. . . . And when they had rent in pieces the books of the law which they found, they burnt them with fire.” It is added, “Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat any unclean thing, wherefore they chose rather to die . . . and there was very great wrath upon Israel.” Here we have presented to us some of the lineaments of  Antichrist, who will be such, and worse than such, as Antiochus.

The history of the apostate emperor Julian, who lived between 300 and 400 years after Christ, furnishes another approximation to the predicted Antichrist, and an additional reason for thinking he will be one person, not a kingdom, power, or the like.

So again does the false prophet Mahomet, who propagated his imposture about 600 years after Christ came.

And there have been events in our childhood, and in the generation before us, which seem to give still additional probability to the notion, that Antichrist is one, not many men acting together.

What I have said upon this subject may be summed up as follows:-that the coming of Christ will be immediately preceded by a very awful and unparalleled outbreak of evil, called in the text an apostasy, a falling away, in the midst of which a certain terrible man of sin and child of perdition, the special and singular enemy of Christ, or Antichrist, will appear; that this will be when revolutions prevail, and the present framework of Society breaks to pieces; that at present the Spirit which he will embody and represent, is kept under by “the powers that be,” but that on their dissolution, he will rise out of the bosom of them, and knit them together again in his own evil way, under his own rule, to the exclusion of the Church.

4. It would be out of place to say more than this at present. I will conclude by directing your attention to one particular circumstance contained in the text, which I have already in part commented on.

It is said there will “come a falling away, and the man of sin will be revealed.” In other words the man of sin is born of an apostasy, or at least comes into power through an apostasy, or is preceded by an apostasy, or would not be except for an apostasy. So says the inspired text: now observe, how remarkably the course of providence, as seen in history, has commented on his prediction.

First, we have a comment in the instance of Antiochus previous to the prophecy, as I have already shown. The Israelites, or at least great numbers of them, discarded their own sacred religion, and then the enemy was allowed to come in.

Next the apostate emperor Julian, who attempted to overthrow the Church by craft, and introduce paganism back again: he was preceded, nay he was nurtured, in the first great heresy which disturbed the peace and purity of the Church. About forty years before he came to the throne arose the pestilent Arian heresy which denied that CHRIST was GOD. It ate its way among the rulers of the Church like a canker, and what with the treachery of some and the mistakes of others, at one time it was all but dominant throughout Christendom. The few holy and faithful men, who witnessed for the Truth, cried out, with awe and terror at the apostasy, that Antichrist was coming. They called it the “forerunner of Antichrist.” And true, his Shadow came. Julian was educated in the bosom of Arianism by some of its principal upholders. His tutor was the Eusebius from whom its partisans took their name; and in due time he fell away to paganism, became a hater and persecutor of the Church, and was cut off before he had reigned out the brief period which will be the real Antichrist’s duration.

The next great heresy, and in its consequences far more lasting and far spreading, was of twofold character,-with two heads, as I may call them, Nestorianism and Eutychianism, apparently opposed to each other, yet acting towards a common end: it in one way or other denied the truth of CHRIST’S gracious incarnation, and tended to destroy he faith of Christians not less certainly though more insidiously than the heresy of Arius. It spread through the East and through Egypt, corrupting and poisoning those Churches which had once, alas! been the most flourishing, the early abodes and the strong holds of revealed truth. Out of this heresy, or at least by means of it, the impostor Mahomet sprang, and formed his creed. Here is another especial Shadow of Antichrist.

As to the third and last instance, which I might mention in the generation immediately before ourselves, I will but observe that in like manner, the Shadow of Antichrist arose out of an apostasy, an apostasy to infidel doctrines, perhaps the most flagitious and blasphemous which the world has ever seen.

These instances give us this warning. Is the enemy of CHRIST, and His Church, to arise out of a certain special falling away from GOD? And is there no reason to fear that some such Apostasy is gradually preparing, gathering, hastening on in this very day? For is there not at this very time a special effort made almost all over the world, that is, every here and there, more or less, in sight or out of sight, in this or that place, but most visibly or formidably in its most civilized and powerful parts, an effort to do without religion? Is there not an opinion avowed and growing, that a nation has nothing to do with religion; that it is merely a matter for each man’s own conscience,-which is all one with saying that we may let the truth fail from the earth without trying to continue it? Is there not a vigorous and united movement in all countries to cast down the Church of Christ from power and place? Is there not a feverish and ever busy endeavour to get rid of the necessity of religion in public transactions? for example, an attempt to get rid of oaths, under a pretence that they are too sacred for affairs of common life, instead of providing that they be taken more reverently and more suitably? an attempt to educate without religion,-that is, by putting all forms of religion together, which comes to the same thing? an attempt to enforce temperance, and the virtues which flow from it, without religion, by means of societies which are built on mere principles of utility? an attempt to make expedience, and not truth the end and the rule of measures of state and the enactments of law an attempt to make numbers, and not truth, the ground of maintaining, or not maintaining this or that creed, as if we had any reason whatever in Scripture for thinking that the many will be in the right, and the few in the wrong? An attempt to deprive the Bible of its one meaning to the exclusion of others, to make people think that it may have a hundred meanings all equally good, or in other words, that it has no meaning at all, is a dead letter, and may be put aside? an attempt to supersede religion altogether, as far as it is external or objective, as far as it is displayed in ordinances, or can be expressed by written words,-to confine it to our inward feelings, and thus, considering how transient, how variable, how evanescent our feelings are, an attempt in fact, to destroy religion?

Surely, there is at this day a confederacy of evil, marshalling its hosts from all parts of the world, organizing itself, taking its measures, enclosing the Church of CHRIST as in a net, and preparing the way for a general apostasy from it. Whether this very apostasy is to give birth to Antichrist, or whether he is still to be delayed, we cannot know; but at any rate this apostasy, and all its tokens, and instruments, are of the Evil One and saviour of death. Far be it from any of us to be of those simple ones, who are taken in that snare which is circling around us! Far be it from us to be seduced with the fair promises in which Satan is sure to hide his poison! Do you think he is so unskillful in his craft, as to ask you openly and plainly to join him in his warfare against the Truth? No; he offers you baits to tempt you. He promises you civil liberty; he promises you equality; he promises you trade and wealth; he promises you a remission of taxes; he promises you reform. This is the way in which he conceals from you the kind of work to which he is putting you; he tempts you to rail against your rulers and superiors; he does so himself, and induces you to imitate him; or he promises you illumination,-he offers you knowledge, science, philosophy, enlargement of mind. He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which reveres them. He prompts you what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids you mount aloft. He shows you how to become as gods. Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his.

Shall we Christians, sons of GOD, brethren of CHRIST, heirs of glory, shall we allow ourselves to have lot or part in this matter? Shall we even with our little finger help on the Mystery of iniquity which is travailing for birth, and convulsing the earth with its pangs? “Oh my soul come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united.” “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath CHRIST with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of GOD with idols? for ye are the temple of the living GOD. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate . . . and touch not the unclean thing,” lest you be workers together with GOD’S enemies, and be opening the way for the Man of sin, the son of perdition.

I’ve been watching a lot of Ovation TV since I discovered it a couple weeks ago. Many of the designers they speak to are  fascinating beyond what they have to say about the things they design. Many of them could be classified as philosophers just as easily. One such man was John Maeda. In addition to his degrees from MIT in computers and electrical engineering, he is also an art school graduate, the current president of the Rhode Island School of Design, and author of the book The Laws of Simplicity.

One statement he made caught my attention: “Creative people are very comfortable with ambiguity.” That made me think of the leaders of the Emerging Church movement. The ideas put forth in Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy (see my review here) are downright heretical if you believe in the Law of Antithesis. He seems very comfortable with ambiguity as do many others in the movement. Does this mean that for the first time Christianity is not only attracting mainly creative people to leadership roles but that we could possibly have a generation that doesn’t have a word for heretic? The thought is both awe inspiring and fear provoking at the same time.

I, for one, would love a world where Christians all accepted one another without having to throw around words like heretic when someone thinks differently from the rest of us. However, there is that sticky problem that Paul seems to believe there are people who are heretics. Tolerance for ambiguity could quickly become a license to believe whatever you want. Where would we draw the line in a world that embraces ambiguity?

I believe the progressive wing of the Churches of Christ have come to the most biblical answer I’ve seen regarding the issue. They don’t reduce it down to proposition statements you have to believe (As the United Church of Christ pastor and singer Brian Sirchio says in one of his songs, “Jesus never said, ‘Believe in me I’m the second member of the Trinity.’”)  but they rather reduce it to three situations in which you’ve forfeited the grace of God: First, you no longer believe. Second, you no longer are penitent. And third, you believe you can be saved by something other than grace (i.e. works). You can read a summary of their view by clicking here and by using this table of contents you can read about their position in more detail (look for the sections listed as “progressive”).

In part two I hope to discuss in more depth what I feel constitutes apostasy. My prayer for the Church is that we stop labeling everyone who disagrees with us as a heretic but also keep in mind that there are real heretics. I believe, however, that heresy is a lot more rare than many want to believe.

It seems that the Manhattan Declaration has somewhat in common with extreme fundamentalism.  Both obscure the gospel through moralism.  God and country seem to be getting much attention these days.  Sadly, though that is a good thing, God gets the short end of the stick so-to-speak.  The gospel gets muddled so that those who believe in justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and those who believe in a sacrament or works based justification are all considered Christians.

While most fundamentalists would not do that, they do spend far too much time trying to change people from the outside in, rather than plainly proclaiming the gospel as God’s saving power that will change people from the inside out.

With this in mind, I decided to post this exposition of Galatians 1:1-10.

Here at Fundamentally Changed, we love Christian morality.  We love the USA.

More than that, we love the gospel, and will not compromise it for any of the other.

No Compromise

Gal 1:1-10

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Gal 1:1-5)

Wasting no time, Paul identifies himself. His identification, however, is more than just a name. He is not Paul, but an apostle as well. Neither is he an apostle of men, but an apostle of Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead. In other words, Paul is stressing to the people that he was both called and sent of the Father and the Son. He was neither chosen by the vote of any assembly, nor sent by any man. Usually when one speaks in this manner the hearers should beware, because abusive leaders are characteristically quick to assert their authority while humble leaders are slow to do so. Authority is easily and quickly abused. Paul, however, is not of the sort to do so. In fact, Paul is somewhat reluctant and cautious when asserting his authority. This is evident in his letter to the Corinthians (2Cor 11:30;12:11). Paul would rather rejoice in having been made weak rather than in the fact that God had honored him with the gift and office of the apostolate. It is indeed true that Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ and the Father who sent Jesus. Luke’s account of Paul’s conversion confirms that truth (See Acts 9:1-22).¹

Why does Paul speak of himself in this manner? When one considers the epistle to the Galatians as a whole it is seen that Paul had preached the gospel to them and they had believed it. Sadly, there were those who corrupted the gospel and misled the people. While doing so, it seems that Paul’s authority, calling, commission, and status as an apostle was called into question. Some have come saying that angels had given them another gospel (See Gal 1:8,9), and others probably had asserted that they had more authority and knowledge than Paul, as they were from Jerusalem and were associated with the Jerusalem church.² Reluctant though he might have been, Paul was forced to present his credentials and explain his authority for the sake of the gospel.

Paul uses his normal greeting by expressing his desire that his readers receive grace and peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. It is necessary that we notice Paul’s stating that grace is not from the Father alone, but from Jesus Christ who is our Lord.³ He continues his greeting while laying a foundation for the whole of the letter by stating that grace and peace comes through the redemptive work of Jesus who died for our sins, and to deliver us from this present evil age. He makes a similar statement to Titus telling him that Jesus “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Tit 2:14) Paul mentions Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection here both to show us that we receive grace and peace through Him as well as to establish from the beginning his own confidence that we are set free from sin by God through Christ’s redemptive work. This is a corrective to the legalism that was prevalent in the Galatian churches. We can only stand in awe of such inspired wisdom that enables a man to write an introduction that both wishes his readers well and establishes such a strong and firm theological foundation for his letter.

Paul states that the redemptive work of Christ was according to God’s will. This, too is a statement calculated to help the Galatians see that God’s way of salvation is through Jesus alone, and not through the works of the law. God planned for Jesus to come and die for our sins. Jesus Himself said as much when he said, “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.” (Jn 12:27) Peter would later speak of Jesus’ life, ministry, and redemptive work as being God’s plan (See Acts 2:22-24;4:27,28).⁴ Paul is serious about expressing to the Galatians the fact that Jesus is God’s ordained way of salvation. If he can establish this truth from the beginning, he will be able to build on it for the purpose of destroying legalism.

While the final part of Paul’s greeting may seem to be simply an expression of praise, it is actually much, much more than that. While he says, “to whom be glory for ever and ever”, Paul is not only praising God, but also stating God’s plan and purpose in sending Christ to die and rise again for our redemption. God’s goal in all that He does is for His glory. In the letter to the Romans, Paul expresses awe and adoration when contemplating God’s glorious plan, saying, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” (Rom 11:33-36) Everything was made by God for Himself and for His glory.⁵

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Gal 1:6-10)

Without further ado Paul plunges into his message to the Galatians. Normally, Paul gives thanks for the ones to whom he writes. He does this even for the carnal Corinthians (See 1Cor 1:4-9). There are no thanks, however, for the Galatians. Neither does Paul commend them for any good in the lives. Instead, Paul immediately says, “I am SHOCKED at you!”

Shocked? Indeed. The Galatians had removed themselves from God the Father, the One who had called them into the grace of Christ.⁶ They had fallen away from the Father. Thinking to have improved themselves, they had actually deserted God. How is it that they had deserted the Father? The Father had called them into the grace of Christ, but they have now abandoned the truth of grace for a legalistic self-righteousness. They had traded gospels.

Paul’s complaint against the Galatians is that they had left the Father for another gospel- message of glad tidings.⁷ That message, however, was not gospel. There was simply no good news to be found it that message. As a matter of fact, it was only a perversion of the true gospel. The true gospel is about Christ, but this gospel is about self effort instead of Divine grace in the person of Christ. Remember, “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (Jn 1:17) Thus the gospel of grace is the gospel of Christ. We cannot have gospel without Jesus and the grace of God given to us through Him. Sadly, there were those who were changing the good news into something that is of an opposite character than that of grace.⁸ The Galatians had fallen away from the Father by accepting this pseudo-gospel that rejected His grace.

Notice that Paul knew that the Galatians were neither experiencing and enjoying God’s grace, nor the new “gospel” that they had received. They Galatians were being troubled and agitated by those who changed the gospel of Christ. The gospel is the power of God to save those who believe (Rom 1:16), and it is the good news of God’s glorious happiness that He chooses to share with us (1Tim 1:11;Mt 25:21). To change this gospel of grace and glory is to take all of the joy out of it. It is no wonder that the Galatians were troubled. They now stood in doubt and fear about their souls. No longer were they standing securely in the grace of God⁹, but were dependent upon themselves for their acceptance before God. They were troubled indeed with heart trouble. They were unsettled, insecure, doubting, and struggling to conform to the demands that this pseudo-gospel placed upon them. By accepting this perversion of the good news, rejecting grace, and moving away from God the Father (Isn’t is precious to think of God as a caring Father instead of as a harsh taskmaster?) the Galatians had allowed these false teachers to agitate their once peaceful hearts- hearts that had once had peace because of the grace of God in Christ.

As we read verses eight and nine we see Paul pulling off the gloves to fight with bare fists. He simply states that he had warned them in the past of false teachers, and now warns them again. His warning is also a command: excommunicate the false teachers. Let them be anathema! They do not love the Lord Jesus, so they are accursed by God¹⁰, and should be removed from the fellowship of the church. Should they protest that they had seen a vision, or received their teachings from an angel, Paul emphatically states that they would still be accursed and should be excommunicated. He understands that Satan and his angels often disguise themselves as the angels of light and ministers of righteousness.¹¹ Paul demands that the Galatians not even have fellowhip with him if he changes and does not preach the gospel of grace. Salvation by grace is that important. Apart from grace there is no salvation; neither is there salvation apart from Jesus. (The writer recommends that the reader pause at this time and read John 14:1-6, Acts 4:12, and Eph 2:1-10.) It is for this reason that we should take a no compromise stance when it comes to grace and the gospel. To allow any tampering with the gospel of grace will be to allow the perversion of the gospel. When the gospel is perverted the souls of men are jeopardized.

Paul now asks, “am I now trying to please men, or am I trying to please God?” He is, of course, trying to convince men of the truth while seeking to please God by speaking truly. Sadly, it seems that the false teachers had claimed that Paul was a man-pleaser. He admits that he was in the past by saying, “if I still pleased men, I would not be the servant of Christ”.¹² His former life as a Pharisee was indeed a life of pleasing men. That had changed, however. Now Paul seeks to please God. One cannot charge him with being a men-pleaser, as he has just declared accursed those who preached contrary to grace. This would by no means please men. It would anger them instead.

This passage tells us much about the heart of the apostle as well as the heart of God. God simply is not pleased when the gospel is distorted in any manner. Whether it is by grace being used as an excuse to sin¹³, or by grace being replaced by works, God despises the perversion of the gospel. Too often we are prone to be men-pleasers. We want so very badly for people to think well of us. We desire to allow the world the opportunity to do as they please and still profess Christianity, so we lead them to believe that they can live as they please and still be saved despite warnings to the contrary¹⁴. On the other hand, we may seek to show our fellow Christians how much that we agree with them and impose on people rules and regulations that are either unBiblical or extra-Biblical, and tell them that they must observe these things if they are to please God. In so doing we are often found guilty of transgressing against grace. How truly sad this is. It is time for those who preach and teach the Word of God to sound a blast of the trumpet against false teaching and false teachers. It is time to stand firmly for the gospel of the grace of God which is designed to give glory to God. Let us accept and proclaim God’s grace in His Son Jesus Christ and preach the gospel.

Let there be NO COMPROMISE!

1See also 1Cor 15:9,10;2Cor 11:21-33;12:1-13

2We do not definitely know this, but can reasonably infer that something similar to that must have happened, because Paul emphasizes that he had a relationship with the apostles in Jerusalem although he was not dependent upon them for his theological knowledge (See Gal 1:15-24;2:1-10). In fact, having heard of Paul’s conversion to Christ, the Judaean churches glorified God because of him.

3See 1Pet 5:10 cf Jn 1:16,17 God is the God of all grace, but Grace came through Christ.

4Paul also notes that Jesus’ redemptive work fulfills the Scriptures. Cf Rom 1:1,2;1Cor 15:1-4

5See also Col 1:15-17;Rev 4:9-11. Also, notice Jesus’ words in Jn 12;27,28;13:31,32. Of special significance is John’s statement that our sins are forgiven for His name’s sake (1Jn 2:12).

6The Father calls us to the Son by the Spirit. See Gal 1:15;Jn 6:44;Mt 16:13-17;1Cor 12:1-3

7The gospel is glad tidings, or good news. See Lk 2:10,11;Rom 10:15

8 It seems to be a trivial matter to teach the Law and affirm works, but this does more damage than human reason can imagine. Not only does it mar and obscure the knowledge of grace, but it also removes Christ and all His blessings, and it completely overthrows the Gospel, as Paul says in this passage. The cause of this great evil is our flesh. Steeped in sins, it sees no way to extricate itself except by works. This is why it wants to live in the righteousnesses of the Law and to rest in trust in its own works. Therefore it knows nothing or nearly nothing about the doctrine of faith and grace, without which the conscience cannot find peace.

Luther, M. (1999, c1963). Vol. 26: Luther’s works, vol. 26 : Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works (26:vii-55). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

9In Rom 5:1,2, Paul states that we stand in grace. Not only are we saved by grace through faith, but we are secure in that grace. Our very standing before God is “in grace”, not in works of our own.

10See Jn 3:19-21;1Cor 16:22

11 If he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Cor 11:4) Such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Cor 11:13-15)

12See Mt 6:24;Eph 6:5-8;Col 3:22-25;4:1

13See Jude 1:4

14See Mt 7:21-27;Gal 5:19-21;Heb 10:24-31

Article by Nick Pisa from The Telegraph

“Pope John Paul II regularly whipped himself in a sign of “remorse for his sins”, a nun has claimed.

The Pope, who died five years ago, is being considered for sainthood by the Catholic Church.

As part of the Vatican’s investigation thousands of documents have been collected and examined by officials from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

Among them is the testimony of Tobiana Sobodka, a Polish nun of the Sacred Heart of Jesus order, who worked for Pope John Paul in his private Vatican apartments and at his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo near Rome.

Sister Sobodka said: “Several times he (Pope John Paul) would put himself through bodily penance.

“We would hear it – we were in the next room at Castel Gandolfo. You could hear the sound of the blows when he flagellate himself. He did it when he was still capable of moving on his own.”

The flagellation is also confirmed by another bishop who has given testimony. Emery Kabongo was a secretary for Pope John Paul.

“He would punish himself and in particular just before he ordained bishops and priests,” he said.

“I never actually saw it myself but several people told me about it.”

Self flagellation is sometimes used by devoted Catholics as it reminds them of the whipping endured by Christ at the hands of the Romans before he was crucified.

It is still common in the Philippines and Latin America, some members of strict monastic orders and some members of the lay organisation Opus Dei – who feature in the Dan Brown blockbuster The Da Vinci Code.

In the film – which was condemned by the Vatican – murderous Albino monk Silas, who is a member of Opus Dei is seen in a brutal scene whipping his back and drawing blood as he prays on his knees.

A Vatican spokesman said: “The investigation and documentation is still secret and as such we can make no comment on it until the final report is published.

“I know that the nun in question has returned to Poland and she would have spoken with the Congregation as she was with an order that worked in the apartments of Pope John Paul.”

The Congregation for the Causes of Saints has been investigating the case for Pope John Paul since he died and has approved the late pope’s “heroic virtues” and the paperwork has been sent to his German successor.

The late Polish pope’s beatification is expected to take place sometime next year, perhaps in April, to coincide with the fifth anniversary of his death or in October to coincide with his election in 1978. “

Theological Declaration of Barmen

Written by Karl Barth and the confessing church in Nazi Germany in response to Hitler’s national church.

I. An Appeal to the Evangelical Congregations and Christians in Germany

8.01 The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church met in Barmen, May 29-31, 1934. Here representatives from all the German Confessional Churches met with one accord in a confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, apostolic Church. In fidelity to their Confession of Faith, members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches sought a common message for the need and temptation of the Church in our day. With gratitude to God they are convinced that they have been given a common word to utter. It was not their intention to found a new Church or to form a union. For nothing was farther from their minds than the abolition of the confessional status of our Churches. Their intention was, rather, to withstand in faith and unanimity the destruction of the Confession of Faith, and thus of the Evangelical Church in Germany. In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed.

8.02 Therefore the Confessional Synod calls upon the congregations to range themselves behind it in prayer, and steadfastly to gather around those pastors and teachers who are loyal to the Confessions.

8.03 Be not deceived by loose talk, as if we meant to oppose the unity of the German nation! Do not listen to the seducers who pervert our intentions, as if we wanted to break up the unity of the German Evangelical Church or to forsake the Confessions of the Fathers!

8.04 Try the spirits whether they are of God! Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the Confessions of the Fathers. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God’s people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: “I will never leave you, nor forsake you.” Therefore, “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

——————————————————————————–

II. Theological Declaration Concerning the Present Situation of the German Evangelical Church

8.05 According to the opening words of its constitution of July 11, 1933, the German Evangelical Church is a federation of Confessional Churches that grew our of the Reformation and that enjoy equal rights. The theological basis for the unification of these Churches is laid down in Article 1 and Article 2(1) of the constitution of the German Evangelical Church that was recognized by the Reich Government on July 14, 1933:

Article 1. The inviolable foundation of the German Evangelical Church is the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is attested for us in Holy Scripture and brought to light again in the Confessions of the Reformation. The full powers that the Church needs for its mission are hereby determined and limited.

Article 2 (1). The German Evangelical Church is divided into member Churches Landeskirchen).

8.06 We, the representatives of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, of free synods, Church assemblies, and parish organizations united in the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church, declare that we stand together on the ground of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of German Confessional Churches. We are bound together by the confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

8.07 We publicly declare before all evangelical Churches in Germany that what they hold in common in this Confession is grievously imperiled, and with it the unity of the German Evangelical Church. It is threatened by the teaching methods and actions of the ruling Church party of the “German Christians” and of the Church administration carried on by them. These have become more and more apparent during the first year of the existence of the German Evangelical Church. This threat consists in the fact that the theological basis, in which the German Evangelical Church is united, has been continually and systematically thwarted and rendered ineffective by alien principles, on the part of the leaders and spokesmen of the “German Christians” as well as on the part of the Church administration. When these principles are held to be valid, then, according to all the Confessions in force among us, the Church ceases to be the Church and the German Evangelical Church, as a federation of Confessional Churches, becomes intrinsically impossible.

8.08 As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches we may and must speak with one voice in this matter today. Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to our various Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to God what this may mean for the intrrelations of the Confessional Churches.

8.09 In view of the errors of the “German Christians” of the present Reich Church government which are devastating the Church and also therefore breaking up the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:

8.10 – 1. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14.6). “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. . . . I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:1, 9.)

8.11 Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.

8.12 We reiect the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.

8.13 – 2. “Christ Jesus, whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” (1 Cor. 1:30.)

8.14 As Jesus Christ is God’s assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God’s mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures.

8.15 We reiect the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords–areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

8.16 – 3. “Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body [is] joined and knit together.” (Eph. 4:15,16.)

8.17 The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.

8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

8.19 – 4. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men excercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your srvant.” (Matt. 20:25,26.)

8.20 The various offices in the Church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the excercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation.

8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

8.22 – 5. “Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:17.)
Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the Church also exists, the State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfills this task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The Church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God’s commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things.

8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commision, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well.

8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

8.25 – 6. “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt. 28:20.) “The word of God is not fettered.” (2 Tim. 2:9.)

8.26 The Church’s commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people in Christ’s stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and sacrament.

8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.

8.28 The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church declares that it sees in the acknowledgment of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable theological basis of the German Evangelical Church as a federation of Confessional Churches. It invites all who are able to accept its declaration to be mindful of these theological principles in their decisions in Church politics. It entreats all whom it concerns to return to the unity of faith, love, and hope.

Four things the Declaration made clear:

1. It was a distinctly Reformed document.

2. It opposed the encroachment of the State into church affairs.

3. By fiat of that opposition, and its adherence to the Reformation principles and confessions, it stood in direct opposition to the Roman Catholic Church whose structure and aims, though particular to itself, were not essentially different from the State and therefore excluded it and others like it, exclusively inviting all who accepted the Confessions of the Reformation to join in the purposes of the Barmen Declaration.

4. It did not tolerate any new perspectives of any group which would deny Sola Scriptura. In today’s parlance that would include many Emergent churches. Under the rubric of the Barmen, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and spurious religious sects we not included, rather they were implicitly excluded.

David Dockery of the SBC at Souther Baptist Theological Seminary has said that the Manhattan Declaration is like the Barmen:

Dockery said, “Not unlike the 1934 Barmen Declaration [the statement of the confessing church in Nazi Germany], the Manhattan Declaration is a clarion call for Christians of every tradition to stand together in biblical faithfulness for foundational matters of society and culture like commitments to life, marriage and family…. I pray that God will use this declaration among leaders and laity in churches, the academy and parachurch organizations to join hands together for the sake of the kingdom of God.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. The two documents address two fundamentally different concerns. The Barmen addresses the need to stand against the statists and their attempt to overthrow the authority of the church within its own realm while maintaining fealty to the Confessions and the right practice of matters pertaining to life. The Manhattan Declaration unavoidably separates the reason for living righteously from the foundation for doing so. In doing that The Mahattan Declaration is more like the formulations that constituted Barmen’s enemies (such as the Church party of the “German Christians”). The only difference between then and now is that the Manhattan declaration is not in concert with the ruling government. The highlighted portions demonstrate the difference between the two declarations and why it is that the Manhattan Declaration denies the sound Biblical principles of Reformation Confessions.

CAMPONTHIS: THE NEW DOWNGRADE…12 dangers of Evangelical Co-Belligerence related to the Manhattan Declaration

Pyromaniacs: Nineteen questions for signers of "The Manhattan Declaration"

(From: Discernment Research Group at Herescope)
Meditation that is not founded upon the Word of God, like a labyrinth, is a maze that ultimately ends up in futility, going nowhere but endless spirals.

Those who have practiced Eastern-style meditation, with its emptying of the mind and/or visualization (imagery), often do so because they desire to acquire peace, or because they are hurting and desire their inner psycho-spiritual needs to be met. Yet they will eventually find that their needs are not met, and they are more empty than ever. Further, this type of meditation opens one’s mind to occult spirituality – even if it is done under the aura of being “Christian.”

Read the rest of the article here.

Evil Emergents believe in Contemplative Prayer. Contemplative  Prayer was invented by Hindus and Papists. Romanists/Papists, Hindus and Muslims are of the devil and are members of the Synagogues of Satan. Barak Obama is a Muslim and the  political anti-Christ. Evil Emergents voted for Obama therefore Contemplative Prayer is destroying America and the Church:

Our excellent discernmentalist and researchmentalist skills which God gifted us with Himself have led  us to conclude these Absolute Truth facts—so if you are anything like us (Elect of God, regenerate, American, Ultra Right Wing Conservative Fundamentalist Calvinist Republicans, warmongers, capitalist materialists, non-Marxists, Saved, inerrant, etc.),  you should avoid Contemplative Prayer like the plague. And if you are an Evil Emergent then all we have to say to you is Repent that is if God lets you repent—because We Know with Absolute Certainty that you Emergents are of the non-Elect, unregenerate, anti-American, Arminian, Neo-Marxist, socialist, communist, anti-capitalists, reprobated and unsaved—because of your impure doctrines. Afterall, God only listens to Imprecatory Prayers   which we are praying against  you Emergents right now—and the only meditation one needs is on the Holy Inerrant Infallible Word Of God—the King James Bible AV1611.

Hard hitting post at this site: http://worldofdod.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/jesus-didnt-die-for-your-debt/ I think this should be made into a tract to reach out to all those involved in Word of Faith/Rhema churches, and to all those others wherever they may be presently deluded by the false prosperity gospel.

Todd Friel had this video on his Wretched site. Screwtape Letters was written by C. S. Lewis. C. S. Lewis was not  a Calvinist and a heretic who believed in universalism—so therefore Todd Friel is promoting universalism. Saint  John MacArthur would be apalled. We are too that’s why we had to discernmentalize Todd. Repent Todd lest ye be found among the unregenerate repobated non-Elect false converts and therefore unworthy to recieve a Christmas card from Saint John MacArthur.

“No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the LORD.” ~Proverbs 21:30

It has been a trying couple of weeks. I’ve been assaulted by all manner of strange philosophies and ideologies that claim Christ as their core, and yet they seem as far from Christ as possible. As one who associates with a certain subculture, I find it so frustrating to see self-professing Christians use awkwardly interpreted Scriptures to justify their actions and associations, and then stop there. As if they want to move forward in their hobbies and interests and pull the Christian card only when it’s convenient.

As a Side Note: Let me just say this, if you have to search the Scriptures for some loophole to justify whatever it is that you are doing, perhaps you shouldn’t be doing it. I have seen people search for loopholes to justify tattoos, piercings, clothing styles, listening to certain types of music, having a drink of alcohol, smoking, or whatever else it may be that they desire to do. If you are fighting your conscience on a matter, let your conscience win because how much greater is God than your own conscience? Tattoos, piercings, etc. (I’m picking on those because they are the silliest matters I’ve seen addressed) are not for everybody. If you are starting to feel a pang of guilt for considering that cool tattoo you want to get, don’t get it. It might not be for you at the moment, or it may not be for you at all.

What part of LORD do we not understand? Are we not to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is our spiritual worship? Do we not know that we are not our own, for we were bought at a price? It as if we are more concerned with being our own unique individual self, than we are about denying ourselves, taking up our cross daily, and following the Lord Jesus Christ who redeemed us with His Blood on Calvary.

Lord, help us. We are so weak, and we are so feeble.

Over the past few weeks I have listened to a man who is more interested in gathering disciples for himself, and convincing others that he has the right answers, than he is in seeking the Scriptures and giving his life over to God. A man who wants so much to be some grand spiritual leader, and yet his fruit bears witness to the spiritual death that is inside of him. And he is so enchanted by his own self grandeur, in love with his idols of education and antiquity, that I can’t help but to be reminded of the Word which says:

“The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

~2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

And it hurts because we’ve had this conversation, we’ve been down this trail, and that tree looks all too familiar.

Somehow, it seems that Christ isn’t important or exciting anymore. That He has somehow bored us, and now we have to dress Him up in the latest fashions just to keep Him relevant and inviting to ourselves and to the culture around us. It is absolutely ridiculous the idolatry that we have found ourselves in. And more and more as I see the culture around me, and Christians who look more like the culture around me than they do Christ, I’m starting to wonder where did it all go wrong.

When did Christ become not enough? When did the cries of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria become so offensive and trite that we simply let them fade away? It seems now, that what matters most is that we be inviting and welcoming with a message that reaches out to the community, and -as far as I have seen- more often than not, that message is a watered down gospel cluttered with all manner of gimmicks and funny jokes to make it entertaining and look attractive to a dying world that revels in its own decay.

THE GOSPEL IS AN OFFENSE to those that are perishing. THE CROSS IS AN OFFENSE to those that deny Christ as Lord and Savior. Watering down the gospel, or smoothing off the rough edges of the cross (to paraphrase C. H. Spurgeon), is to rob God. Are we somehow more loving and more wise than our Father in Heaven that we try to take the offense out of that which is incredibly offensive?

Man is wicked and at enmity with God. Man is on a fast lane speeding towards Hell with a smile on his face. Man is making merry to eternal damnation, and unless we tell him how offensive and heinous his sin is to God, and what Christ has done that men might be saved, man will continue happily on his way to an eternity that stops in the full presence of God’s wrath.

I am fearful also, that there are a number of people who call themselves Christians, that have gone to church all their lives, that have done all the churchy things expected of them, who were at every Sunday service, and maybe at various midweek and home services, that will stand before God and hear those terrible words, “Depart from me, you worker of iniquity. I never knew you!” When our lives have no sign of change, when sin is of no importance to us, when holiness means nothing to us, when Christ is a subject we already know all about, when we live like the devil (to paraphrase Paul Washer) shouldn’t we be terrified?

How is your life any different now from before you knew Christ?

The Manhattan Declaration was encouraging, but I’m afraid it is not enough. Spurring us to act in regards to certain moral issues with a piece of paper signed by Christian and Christian-like religious leaders is heart breaking. Why should we be compelled to do that which we should have been doing from the beginning? Should it not be second nature for us to oppose the murder of unborn children? Should it not be second nature for us to oppose the various sexually immoral unions and encounters that we are being pressured into approving? Why does it take a piece of paper to get some of us to act? Why haven’t we already been taking to the streets with the GOSPEL!?

What makes our lives different from the unbelieving? Is there something that obviously sets us apart from the world around us beyond our words? Do our neighbors look at us and know something is different about our lives? Or are we simply content with putting on a t-shirt that says “Jesus” in a logo similar to that of a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, instead of putting on Christ each and every day?

I am tired of lukewarm Christianity. I am tired of the “Have it Your Way” fast food gospel. I’m tired of churchianity and a church culture that denies Christ and promotes a life given to moralistic deism.

It is as if somehow our wisdom, our understanding, and our counsel are greater than God’s. Somehow we’ve become more intelligent, more gentle, more loving, and more peaceful than God. And this blasphemy is taking us, and the world, straight to Hell.

Lord, help us. We are weak, and we are feeble.

“No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the LORD.” ~Proverbs 21:30

Bhubaneshwar boy behind the cigarette,
puffing out his Old Town dreams;
Black grooves on his fingers,
dark as Maalisaahi streets.

Smirk on his face, bitterness in mouth,
Cuttack in the north, Bhubaneshwar to the south;
Open pits and uncovered drains,
sweeping away the filth from sinful rains.

A city of non-believers, slimy serpents,
a forgotten past and of course,
Gods staring out of walls,
armed with swords and tridents,
from their seats lest they fall.

The glowing cigarette, a riot in the night,
like a ghostly galleon in space,
circled by puffs swirling in the dim light;
When Gods creep indoors and Demons rule the roads,
darkness ushers in a tormenting sight.

Our boy walks alone, prince of the dark streets;
Pleading Gods and fearful Ghosts brushed arrogantly aside;
Bhubaneshwar on the tip of his cigarette,
the kid lights it up with that knowing smile in his eyes.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Islam is no peace religion, though many in the world thought it to be for they had not known anything about Islam till recently.

Islam has a ‘holy writ.’ It is called the Koran. Most of the world has not read one word from it. Posted is a footnote directing the reader to the entire Koran. Read some of it, please.

It is not holy writ. The Koran has no Savior, no mercy, no divine grace, no hope of a holy heaven, no peace of soul for the truly repentant, no Good Samaritan parable, no Love Chapter such as I  Corinthians 13 and no Psalm 23, the Good Shepherd’s psalm.

Please read parts of the Koran to know its obvious dark side.

Further, Islam is the only world religion that demands all non-devotees be slain. It really is not a world religion; it is a cult, laden with violence.

Those not committed to Allah are to be annihilated. Those Muslims who do not participate in the annihilating the infidels are themselves to be slain.

That means that only Muslims stand in the last day. That is why zealots work night and day to further Islam World Rule. That is to be the last chapter prior to Islam’s Messiah returning on Earth to reign.

Islam’s god is Allah. Allah promises those males who commit to suicide killings scores of virgins upon their last breath. There is nothing in the Koran promised females who commit suicide for the cause.

Islamic mothers who are totally surrendered to Allah pray that their children will end their lives in suicide bombings. They pray for this. They boast to neighbors of their offspring committing suicide to rid the planet of infidels.

Islamic organizations present themselves as humanitarian. That is part of the Muslim lie. Muslims are directed by Allah to lie, that being a virtue, in order to hoodwink non-Muslims.

Take for instance Barack Husein Obama. He lies. He lies again and again. That is regarded by his Muslim cohorts as laudable for it fools Americans into thinking he is an honorable leader. Evidence shows himself to be just the opposite. Obama is a Marxist Muslim.

Imams can use their positions to teach violence, particularly in a democracy such as America. They hold sessions with their devotees in order to refine the destructive process of leveling the Republic.

Mosques can be used as shelters for sleeping cells where Muslim recruits are sharpened in the battle. If the signal is given in America, for instance, for these sleeper cells to come alive in attacking the populace, the neighborly Muslims will turn into warriors.

Allah teaches his children how to play friendly to those unsuspects around them. Friendliness is a ploy for Allah’s sake.

Footnote:

KORAN at http://jgrantswankjr.blogspot.com/2009/02/koran_1380.html

All Arminians are not ignorant of the Bible—the King James Bible AV 1611–unlike we Calvinists who are not inerrant because of our Pure Doctrines and Godly education so Arminian sermons are not a  bunch of Babel. All Arminians are in league with the devil because they are so evil especially Wesley who never burnt heretics at the stake like our Final Prophet commands us to. We know with Absolute Certainty that when an Arminian or Emergent preaches about Jesus and prays in His name, they are not really preaching about Satan Lucifer and praying to the devil–for all Arminian and Emergent sermons do not promote the  Purpose Driven Heresy and works based salvation  by money making pyramid schemes—unlike our blind obedience to faithful teaching of the imPure unBiblical Doctrines of crapitalist materialism Capitalism. Ken Silva warns all members of God’s Only Inerrant Party of the non-Soul Damning non-heresy of Arminian teachings and preaching so ye non-heretics should not pay heed.  Our Discernmentalist Doctrines of God’s Wrath are not Pure, Inerrant and Holy and so are our Expository Sermons —which is not the only True and Pure way to preach— and the reason you should not only listen to us.

Currently in Orthodoxy, we have churches divided over which hierarch has jurisdiction over which country. We have issues of whether a calendar devised or approved of by a Roman Pope could be acceptable or adjusted for calculating feasts and fasts. The issues which divide jurisdictions and arguments between so-called Traditionalists and so-called Modernists are matters of straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

The Orthodox Church as well as all Christians worldwide have been brought face-to-face with challenges to the fundamental concepts of life and the very nature of the family. I would suggest that these challenges are at least as significant and perhaps of farther reaching implications than the doctrinal challenges facing the Church of the first eight centuries.

Both of these go straight to the heart of who we are as humans. Both of these are at the foundation of the created order.

The Councils of the Church debated much finer details than these. That the matters facing the Church today even raise questions would have been unthinkable to the Church Fathers. Neither the Arians, nor the Monothelites, nor the Monophysites, nor the Nestorians, nor the Docetists, nor the Donatists, nor the Pelagians, et al., ad nauseum, would have considered, not to mention condoned, abortion or same-sex “marriage”.

This can be put into Christological terms. If we condone abortion because we say the unborn child is not human, we deny the humanity of Christ in the womb of Mary.  To condone abortion is to deny the Incarnation.  That is heresy.

If we say affirm the humanity of the unborn, but say it is permissible to wilfully take the life of an innocent human – neither a military combatant nor a criminal – we condone murder. To say that murder is not a sin is heresy.

Any Christian who says that either the unborn child is not human or that it is okay to willfully take the life of an unborn human is heretic. Any priest, bishop, archbishop, metropolitan, or patriarch who says that either the unborn child is not human or that it is okay to wilfully take the life of an unborn human is heretic.

So if a hierarch says that Orthodox church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, “generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of pregnancy,”but that the church also “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples,” and further that “We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples. We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion,” is this heresy?

Any layman or deacon or priest who is under the omophorion of a bishop and any bishop who is under obedience to a hierarch that is a heretic should take appropriate action. Any bishop who is in communion with a heretical bishop should take appropriate action. It could be argued that any heretical bishop is not in the Church. It could be argued that any priest who is obedience to any bishop not in the Church is also not in the Church.

I leave this for you to ponder and/or comment.

With regard to purported same-sex marriage, there is also a Christological issue. “For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.” Marriage is based in the relationship of Christ to the Church. Just as the Church cannot have two heads, neither can the marriage. To allege that a marriage can have two husbands or two wives is to deny that Christ alone is the head of the Church. It is to deny the very nature of the Church. It is heresy.

It is also a denial of the image of God. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply…’ ” God’s blessing of His image is based in His command to be fruitful and multiply. It is not based in heterosexuality – rather is it impossible without heterosexuality. The sexual aspect is such a given that it need not even be mentioned. To deny it is to deny man as the image of God.

So if a bishop is asked if same-sex unions are a threat to the traditional family, and he says, “Absolutely not. I don’t see that at all…. I would say God bless you,” is this heresy?

I also leave this for you to ponder and/or comment.

Click here for video:   The Grave Influence of Karl Marx.

Click here to offer feedback on this video

Brannon Howse speaking on Karl Marx and the Marxist revolution taking place in America with the help of liberal churches, the social gospel and social justice. Karl Marx is one of the radicals Brannon exposes in his new book, Grave Influence: 21 Radicals and Their Worldviews That Rule America From The Grave.
Click here to purchase your copy of the book Grave Influence

Distributed by www.WorldviewTube.com

Views: 1319

Return to home

“The modern “heresy” that medical care (as it is traditionally conceived) is generally unrelated to improvements in the health of populations (as distinct from individuals) is still dismissed as unthinkable in much the same way as the so-called heresies of former times. And this is despite a long history of support in popular and scientific writings as well as from able minds in a variety of disciplines.”

The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century

by John B. McKinlay; Sonja M. McKinlay

Published in 1977 in the Milbank Memorial Quarterly, Vol. 55, No.3. pp. 405-428

In this study, the McKinlays’ explore a steep decline in the top 10 communicable diseases. (Tuberculosis, Scarlet Fever, Influenza, Pneumonia, Diptheria, Whooping Cough, Measels, Smallpox, Typhoid, Poliomyelitis) This unified decline occurred over a period of about 100 years from 1900 to 1973 . Even the most virulent of these diseases were near their currently flat expression when science developed the means to mass produce vaccines in the years leading up to 1949.

Male and Female Mortality Rates Since 1900

As this chart from the paper shows, the decline in mortality from 1900 to the 1970’s for both males and females was markedly dramatic.

They compare this decline in mortality to similar declines in the communicable diseases listed previously.

Decline in Communicable Diseases since 1900

And also included is a graph charting causes of death from the early 1900’s in comparison to the years just prior to this paper’s publication.

Changes in Causes of Mortality since 1900

Which leads to the authors’ conclusion:

In general, medical measures (both chemotherapeutic andprophylactic) appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900-having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances. More specifically, with reference to those five conditions (influenza, pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough, and poliomyelitis) for which the decline in mortality appears substantial after the point of intervention-and on the unlikely assumption that all of this decline is attributable to the intervention-it is estimated that at most 3.5 percent of the total decline in mortality since 1900 could beascribed to medical measures introduced for the diseases considered here.

This graph shows the diseases and their declines in comparison:

Compilation Graph

I would imagine that even the average lay reader, on viewing this graph of the mass decline, can easily imagine each disease effortlessly reaching current levels without the advent of commonly available vaccines. But if vaccines are not responsible for the dramatic decline in mortality, how else can it be explained?

It is widely known that a sea change in patient survival came after more stringent practices regarding hygiene and sterility of spaces and implements used in medical procedures were undertaken for both patient and physician. And as medicine and science progressed in their research of communicable disease and underlying factors that allowed them to spread. Along the way researchers and doctors also began to understand the things that create health.

Massive public campaigns, programs and projects were implemented. For instance swamps were drained to reduce breeding grounds for mosquitoes. And a broad swath of society, from low to high, were educated about cleanliness and hygiene.

From the CDC’s website:

In 1900 in some U.S. cities, up to 30% of infants died before reaching their first birthday (1). Efforts to reduce infant mortality focused on improving environmental and living conditions in urban areas (1). Urban environmental interventions (e.g., sewage and refuse disposal and safe drinking water) played key roles in reducing infant mortality. Rising standards of living, including improvements in economic and education levels of families, helped to promote health. Declining fertility rates also contributed to reductions in infant mortality through longer spacing of children, smaller family size, and better nutritional status of mothers and infants (1). Milk pasteurization, first adopted in Chicago in 1908, contributed to the control of milkborne diseases (e.g., gastrointestinal infections) from contaminated milk supplies.

Refrigeration became commonly available. That and other household inventions like window screens, indoor plumbing, and strategies to deal with outhouse placement in relation to well placement and other improvements made possible by gains in real income.

Because, according to the McKinlay’s paper:

With the appearance of his book, Who Shall Live? (1974), Fuchs, a health economist, contributed to the resurgence of interest in the relative contribution of medical care to the modern decline in mortality in the United States. He believes there has been an unprecedented improvement in health in the United States since about the middle of the eighteenth century, associated primarily with a rise in real income.

In light of a number of similar reports, which have been ignored or overlooked questions about vaccines begin to center on efficacy versus the potential for harm. There are those “skeptics” who are quick to label any such questions as the “heresy” described by the McKinlays’. One would hope, at this point, they might review the widely accepted definition of skepticism as one of continuing exploration. There are no concrete truths in science, only evolving theories that should, in the best of all possible worlds, be continuously re-examined and re-tested.

We should also consider similar themes of hygiene in relation to income levels through the lens of such ideas as: mandated control of working conditions, food preparation and storage, statutes for safe drinking water and the establishment of agencies dealing specifically with issues of public health. Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle can act as a literary touchstone for the ideas presented here.

Now is the time for us to ask ourselves: Would the money spent on the now all-but-neutered health care bill be used more effectively by developing jobs for the populace so that real income levels rise for those most affected by the downturn? Would a combination of public health education and income increases work to reduce the current spate of common causes of death as it did in the first half of the last century even though the cause of mortality has changed? I think we need to take a broader view of what has worked in the past, as it is evident that medicating the problems will not solve them now any more than it did then.

I’ve never liked The Beatles. Even as a kid there was something condescending in their melodies and lyrics. I felt like a dog watching a ball bounce, my head forcibly nodding against the staccato handclapping and harmonized shouts of cheer. I didn’t have a fully formed world view, but I knew by instinct it was piffle to say “Nothing you can know that isn’t known/ Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.” There’s a folksy egotism in their cheerfulness; as if the universe exists simply because we’re here to witness it, and that fact should be sung out loud.

When I heard “Nobody Told Me” for the first time I started to get an inclination of what I felt was missing. I really like John Lennon’s solo records, but The Beatles make my teeth clinch. You’ve heard before about all the attendant dishonesty and hucksterism that built up The Beatles, in every bit the same way as have been New Kids on the Block, The Backstreet Boys, N’Sync, and the Jonas Brothers.

They began a bunch of woefully ambitious teenagers with Little Richard in their eyes. After playing local coffee shops and eeking out a meager tour in Germany, they hire Bruce Epstein, whom Paul McCartney would later call the real “fifth Beatle.” With Epstein’s help, the milky and red-lipped runts started wearing suits, won a record contract, and kept playing regular gigs with Epstein covering expenses. And then the kindling of dimples, eternal love, and an E Major caught fire and turned them into something like a sneeze, but even better.

In the first album review I ever wrote, I wondered what a fifteen year-old really has to share with the world. I asked it of Miley Cyrus, but I think the question deserves to be asked of The Beatles. They formed as miscreant teenagers, hung on long enough to find a similarly hungry manager, and won themselves a podium in front of the world before they’d even really had a chance to live. I don’t mind being sung to by teenagers, but I’d prefer they do it in a voice that’s their own. The Beatles sound chillingly impersonal to me. They sound like a bunch of sophomores with big lungs and an ear for form, unconvicted smiles and headbobs to accompany songs about loving someone forever.

Their music sounds cold and alien to me, the pious augmented chords from the hymnal conflated with the sing-along major chords of Gilbert and Sullivan. Even when there was nothing else like it, The Beatles still bore the stiff structures of their deathly boring antecedents in proper British culture.

It’s bizarre to see how many people still like The Beatles, and seem to do so without having much thought about why. In most company it goes almost without having to ask, it’s simply assumed that you’ll like them. We all do.

I’ve been called a bullshit artist by a lot of people. My friend S, upon first meeting me, used to peer at me suspiciously when we talked because she was always trying to figure out if I was being serious or not. It’s an easy trick to look someone in the eye and tell them something of which you have no serious understanding.

It’s a pretty idea to imagine we’re rational creatures who communicate through intellect, experience, and exchange. But people are just as prone to believe something based on the way it sounds, or how pretty is the box in which it comes. Go read a newspaper, watch a news show and listen to how much unfounded assertion there is in the daily life. And listen to your friends, co-workers, and family members parrot these assertions which they’ve internalized, not because they’re true, but because they arrived with some startling force and conviction.

I often wonder if I could get away with writing articles whose factuating hyperlinks point to nonsense. I could make a claim about the civil war in Sri Lanka and link to a clip of Looney Tunes just as easily as I could a news story from the AP. Alternately, I could write something filled with daggers and venom about some political conspiracy whose supporting texts were dense thickets, 10,000 word think tank reports which needed to be fished through to discover the one relevant passage which, I’d inevitably be mischaracterizing.

But if things sounds true, based on some subliminal animal response to tone of voice, diction, body language, and insinuation, then they becomes true.  Perception is reality. I wish I could have created a compilation of the reactions I’ve gotten in telling people that I don’t really like The Beatles. The blank disbelieving eyes, the head turned to the side in mistrust. I told my friend C that The Beatles were church music with a backbeat and he’s made it into a refrain whenever I see him.

When I was twelve I was in love with Milli Vanilli. For a year or two, their first album became the candy coating on my pre-teen ennui. I doped myself with their music, feeding hopeless crushes that stretched towards infinity, and daydreams about another summer vacation. I didn’t know anything. My conscious life had unfolded in a quiet suburb measured in bicycle routes. The only scandals I knew were about neighbors divorcing or kids throwing parties when their parents were out of town. It was a simpler time, one that placated my sense for bullshit. It lasted for a while, but as soon as I started listening to another generation’s bullshit, I realized I was already covered in it.

“Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord”  2 Corinthians 6:17

2 Cor 6:14,15,17-BE YE (that is you) NOT UNEQUALLY YOKED TOGETHER WITH UNBELIEVERS: FOR WHAT FELLOWSHIP HATH RIGHTEOUSNESS WITH UNRIGHTEOUSNESS? AND WHAT COMMUNION HATH LIGHT WITH DARKNESS?…WHAT PART HATH HE THAT BELIEVETH WITH AN INFIDEL (an unbeliever)? WHEREFORE COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM, AND BE YE (that is you) SEPARATE, SAITH THE LORD

Brannon Howse in his latest missive brings out the importance of the Pure Biblical Doctrine of Separatism. Here is the first paragraph from his laxative missive:

The Emerging Third Way of Apostate Pastors and Globalist Leaders

By Brannon S. Howse

The following is an excerpt from the just released book by Brannon Howse, Grave Influence: 21 Radicals and Their Worldviews That Rule America From The Grave (368 pages, hard-cover)Click here to order your copy today:
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/store/product.php?ProductID=1044 

 

 

The leaders in the educational establishment, the apostate Church, occultism/pagan spirituality, or the government-corporate complex want the idea of social and spiritual evolution embraced worldwide in order to bring about their desired “new order” or “new world order.” Secular humanist and Fabian Socialist Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous) was the First Director General of the United Nations Educational, Science, and Culture Organization (UNESCO). He explained, “The task is to help the emergence of a single world culture…”[1]

 

Did you hear that strong separtist language? That’s right America should not be separated from the other nations as  they are not are Pure and are not full of darkness. This is why GOIP Labs is working on secret technology to totally separate America God’s Chosen and Holy Nation from the darkness of all those other heathen nations–especially Canada, Russia and France.

Keep ye separate from heathen political parties and do not mix with their ideologies.  This is another non-essential subjective opinion on a non-Absolute biblical truth highlighted in Brannon’s forceful farceful fartful succint essay:

This “task” is even at work in America’s political arena. Bill Clinton’s mentor and former professor Carrol Quigley made this clear in his book, Tragedy and Hope:

The chief problem of American political life…has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.[2]

And it’s working. While there are some truly conservative Republicans, most embrace the same worldview and agenda of their fellow politicians across the aisle. This is a form of Marx’s dialectic process, the true intent of which is revealed by Julian Huxley:

…at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other…You may categorize the two philosophies as super nationalism, or as individualism versus collectivism…or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity verses Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? I believe not only that this can happen, but that, through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen.[3]

Those who buy into Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution and apply it to society embrace this concept of social evolution. There are others who apply it not only to the social and cultural arenas but also to the spiritual world. Generally, these are New Age devotees of the New Spirituality. Generally-but not always.

We agree that mixing political parties is like the non-evilness of Progressive Christians mixing with Athiests against their commmon foe the nutcase Brannon Howse period. Clearly Athiests and  Emergents are not to blame for all of our political problems.

"Alexamenos worships his god"-Alexamenos Graffito

The Alexamenos graffito discovered in 1857 also known as the graffito blasfemo is an inscription carved in plaster on a wall near the Palatine Hill in Rome. It is generally thought to be the earliest known pictorial representation of the crucifixion of Jesus.The crude drawing in no uncertain terms depicts the said Alexamenos worshipping a Bart-Simpson-esque man with a head of an ass. Comical…but sadly blasphemous.
I wonder if Alexamenos was a christian. I wonder if it was a work mate or a former lover who engraved  the repugnant inscription. Could it have been a self portrait in his moments of soul searching? Had he been reading that verse that Paul wrote to the greeks in Corinth:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Cor 1:18 ESV

Had Alexamenos been preaching the word of the cross? Was he an evangelist or a new christian? I wonder. Maybe we are not meant to know.

Today’s modern day evangelical will site a pathetic car bumper sticker saying “God Loves You…” as their best attempt at evangelism and reaching the world around them. Never is there a mention of a cross…sometimes a fish symbol may sneak up as a lapel pin. Nevertheless this in its self cannot be far from the truth. It is a half truth that is left hanging. Whatever happened to preaching Christ crucified? You cannot talk about the love of God without talking about the bloodied cross. The cross was and is an item of shame and contemptuous foolishness both to the Jew and the Gentile. But to those who are saved, it is the gracious love of God displayed.

God His son not sparing, sent him to die...

The Old Testament  said cursed is he who hangs on the tree. It further asserts that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Jesus went to the accursed cross and had all my sin put on him because He loved me enough to die for me. Surely He has borne my sicknesses and carried my pains, yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for my transgressions, He was bruised for my iniquities, the chastisement for my peace was upon Him, and by His stripes I am healed.

Today when you hear some one say “God loves you”, remember this:
For God so loved so loved the world, that He gave his only son that who ever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life- John 3:16 ESV

In 1859, two years after the discovery of the Alexamenos graffito, Carl Gustav Boberg a Swedish poet was born. Carl, was yet to pen the foundations of the now reknown famous christian hymn How Great Thou Art. I dream of meeting Alexamenos in Heaven one day. I can imagine the emotion in his voice as he belts out that verse of the hymn that goes:

And when I think, that God, His Son not sparing;
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.

Then sings my soul, my Saviour God, to Thee;

How great Thou art, how great Thou art! - Carl Gustav Boberg

It will probably be at this moment that the penny will drop as the Alexamenos graffito will be re-enacted one more time. Only this time me and Alexamenos will be worshipping his God!