My last post was in response to a blog that was against Dispensationalism, but since there are a lot of readers/friends that might not be entirely or accurately familiar with what Moderate Dispensationalism teaches, or at least what I believe, I decided to put together a post to help explain what Dispensationalism.
Explaining Dispensational theology in one post is about as explanatory as describing an internal combustion engine by saying that it burns gas and turns a shaft to run a car. By that, I mean that Dispensationalism is such a vast and complex topic that a cursory explanation does little more than create a thousand questions in the minds of the readers, and in this case, almost every reader is going to have a thousand different questions than any other reader! However, I think it is important to make an attempt, if simply to help provide a well-rounded experience when it comes to Bible doctrine, as well as to open up dialogue with people who have never seen the Bible in this light.
Buckle up: here we go!
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
A Response to Anti-Dispensationalism
I know of few people that describe themselves as "anti-dispensationalists." Many I know would distance themselves from Dispensationalism, calling it "Ruckmanism," of all things, but until recently I had heard of very few people that would actually believe that Dispensational theology is unbiblical. For instance, the church I grew up in did not teach what I call Rightly Dividing, that God dealt with different people differently at different times in history: i.e. Adam was given different commands than Noah who was given different commands than Abraham, etc. Israel was unquestionably required to keep the WORKS of the Law: yes they were a picture of Christ, but they had absolutely no clue about that! Also, Jesus taught meekness and non-violence, but to Jews only, while Paul taught forbearance as much as possible and called people fools, directly contrary to Christ's command in Matthew 5:22.
Then, even more recently, I saw a link to a blog posted by someone: the title of the blog actually stated that they were against Dispensationalism. I eventually came to find that they were post-milleniallists, which started to make sense, and I was asked by a couple of people to respond to the blog post in question. This is that response: I hope you can at least learn something of my stance, even if I'm not able to change your doctrinal stance.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Paradise and Heaven
One of the more obscure topics in the Bible is the actual location of Paradise, and, by extrapolation, Heaven itself. I was recently accosted by a man who insisted that Paradise is and always has been Heaven, based on a few Scripture references. I intend to show the origin of these locales based on what the Bible says.
Again, I make the King James Bible my sole authority: any Scripture used is King James only, and any other references will be ensured to line up with Scripture. No other Book has the power or authority of the Monarch of the Books, the Authorized Version of the Bible.
Again, I don't wish to get into the Gap issue here, but it must be noted that in the original creation, God only created one heaven. The atmosphere, also called the firmament, is also called "heaven" or "the firmament of heaven." So we can safely say that "heaven" doesn't immediately mean God's throne (Matt. 5:34), but has several meanings. Specifically, the Apostle Paul speaks of being caught up to the "third heaven" after beingrocked to sleep stoned to death. He also uses the word "paradise" in that context, stating that the place where he went was called "paradise." Since the typical consensus is that paradise is not in the third heaven, allow me to explain what must be, according to the Scriptures.
The first instance of the word "paradise" is found in Luke 23:43.
Very obviously, Jesus is saying to the thief on the cross that he (the thief) will be with Christ after their deaths, that same day. Therefore, wherever Jesus is to be found immediately after His death, the thief will also be present.
Jesus was clearly stating here that He would go to Hell during the time when He was dead.
Also reference this:
Christ's suffering was the means by which He preached to the spirits in prison (2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6) in the same Hell where the rich man went (Luke 16:19-31) and saw Abraham's Bosom.
These places, Abraham's Bosom, and Hell, were separated by a "great gulf" which was impassable, meaning that while communication was indeed possible as this story proves, they were definitely separate places, one being a place of torment, and the other being described as comfortable. Therefore, since Jesus spent those three days in Hell, and He promised the thief that he would be with Christ in Paradise, the only logical conclusion that "Abraham's Bosom" is also called "paradise," the temporary resting place for righteous Old Testament souls whose sins had not yet been washed away under the Old Covenant of the Law. These people could no more enter heaven proper without proper atonement for their sins than could any lost person today: they had to have their sins forgiven first, which means that Christ had to die and pay their sin-debt! (Eph. 4:8)
So, we can see how that Christ very clearly said that paradise was in the center of the earth along with Hell. However, we also see that Paul stated that paradise was in the third Heaven. The simplest way to reconcile this "contradiction" is to simply accept that when Christ "led captivity captive," the place in Heaven where they went is also called "paradise" in the Bible.
There is much more to this study, including the Deep, the Pit, the Lake of Fire, and the whole origin and purpose of these places. However, I believe I covered the intended topic sufficiently, so we will let it rest until another time.
Comment if you have questions or have Biblical evidence of where I am wrong on this topic: I am always open to the correction of the Book!
Again, I make the King James Bible my sole authority: any Scripture used is King James only, and any other references will be ensured to line up with Scripture. No other Book has the power or authority of the Monarch of the Books, the Authorized Version of the Bible.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Again, I don't wish to get into the Gap issue here, but it must be noted that in the original creation, God only created one heaven. The atmosphere, also called the firmament, is also called "heaven" or "the firmament of heaven." So we can safely say that "heaven" doesn't immediately mean God's throne (Matt. 5:34), but has several meanings. Specifically, the Apostle Paul speaks of being caught up to the "third heaven" after being
The first instance of the word "paradise" is found in Luke 23:43.
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Very obviously, Jesus is saying to the thief on the cross that he (the thief) will be with Christ after their deaths, that same day. Therefore, wherever Jesus is to be found immediately after His death, the thief will also be present.
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jesus was clearly stating here that He would go to Hell during the time when He was dead.
Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Also reference this:
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Christ's suffering was the means by which He preached to the spirits in prison (2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6) in the same Hell where the rich man went (Luke 16:19-31) and saw Abraham's Bosom.
These places, Abraham's Bosom, and Hell, were separated by a "great gulf" which was impassable, meaning that while communication was indeed possible as this story proves, they were definitely separate places, one being a place of torment, and the other being described as comfortable. Therefore, since Jesus spent those three days in Hell, and He promised the thief that he would be with Christ in Paradise, the only logical conclusion that "Abraham's Bosom" is also called "paradise," the temporary resting place for righteous Old Testament souls whose sins had not yet been washed away under the Old Covenant of the Law. These people could no more enter heaven proper without proper atonement for their sins than could any lost person today: they had to have their sins forgiven first, which means that Christ had to die and pay their sin-debt! (Eph. 4:8)
So, we can see how that Christ very clearly said that paradise was in the center of the earth along with Hell. However, we also see that Paul stated that paradise was in the third Heaven. The simplest way to reconcile this "contradiction" is to simply accept that when Christ "led captivity captive," the place in Heaven where they went is also called "paradise" in the Bible.
There is much more to this study, including the Deep, the Pit, the Lake of Fire, and the whole origin and purpose of these places. However, I believe I covered the intended topic sufficiently, so we will let it rest until another time.
Comment if you have questions or have Biblical evidence of where I am wrong on this topic: I am always open to the correction of the Book!
Monday, February 1, 2010
Preaching about Preaching??
In my years in Bible Believing, Baptist churches, I've heard many good sermons. I've tried to make a habit of taking notes, especially with visiting pastors, and I've even "borrowed" some of their material to make my own sermons.
On the other hand, I've heard a lot of bad sermons. And I mean BAD. For instance, a while back I saw a YouTube video of a young whippersnapper preaching an entire sermon against another preacher, a man FOUR TIMES HIS AGE. Not only was this young novice incredibly ignorant about the man (he called Dr. Ruckman a Brider!?!?), but he was railing against an Elder, one against whom he was not to receive an accusation (1 Tim. 5:19), and someone whom he is to entreat as a father (1 Tim. 5:1). For this young kid to behave so reprehensibly in just that one "sermon," so proudly displayed on YouTube, is an absolute disgrace, and proves that he is indeed a novice who is NOT grave, nor sober minded, nor fit for the ministry in the least.
A second message by this loud-mouth was on "watered down preaching," a topic that while I agree with and understand the importance of sound, biblical preaching, I hardly think is a topic that deserves its own sermon!! A cursory look at the common fare of this young person's sermons shows that he is extremely heavy on sin, standards, and separation, and preaching on doctrine, spiritual topics, and FOOD for the SHEEP is severely lacking.
This is the largest problem in "Independent, Fundamental, Skirt-wearin', Hellfire and damnation preachin', oh yeah and King James only Baptist" circles today: too many people are majoring on the minors and minoring on the majors!!! Yes, we need to preach righteousness. Yes, it is important to preach hard and straight. Yes, it is important to draw a line sometimes. BUT IT DOESN'T FEED THE SHEEP! If you have a church full of nothing but hard preaching and standards, you'll have a bunch of shallow people who will be blown away the first time a Jehovah's Witness shows them something that's "wrong" in their Bible or a "truth" that you don't teach or that contradicts what little doctrine your people get. Your people will know that speaking in tongues is wicked, but they won't know WHY. They will know that they are supposed to dress modestly, but they will dress the way YOU WANT THEM TO because THAT'S what you preach instead of what the BIBLE SAYS.
A good, balanced church is comprised of three different types of discourse: Doctrinal teaching, Spiritual preaching, and Practical application to help them in their day-to-day lives. A church with too much of one kind or too little of another will be imbalanced and will lead to dry or shallow Christians who don't have what it takes to be a shining light in our communities.
Pardon the rant, but doctrinally-decrepit loudmouths are getting on my nerves lately, and since this is my blog, I figured I'd take advantage and say something.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Yet more on evolution
See, I just can't put the topic down. When I actually get around to posting, I have a tendency to hit the same topic over and over again until I finally get a new topic to ride for a while.
Here are some very problematic things that evolutionists have to completely ignore in order to continue believing their Mother Goose-style fairy tale religion:
Abiogenesis, or the rise of life from non-living material. Fransisco Redi and Louis Pasteur proved this nonsense to be exactly that: nonsense, between 100 and 200+ years ago. The question is then, how can someone who claims to be intelligent actually think that life came from non-life, when there is neither evidence nor credible theory to back it up? Even Richard Dawkins, famous atheist and evolutionist, has no intelligent answer to this question, though even just the title of his book "The God Delusion" certainly sums up his thoughts about an intelligent Creator.
Thermodynamics, the Laws by which life, matter and energy are ruled. First, evolution cannot explain the basic existence of the things that these Laws rule; naturally-occurring spontaneous generation of the matter in the universe is directly contrary to the Laws, so even our existence is "illegal" when one believes in evolution. Secondly, the arise of "higher" creatures from "lower" ones requires an addition of genetic material that has not only never been observed, but is in fact a direct violation of the Laws as well. While and energy cannot be destroyed, they can be reduced to an unusable state, so everything tends to disorder, chaos and entropy, while the "theory" of evolution requires the exact opposite, which, once again, has never been observed in nature.
Beneficial Mutations, or random genetic cellular mutations that produce positive, helpful results. This is the cornerstone of the "Natural Selection" tenant held so dearly by evolutionists: only by slow, beneficial mutations can a creature hope to evolve into a more adapted creature. This thought even underlies the basic racism of the evolution "theory," in that since Aboriginal and African peoples are older and less evolved than whites, they are inferior (Hitler and Mussolini loved THAT one). However, the evolutionist's faith is challenged by the fact that all genetic mutations, from warts and missing limbs to cancer, are not only NOT beneficial, but are in fact harmful! Indeed, the human immune system knows well enough to attack mutated cells to help keep the body normal and healthy, so why would anyone think that these problems could be beneficial?
In conclusion, Evolution requires life to arise from non-living matter, which has never been observed nor even supported by any scientific research, complete circumvention of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is impossible since they are immutable, natural LAWS, and "beneficial" mutations, which have also never been observed nor supported by scientific findings. Therefore, we have, instead of a scientific theory, a religious belief unsupported by science or common sense.
Here are some very problematic things that evolutionists have to completely ignore in order to continue believing their Mother Goose-style fairy tale religion:
Abiogenesis, or the rise of life from non-living material. Fransisco Redi and Louis Pasteur proved this nonsense to be exactly that: nonsense, between 100 and 200+ years ago. The question is then, how can someone who claims to be intelligent actually think that life came from non-life, when there is neither evidence nor credible theory to back it up? Even Richard Dawkins, famous atheist and evolutionist, has no intelligent answer to this question, though even just the title of his book "The God Delusion" certainly sums up his thoughts about an intelligent Creator.
Thermodynamics, the Laws by which life, matter and energy are ruled. First, evolution cannot explain the basic existence of the things that these Laws rule; naturally-occurring spontaneous generation of the matter in the universe is directly contrary to the Laws, so even our existence is "illegal" when one believes in evolution. Secondly, the arise of "higher" creatures from "lower" ones requires an addition of genetic material that has not only never been observed, but is in fact a direct violation of the Laws as well. While and energy cannot be destroyed, they can be reduced to an unusable state, so everything tends to disorder, chaos and entropy, while the "theory" of evolution requires the exact opposite, which, once again, has never been observed in nature.
Beneficial Mutations, or random genetic cellular mutations that produce positive, helpful results. This is the cornerstone of the "Natural Selection" tenant held so dearly by evolutionists: only by slow, beneficial mutations can a creature hope to evolve into a more adapted creature. This thought even underlies the basic racism of the evolution "theory," in that since Aboriginal and African peoples are older and less evolved than whites, they are inferior (Hitler and Mussolini loved THAT one). However, the evolutionist's faith is challenged by the fact that all genetic mutations, from warts and missing limbs to cancer, are not only NOT beneficial, but are in fact harmful! Indeed, the human immune system knows well enough to attack mutated cells to help keep the body normal and healthy, so why would anyone think that these problems could be beneficial?
In conclusion, Evolution requires life to arise from non-living matter, which has never been observed nor even supported by any scientific research, complete circumvention of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is impossible since they are immutable, natural LAWS, and "beneficial" mutations, which have also never been observed nor supported by scientific findings. Therefore, we have, instead of a scientific theory, a religious belief unsupported by science or common sense.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
More on the "theory" of Evolution
While contemplating this "Global Warming" "Climate Change" issue, one has to come to the conclusion that it is unchangeably tied to the farce that is Evolution.
For instance, both nonsensical belief systems require long periods of time with gradual changes. "Climate Change" simply insists that this parasitic creature, homo sapiens, is causing change to occur much faster than normal to the detriment of the rest of the ecological system.
Unfortunately, given the lack of education in the "education system," kids are being plopped out of Public Sewers spouting the party line of Evolution, Climate Change, and Socialist Politics. Isn't it strange that modern education purports to teach individuality and free thinking, yet almost all of its denizens quote the same mantra?
Well, this really isn't very long, as my day was long enough and my mind is rather scattered. Take it easy, and I'll try to update more regularly. Again.
For instance, both nonsensical belief systems require long periods of time with gradual changes. "Climate Change" simply insists that this parasitic creature, homo sapiens, is causing change to occur much faster than normal to the detriment of the rest of the ecological system.
Unfortunately, given the lack of education in the "education system," kids are being plopped out of Public Sewers spouting the party line of Evolution, Climate Change, and Socialist Politics. Isn't it strange that modern education purports to teach individuality and free thinking, yet almost all of its denizens quote the same mantra?
Well, this really isn't very long, as my day was long enough and my mind is rather scattered. Take it easy, and I'll try to update more regularly. Again.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Well well...
So, I haven't yet taken the time to finish getting the video put up. Trust me, I have both the second and third videos ready to upload, but I've been extremely busy (not to mention out of town for a week) and haven't yet gotten around to putting them up.
On a side note, I noticed that I had over 100 hits on this blog on June 12th. At first I was astounded and a little excited; then I noticed that the referrals were from Fundies Say The Darndest Things, and my elation vanished. Talk about a cesspool of self-important, lame-brained jacknapes! Well, I still probably got a decent amount of ad traffic from that mess, so I could care less.
On a side note, I noticed that I had over 100 hits on this blog on June 12th. At first I was astounded and a little excited; then I noticed that the referrals were from Fundies Say The Darndest Things, and my elation vanished. Talk about a cesspool of self-important, lame-brained jacknapes! Well, I still probably got a decent amount of ad traffic from that mess, so I could care less.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Theological Rubbish
Traditionally (I hate 99% of traditions, to be honest), there are two viewpoints as far as "Theology" goes. You have "Reformed" doctrine on one side, with the other bearing the moniker of "Armenianism," though Reformed is just a fancy name for Calvinism. Most people view these two theologies as all that exist in Christianity, but to counteract a basic lack of knowledge on this issue, I'm going to give a basic overview of what these doctrines teach and what's wrong with them, as well as what the Bible truly says about this issue.
Calvinism
Hard-core Calvinism or Reformed Theology is summed up in the acronym "TULIP." Also known as "Five point Calvinism," TULIP theology teaches the "Total Depravity" of mankind, "Unconditional Election" of those destined or chosen to be saved, "Limited Atonement" or that Christ's sacrifice was only for the "Elect," "Irresistible Grace" or that the Elect cannot refuse the drawing power of the Spirit, and "Perseverance of the Saints," which means (in its purest form) that those that are saved will retain their salvation through holy living.
While these doctrines seem harmless on the surface, they are dangerous and unbiblical when studied closely. For instance, while "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him," Jesus said that He would draw all men unto Him if He were lifted up. Simply put, Total Depravity is unbiblical, in that God has placed many things in this world to draw the attention of the lost who have never even heard of God or Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:20).
Also, Perseverance of the Saints is not Biblical Eternal Security by any stretch of the imagination; contrariwise, this doctrine teaches that while salvation can be lost, the "Elect" will always regain their salvation and invariably go to Heaven when they die. This is incredibly unbiblical, and though some that hold to Reformed theology no longer believe this, instead adopting true Eternal Security, this is the doctrine that Calvin taught and is held by those that truly agree with fundamental Calvinism.
Armenianism
Armenianism is very similar to Calvinism except that where Calvinists believe certain people are chosen to go to Heaven, Armenianists believe that God's election is conditional upon faith, and while Reformed theology teaches an invariable return to salvation, Armenianism states that salvation is dependent upon continued holy living, and that those that are saved can actually go to hell.
Of course the biggest problem with this view according to the word of God is that the Bible clearly teaches that once someone in the age of Grace (i.e. Church Age) accepts Christ as his saviour, he is permanently and irreversibly saved. Our sanctification is not based upon our continued clean living, but on Jesus Christ's perfect life. We are perfected in the spirit through His blood, and neither obtaining nor retaining salvation has anything to do with our works.
Biblical Theology
The doctrines of the Bible on salvation are very clear, so it is somewhat perplexing as to how men such as Calvin came up with such ludicrous ideas. The Bible clearly teaches that God created man with a free will and the ability to choose, and that while man almost invariably makes the wrong choice, God always gives him a chance to make that choice. From Adam through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets, each one had a choice to make, whether to obey God or serve their own will. The concept of a free will is unarguable from any standpoint, especially a Biblical one.
Secondly, the idea of Divine Predestination is out of line. Invariably, one will find that a Calvinist must take a verse out of context or apply it incorrectly to make his doctrinal house of cards stand. While Paul declared that we as a church are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, speaking to Christians, a Calvinist will say that means that certain individuals were chosen before creation to go to Heaven, when it simply means that when a man gets saved, he is placed on a path to be made perfect like Christ.
The third and final doctrine of Calvinism which I will contrast against the Biblical position is "Perseverance of the Saints." Paul states that we are "sealed unto the day of redemption" by the Holy Spirit, meaning that we have the seal of God on our souls, marking us as His purchased possession. Also, the entire book of Galatians deals with the theme "Kept by Grace," following up on Paul's in-depth salvation discourse to the Romans. He clearly states, "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" He spends the rest of the book clearly showing how that once saved by God's grace, through no effort of our own, we are kept saved the same way: by God's grace without our interference in any way.
Simply put, the "traditional" way of looking at theology is deeply flawed. I personally think that there is too much emphasis put on "theology" and not nearly enough placed on actually believing the Bible. When one interprets the Bible through the cloudy, dingy glasses of his own theological viewpoint, he becomes a private interpreter of the Scriptures, which in reality places him in no better standing than an Atheist or the Catholic Whore as far as correct doctrine is concerned.
Calvinism
Hard-core Calvinism or Reformed Theology is summed up in the acronym "TULIP." Also known as "Five point Calvinism," TULIP theology teaches the "Total Depravity" of mankind, "Unconditional Election" of those destined or chosen to be saved, "Limited Atonement" or that Christ's sacrifice was only for the "Elect," "Irresistible Grace" or that the Elect cannot refuse the drawing power of the Spirit, and "Perseverance of the Saints," which means (in its purest form) that those that are saved will retain their salvation through holy living.
While these doctrines seem harmless on the surface, they are dangerous and unbiblical when studied closely. For instance, while "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him," Jesus said that He would draw all men unto Him if He were lifted up. Simply put, Total Depravity is unbiblical, in that God has placed many things in this world to draw the attention of the lost who have never even heard of God or Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:20).
Also, Perseverance of the Saints is not Biblical Eternal Security by any stretch of the imagination; contrariwise, this doctrine teaches that while salvation can be lost, the "Elect" will always regain their salvation and invariably go to Heaven when they die. This is incredibly unbiblical, and though some that hold to Reformed theology no longer believe this, instead adopting true Eternal Security, this is the doctrine that Calvin taught and is held by those that truly agree with fundamental Calvinism.
Armenianism
Armenianism is very similar to Calvinism except that where Calvinists believe certain people are chosen to go to Heaven, Armenianists believe that God's election is conditional upon faith, and while Reformed theology teaches an invariable return to salvation, Armenianism states that salvation is dependent upon continued holy living, and that those that are saved can actually go to hell.
Of course the biggest problem with this view according to the word of God is that the Bible clearly teaches that once someone in the age of Grace (i.e. Church Age) accepts Christ as his saviour, he is permanently and irreversibly saved. Our sanctification is not based upon our continued clean living, but on Jesus Christ's perfect life. We are perfected in the spirit through His blood, and neither obtaining nor retaining salvation has anything to do with our works.
Biblical Theology
The doctrines of the Bible on salvation are very clear, so it is somewhat perplexing as to how men such as Calvin came up with such ludicrous ideas. The Bible clearly teaches that God created man with a free will and the ability to choose, and that while man almost invariably makes the wrong choice, God always gives him a chance to make that choice. From Adam through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets, each one had a choice to make, whether to obey God or serve their own will. The concept of a free will is unarguable from any standpoint, especially a Biblical one.
Secondly, the idea of Divine Predestination is out of line. Invariably, one will find that a Calvinist must take a verse out of context or apply it incorrectly to make his doctrinal house of cards stand. While Paul declared that we as a church are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, speaking to Christians, a Calvinist will say that means that certain individuals were chosen before creation to go to Heaven, when it simply means that when a man gets saved, he is placed on a path to be made perfect like Christ.
The third and final doctrine of Calvinism which I will contrast against the Biblical position is "Perseverance of the Saints." Paul states that we are "sealed unto the day of redemption" by the Holy Spirit, meaning that we have the seal of God on our souls, marking us as His purchased possession. Also, the entire book of Galatians deals with the theme "Kept by Grace," following up on Paul's in-depth salvation discourse to the Romans. He clearly states, "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" He spends the rest of the book clearly showing how that once saved by God's grace, through no effort of our own, we are kept saved the same way: by God's grace without our interference in any way.
Simply put, the "traditional" way of looking at theology is deeply flawed. I personally think that there is too much emphasis put on "theology" and not nearly enough placed on actually believing the Bible. When one interprets the Bible through the cloudy, dingy glasses of his own theological viewpoint, he becomes a private interpreter of the Scriptures, which in reality places him in no better standing than an Atheist or the Catholic Whore as far as correct doctrine is concerned.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Love your Modern Bible Version? So does the Pope
Ouch. Yeah, sorry, that's kinda' hitting below the belt, I know. However, it's 100% true and historically accurate. You doubt? It's easily ascertained.
Anyone who's very familiar at all with the Bible version debate knows that there are two main families of manuscripts (mss.), the Byzantine or Antioch, known as the "Majority Text," and the Alexandrian, known as the "Critical Text." For almost 1800 years, the only Scriptures available to the people were those of the Antioch line (where they were first called Christians, etc.). Antioch is located in Asia Minor, the location of the vast majority of Paul's missionary journeys.
These mss. are found in dozens of different languages the world over, and have resulted in every Reformation-Era Bible besides Wycliffe's, from the Gutenberg Bible down through the Bishops, Geneva, Great and Authorized Bibles (KJB). These, while differing and varying somewhat among the 10,000 or so different scraps and portions in so many different languages, still exhibit an incredible coherence as a whole, and to any objectie observer have resulted in every major revival and awakening movement on the globe since the time of Christ.
However, this family of mss. has been villanized by modern Christian scholarship as being newer and more modified from the "Original Autographs." They in turn offer the Critical line of mss. in their place, but even a cursory examination of these raises an immense number of red flags. For instance, the proponents of the Alexandrian family of manuscript were from Alexandria, Egypt, a place that no Apostle nor church father of character came from nor even visited. Alexandria was a hotbed of corruption and debauchery from the political sphere down through its culture and even into its band of Christians. This group included Origen, who castrated himself, and other men whose philosophy came directly from the humanistic philosophers of Greece. It's clear from their writings (Origen was a most prolific writer) that they held very few of the "orthodox" or fundamental doctrines, instead many times believing in multiple paths for salvation and other hereisies.
To return to the title, however: in the middle 1800s, Christian scholars who had studied in humanistic German schools of philosophy began uncovering new manuscripts and codices that had never been seen before. These included Alexandrianus (A), the least-known of the three main mss., Siniaiticus (א), found in a garbage heap in a monestary in the Siniai desert, and Vaticanus (B), a script that no Christian scholar, liberal or not, has ever actually studied in person. Dean Burgeon, a great defender of the Majority Text in the late 1800s, described the aforementioned codices as sloppy and lacking the care that important documents of any type merited, let alone the Scriptures themselves. It's believed that Origin and others actually modified at least two of these codices, though there are contradictions and ommissions located throughout.
The reason that Vaticanus (B) has never been actively studied is because it is kept securely locked away in the Vatican library. While photocopies have been made available, on which the overwhelming majority of modern translations are based, the codex itself is unattainable.
But all this doesn't necessarily answer the customary query or the reader: why would the Pope and the Catholic system look favorably upon the modern versions, while by implication frowning upon traditional translations? Simple this: thousands of people, from unknown thousands during the Dark Ages down through John Huss and William Tyndale, died for hiding, reading, posessing or memorizing the words of Scripture from the Majority Text, and their deaths were completely at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. While the "church" used political powers to carry out the public torture and executions, they were behind it and in control of it nonetheless.
After the Bible was out in the open and impossible for the Papists to control (thanks to men like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and others), they decided on another tact: if you can't beat them, join them. So as a result, the Chamelion Catholic Church changed their stance on the Bible, and manipulated Christian "scholarship" to use their "older," extremely corrupt manuscripts and codices to produce new versions of the Bible. In essence, the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, and ASV are all based on the same source from whence came the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, while the King James Bible, the Bishops, Tyndale, Great Bible, Luther's German Bible, and all other Reformation-Era Bibles, are based on the manuscripts that Bible-believing men ans women died for through the centuries.
Hard words, yes, but very true. Not only are "updates" to the Bible unnecessary, but the very foundation for those updates is the corruption that the Roman Catholic Whore has infiltrated Christianity with to undermine the Authority and Power of the Scriptures. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't accept the doctrines of Purgatory, Infant Baptism or Transubstantiation, but those same individuals turn around and correct the words of God with the corruption that the Catholic Bible is based on. Hardly makes sense, does it?
Anyone who's very familiar at all with the Bible version debate knows that there are two main families of manuscripts (mss.), the Byzantine or Antioch, known as the "Majority Text," and the Alexandrian, known as the "Critical Text." For almost 1800 years, the only Scriptures available to the people were those of the Antioch line (where they were first called Christians, etc.). Antioch is located in Asia Minor, the location of the vast majority of Paul's missionary journeys.
These mss. are found in dozens of different languages the world over, and have resulted in every Reformation-Era Bible besides Wycliffe's, from the Gutenberg Bible down through the Bishops, Geneva, Great and Authorized Bibles (KJB). These, while differing and varying somewhat among the 10,000 or so different scraps and portions in so many different languages, still exhibit an incredible coherence as a whole, and to any objectie observer have resulted in every major revival and awakening movement on the globe since the time of Christ.
However, this family of mss. has been villanized by modern Christian scholarship as being newer and more modified from the "Original Autographs." They in turn offer the Critical line of mss. in their place, but even a cursory examination of these raises an immense number of red flags. For instance, the proponents of the Alexandrian family of manuscript were from Alexandria, Egypt, a place that no Apostle nor church father of character came from nor even visited. Alexandria was a hotbed of corruption and debauchery from the political sphere down through its culture and even into its band of Christians. This group included Origen, who castrated himself, and other men whose philosophy came directly from the humanistic philosophers of Greece. It's clear from their writings (Origen was a most prolific writer) that they held very few of the "orthodox" or fundamental doctrines, instead many times believing in multiple paths for salvation and other hereisies.
To return to the title, however: in the middle 1800s, Christian scholars who had studied in humanistic German schools of philosophy began uncovering new manuscripts and codices that had never been seen before. These included Alexandrianus (A), the least-known of the three main mss., Siniaiticus (א), found in a garbage heap in a monestary in the Siniai desert, and Vaticanus (B), a script that no Christian scholar, liberal or not, has ever actually studied in person. Dean Burgeon, a great defender of the Majority Text in the late 1800s, described the aforementioned codices as sloppy and lacking the care that important documents of any type merited, let alone the Scriptures themselves. It's believed that Origin and others actually modified at least two of these codices, though there are contradictions and ommissions located throughout.
The reason that Vaticanus (B) has never been actively studied is because it is kept securely locked away in the Vatican library. While photocopies have been made available, on which the overwhelming majority of modern translations are based, the codex itself is unattainable.
But all this doesn't necessarily answer the customary query or the reader: why would the Pope and the Catholic system look favorably upon the modern versions, while by implication frowning upon traditional translations? Simple this: thousands of people, from unknown thousands during the Dark Ages down through John Huss and William Tyndale, died for hiding, reading, posessing or memorizing the words of Scripture from the Majority Text, and their deaths were completely at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. While the "church" used political powers to carry out the public torture and executions, they were behind it and in control of it nonetheless.
After the Bible was out in the open and impossible for the Papists to control (thanks to men like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and others), they decided on another tact: if you can't beat them, join them. So as a result, the Chamelion Catholic Church changed their stance on the Bible, and manipulated Christian "scholarship" to use their "older," extremely corrupt manuscripts and codices to produce new versions of the Bible. In essence, the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, and ASV are all based on the same source from whence came the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, while the King James Bible, the Bishops, Tyndale, Great Bible, Luther's German Bible, and all other Reformation-Era Bibles, are based on the manuscripts that Bible-believing men ans women died for through the centuries.
Hard words, yes, but very true. Not only are "updates" to the Bible unnecessary, but the very foundation for those updates is the corruption that the Roman Catholic Whore has infiltrated Christianity with to undermine the Authority and Power of the Scriptures. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't accept the doctrines of Purgatory, Infant Baptism or Transubstantiation, but those same individuals turn around and correct the words of God with the corruption that the Catholic Bible is based on. Hardly makes sense, does it?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Real Big Bang
The stupid little sect of "educated" idiots in this country that believes in evolution will doubtlessly think the title denotes an overbearing, fantastical account of an event that can't be proven and of which there is no evidence, but that's not the case at all. In fact, I'm just going to post some Scripture and run those little scums off right now: there's no sense in having an idiot involved in an intelligent, spiritual conversation. It would be like involving a centipede or a spinach plant in a physics discussion.
Cool, huh? This is speaking about the last days, after the Tribulation and the Millennium. In this time, Jesus has just ruled and reigned for 1,000 glorious years, but the Devil is released for a short time and hell again breaks loose. The armies of the world rise up against the LORD and are crushed into tiny, tiny pieces. At that time, God really busts this place up. Let's get a little context on this occurrence.
The "same word" that this verse is talking about refers to verse 5, where it says that by the word of God the heavens were of old. So this verse says that the word of God holds in store the heavens and the earth. It also says they're reserved unto fire and judgment. What's this judgment all about?
(emphasis mine)
Wow. Obviously, if you believe that God wrote this Book and that it's infallible and perfect, then you have no choice but to believe that the whole universe ("heavens") is going to be destroyed at the atomic level! Don't agree? Then I'm sure there's a "The Bible is so nice" or "What Version do you like" blog out there for ya; enjoy. This is about believing the Bible, so you aren't going to fit in too well if you don't believe it.
"Dissolved" is a good word to describe it; isn't it awesome how flawless the Book is? Hallelujah, we serve an AWESOME GOD!!
There's that "dissolved" phrase again. Let me address the scientific significance of this real fast.
Many scientists agree that the particles of atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons, are in turn made up of particles called "quarks." Three quarks each, to be exact. These particles have a magnetic charge which holds them together; however, this poses a serious and almost insurmountable problem for science: having three particles that are charged magnetically means that there is an imbalance of force (one negative vs. two positive), so how does an atom stay together?
Well, I would like to propose that the Bible holds the answer to this question. In fact, I already provided the answer, though you might not have caught it. Let me provide it again.
Now is that cool or what? Sure, think about the ramifications of that statement. I don't much dwell on the things that science can't measure, explain or reason away: if God says it, I believe it. It makes life so much simpler, and you wind up being right way more often.
2Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Cool, huh? This is speaking about the last days, after the Tribulation and the Millennium. In this time, Jesus has just ruled and reigned for 1,000 glorious years, but the Devil is released for a short time and hell again breaks loose. The armies of the world rise up against the LORD and are crushed into tiny, tiny pieces. At that time, God really busts this place up. Let's get a little context on this occurrence.
2Pet. 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
The "same word" that this verse is talking about refers to verse 5, where it says that by the word of God the heavens were of old. So this verse says that the word of God holds in store the heavens and the earth. It also says they're reserved unto fire and judgment. What's this judgment all about?
2Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
(emphasis mine)
Wow. Obviously, if you believe that God wrote this Book and that it's infallible and perfect, then you have no choice but to believe that the whole universe ("heavens") is going to be destroyed at the atomic level! Don't agree? Then I'm sure there's a "The Bible is so nice" or "What Version do you like" blog out there for ya; enjoy. This is about believing the Bible, so you aren't going to fit in too well if you don't believe it.
2Pet. 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
"Dissolved" is a good word to describe it; isn't it awesome how flawless the Book is? Hallelujah, we serve an AWESOME GOD!!
2Pet. 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
There's that "dissolved" phrase again. Let me address the scientific significance of this real fast.
Many scientists agree that the particles of atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons, are in turn made up of particles called "quarks." Three quarks each, to be exact. These particles have a magnetic charge which holds them together; however, this poses a serious and almost insurmountable problem for science: having three particles that are charged magnetically means that there is an imbalance of force (one negative vs. two positive), so how does an atom stay together?
Well, I would like to propose that the Bible holds the answer to this question. In fact, I already provided the answer, though you might not have caught it. Let me provide it again.
2Pet. 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Now is that cool or what? Sure, think about the ramifications of that statement. I don't much dwell on the things that science can't measure, explain or reason away: if God says it, I believe it. It makes life so much simpler, and you wind up being right way more often.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Catholic roots of the King James Bible?
First, I must apologize for the ads in the sidebar; I use Google adsense even though I've yet to receive a penny from it, and it turns out that they put up nonsensical Catholic ads on there. Oh well, I don't mind costing some popish reprobate some extra coin in advertisement costs.
I have been repeatedly heckled by people who claim that the King James Bible is Catholic and corrupt, and in turn offer newer "Bibles" based on codices Siniaticus and Vaticanus, of all things! Of course, their first angle of attack is against some men; I will try to address that as well as possible.
Erasmus
Erasmus was the original compiler of the Textus Receptus on which every faithful translation of the Bible in any language is based. He also happened to be a Catholic monk, as was any educated person in Europe during that time period (either a Catholic clergyman or a noble). Erasmus dedicated much of his life to preparing the TR from hundreds of manuscripts in dozen of languages: he was undoubtedly one of the most educated men of his time. He also never left the Catholic church, and this is the beef that "freedom readers" have with the King James Bible: it is based on a text compiled and edited by a Catholic. Never mind that their text was illegitimately birthed by a couple of unregenerate pope-butt kissers, Erasmus and his work must be derided to undermine the authority of that Book! So yeah, Erasmus was a Catholic, but it's obvious from the way the Catholic whore ignores him and treats him in their histories that he was far from a favored son. In fact, he was all but excommunicated for his works that challenged the papal authority of Rome. Basically this attack is a total farce.
Martin Luther
Luther is the de facto father of the Protestant Reformation (if one doesn't count John Wycliffe, that is...more on him later perhaps). Again, Luther was a Catholic monk who never left the "church." His works blasted the unbiblical doctrines of the Roman whore to the point where he was excommunicated and pursued for trial as a heretic, but he never actually left Rome. Of course, his TR-based German Bible was the translation that sparked the liberation of Europe from Papal Rome, but modern authority-rejectors must strive to eradicate that Bible and those like it if they are ever going to control the laity in their Nicolaitine methods of privately interpreting the Bible.
There are others, but must we go on? Casiodora de Reina, Valera, Mora, and the translators of the Italian, Portugese, Dutch and other Bibles were almost all unfailingly Catholic monks or priests that God used (even Tyndale was!) to translate His words into different languages. Even the most ignorant honest individual would see that every major revival or move of God in this world was begun and completed under the auspices and authority of a TR-based translation of the Bible, and 1881 and the ESV saw God's movement diminish to a near indecipherable level, but it seems that modern scholarship refuses to accept such things as God's approval, and must instead appeal to humanistic reasoning to find the Scriptures for the typical dumb parishoner.
Ain't it great to be a dumb sheep that must be led around by the nose?
I have been repeatedly heckled by people who claim that the King James Bible is Catholic and corrupt, and in turn offer newer "Bibles" based on codices Siniaticus and Vaticanus, of all things! Of course, their first angle of attack is against some men; I will try to address that as well as possible.
Erasmus
Erasmus was the original compiler of the Textus Receptus on which every faithful translation of the Bible in any language is based. He also happened to be a Catholic monk, as was any educated person in Europe during that time period (either a Catholic clergyman or a noble). Erasmus dedicated much of his life to preparing the TR from hundreds of manuscripts in dozen of languages: he was undoubtedly one of the most educated men of his time. He also never left the Catholic church, and this is the beef that "freedom readers" have with the King James Bible: it is based on a text compiled and edited by a Catholic. Never mind that their text was illegitimately birthed by a couple of unregenerate pope-butt kissers, Erasmus and his work must be derided to undermine the authority of that Book! So yeah, Erasmus was a Catholic, but it's obvious from the way the Catholic whore ignores him and treats him in their histories that he was far from a favored son. In fact, he was all but excommunicated for his works that challenged the papal authority of Rome. Basically this attack is a total farce.
Martin Luther
Luther is the de facto father of the Protestant Reformation (if one doesn't count John Wycliffe, that is...more on him later perhaps). Again, Luther was a Catholic monk who never left the "church." His works blasted the unbiblical doctrines of the Roman whore to the point where he was excommunicated and pursued for trial as a heretic, but he never actually left Rome. Of course, his TR-based German Bible was the translation that sparked the liberation of Europe from Papal Rome, but modern authority-rejectors must strive to eradicate that Bible and those like it if they are ever going to control the laity in their Nicolaitine methods of privately interpreting the Bible.
There are others, but must we go on? Casiodora de Reina, Valera, Mora, and the translators of the Italian, Portugese, Dutch and other Bibles were almost all unfailingly Catholic monks or priests that God used (even Tyndale was!) to translate His words into different languages. Even the most ignorant honest individual would see that every major revival or move of God in this world was begun and completed under the auspices and authority of a TR-based translation of the Bible, and 1881 and the ESV saw God's movement diminish to a near indecipherable level, but it seems that modern scholarship refuses to accept such things as God's approval, and must instead appeal to humanistic reasoning to find the Scriptures for the typical dumb parishoner.
Ain't it great to be a dumb sheep that must be led around by the nose?
Saturday, May 2, 2009
"godly men"??
When dealing with the modern version issue, the names of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are almost synonymous with Textual Criticism, and for good reason: they basically single-handedly (with the Vatican's and Satan's help, of course) demolished the solid foundation of the King James Bible. Of course they didn't damage the Word or change anything as far as God's words go, but they're responsible for destroying the faith of millions in God's written words.
When the average "scholar" starts talking about the Textual issue, they always eventually say something about the "godly, dedicated men" behind the "Bible-of-the-Month-Club" perversions being churned out of the Bible mills continuously. This is, of course, to try to change the focus to their character from their work, when their work should invariably be the subject of scrutiny. The same goes for Westcott and Hort.
Both men were Anglican ministers. Well so were many of the King James translators, you might say. True. However, those men had untarnished and unassailable testimonies of salvation and stellar reputations of spirituality and humility. Even modern KJB-haters have to attack their education (still unparalleled) or available materials (they had all the modern readings available in the Latin Vulgate) instead of their character. However, good Drs. Westcott and Hort are quite another story.
In their own personal writings, they expressed their interest in gardening, ornithology, spiritism, and animal rights, among other things. While their contemporaries, such as John Wesley, George Whitefield, George Müller, William Booth and Billy Sunday, were spending nearly every waking hour preaching the Gospel and serving God, these modern Textual Critics spoke very little of Spiritual things, even relegating the Scriptures themselves as of no more importance than any other ancient manuscript! Neither one of them believed in Salvation by grace through Faith alone, nor a literal Devil or a literal hell, but they did agree on Mariolatry, Purgatory, Universal Reconciliation and the Nicolaitine Catholic priesthood. These men revered the Papacy very deeply, and on many occasions lamented their church's (Anglican) lack of strong, Papal leadership.
But these are the "good, godly, dedicated" men whose work is so celebrated by modern Bible-rejectors. These men (Westcott and Hort) demoted the Bible to a menial collection of ancient scribbles and completely demolished its authority in modern society with their wrangling of the Critical Text, from which virtually every modern Bible perversion has sprung. Their pro-Vatican, anti-Biblical, un-spiritual babble has infiltrated every facet of "Christianity" and perverted the church that had held true to God's words for over 1800 years. With but a few years work, these reprobates cast doubt and confusion onto the textual line that millions had died for over the centuries, including men like John Huss, William Tyndale and others of their persuasion. From the Waldenses, Petrobrusians and other such groups, to men like Wycliffe and Luther that suffered persecution, Westcott and Hort undid almost two millenia of blood, sweat, tears and prayer. Today, God's precious words are scoffed at by billions, because of the confusion brought about by their work.
Good job, guys...Satan's really proud of ya.
When the average "scholar" starts talking about the Textual issue, they always eventually say something about the "godly, dedicated men" behind the "Bible-of-the-Month-Club" perversions being churned out of the Bible mills continuously. This is, of course, to try to change the focus to their character from their work, when their work should invariably be the subject of scrutiny. The same goes for Westcott and Hort.
Both men were Anglican ministers. Well so were many of the King James translators, you might say. True. However, those men had untarnished and unassailable testimonies of salvation and stellar reputations of spirituality and humility. Even modern KJB-haters have to attack their education (still unparalleled) or available materials (they had all the modern readings available in the Latin Vulgate) instead of their character. However, good Drs. Westcott and Hort are quite another story.
In their own personal writings, they expressed their interest in gardening, ornithology, spiritism, and animal rights, among other things. While their contemporaries, such as John Wesley, George Whitefield, George Müller, William Booth and Billy Sunday, were spending nearly every waking hour preaching the Gospel and serving God, these modern Textual Critics spoke very little of Spiritual things, even relegating the Scriptures themselves as of no more importance than any other ancient manuscript! Neither one of them believed in Salvation by grace through Faith alone, nor a literal Devil or a literal hell, but they did agree on Mariolatry, Purgatory, Universal Reconciliation and the Nicolaitine Catholic priesthood. These men revered the Papacy very deeply, and on many occasions lamented their church's (Anglican) lack of strong, Papal leadership.
But these are the "good, godly, dedicated" men whose work is so celebrated by modern Bible-rejectors. These men (Westcott and Hort) demoted the Bible to a menial collection of ancient scribbles and completely demolished its authority in modern society with their wrangling of the Critical Text, from which virtually every modern Bible perversion has sprung. Their pro-Vatican, anti-Biblical, un-spiritual babble has infiltrated every facet of "Christianity" and perverted the church that had held true to God's words for over 1800 years. With but a few years work, these reprobates cast doubt and confusion onto the textual line that millions had died for over the centuries, including men like John Huss, William Tyndale and others of their persuasion. From the Waldenses, Petrobrusians and other such groups, to men like Wycliffe and Luther that suffered persecution, Westcott and Hort undid almost two millenia of blood, sweat, tears and prayer. Today, God's precious words are scoffed at by billions, because of the confusion brought about by their work.
Good job, guys...Satan's really proud of ya.
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Cancer of Catholicism
I'm not going to get into the Great Whore issue or the relationship between Rome and the Antichrist in the end time, but I do want to rant a little and maybe inform some readers of some largely unknown church history.
Generally speaking, people understand the history of the church in the last 2,000 or so years to be something like this: Jesus died as per the story in the Gospels, the Gospel spread throughout most of the known world, 300 AD saw Constantine wed the then-corrupt Roman church with the state government, and then Luther threw a fit in the 1400s and sparked the Reformation, which led to the translation and printing of the Bible in European languages leading to the expansion of Biblical Christianity.
Now there is nothing really incorrect with this account; the problem is that it misses some key facts and issues that most Christians, even those that claim to believe the Bible, overlook. Among ecumenical groups today there is a push to find common ground between any and all groups of people that claim the name of Christ, but a look into the past of the numerically largest group of "Christians" reveals some truly chilling, disturbing things that most people have no clue about.
For instance, in 1534, Ignatius de Loyola founded the Society of Jesus, better known as the Jesuits. This group of fanatical papists has wreaked such havoc upon the world as to be almost inconceivable. From the infamous yet little-known St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in which more than 10,000 French Huguenots were brutally tortured and murdered by a Jesuit plot, to the sponsoring of the attempted invasion of England by Spain via the well-known "Spanish Armada" (packing along hundreds of Jesuit priests and instruments of the Inquisition), to even more recently the Jesuit connection to the assasination of President Lincoln, the "Society of Jesus" is a no-holds-barred, lawless group of individuals whose main premise is that the ends justify the means, and they believe the church of Rome so fanatically that they are said to believe that white is black if the Catholic church were to say as much.
However, the most poignant and effective attack by the Jesuits and the Great Whore herself has been against our Authorized English Bible. From the get-go, the Catholic church banned possession or memoriztion of the Bible, though even their "scholars" and priests were accused of scareely knowing even the names of the books of the Bible! Even in England, dozens or perhaps hundreds of people were burned at the stake for simply teaching their children to memorize the Lord's Prayer in English! If at any time there was an organization more diabolical or satanic than Rome, history does not record it.
With the truth of the English Holy Scriptures defying every decree made at the demonic Council of Trent, the Catholic heirarachy knew that they had to counteract the effects of the AV if they were to have a chance to once again subdue England under the pope ("Bloody" Mary's Catholic reign of terror ended unsuccessfully and abruptly with her execution at the hands of Protestand troops, to be Providencially replaced by His Highness, King James the First of England). So in order to fight the sway that the King James Bible held over the English-speaking people, the Jesuits commissioned the Duay Bible, still the Catholic standard. Interestingly enough, this "Bible" perversion is based on exactly the same manuscript heritage as every new translation being spewed out of Nelson, Tyndale, and any other publishing house. I've dealt with Siniaticus and Vaticanus before on this blog, so I shan't revisit that topic. Suffice it to say that any version besides a King James Bible is based on the same corruption that the Catholic Whore employed to keep the world under bondage for several hundred years.
Ok, I now forget where I was going with this, primarily because I'm exhausted and about to fall asleep. Comments are great...maybe they would help motivate me to post more often.
Generally speaking, people understand the history of the church in the last 2,000 or so years to be something like this: Jesus died as per the story in the Gospels, the Gospel spread throughout most of the known world, 300 AD saw Constantine wed the then-corrupt Roman church with the state government, and then Luther threw a fit in the 1400s and sparked the Reformation, which led to the translation and printing of the Bible in European languages leading to the expansion of Biblical Christianity.
Now there is nothing really incorrect with this account; the problem is that it misses some key facts and issues that most Christians, even those that claim to believe the Bible, overlook. Among ecumenical groups today there is a push to find common ground between any and all groups of people that claim the name of Christ, but a look into the past of the numerically largest group of "Christians" reveals some truly chilling, disturbing things that most people have no clue about.
For instance, in 1534, Ignatius de Loyola founded the Society of Jesus, better known as the Jesuits. This group of fanatical papists has wreaked such havoc upon the world as to be almost inconceivable. From the infamous yet little-known St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in which more than 10,000 French Huguenots were brutally tortured and murdered by a Jesuit plot, to the sponsoring of the attempted invasion of England by Spain via the well-known "Spanish Armada" (packing along hundreds of Jesuit priests and instruments of the Inquisition), to even more recently the Jesuit connection to the assasination of President Lincoln, the "Society of Jesus" is a no-holds-barred, lawless group of individuals whose main premise is that the ends justify the means, and they believe the church of Rome so fanatically that they are said to believe that white is black if the Catholic church were to say as much.
However, the most poignant and effective attack by the Jesuits and the Great Whore herself has been against our Authorized English Bible. From the get-go, the Catholic church banned possession or memoriztion of the Bible, though even their "scholars" and priests were accused of scareely knowing even the names of the books of the Bible! Even in England, dozens or perhaps hundreds of people were burned at the stake for simply teaching their children to memorize the Lord's Prayer in English! If at any time there was an organization more diabolical or satanic than Rome, history does not record it.
With the truth of the English Holy Scriptures defying every decree made at the demonic Council of Trent, the Catholic heirarachy knew that they had to counteract the effects of the AV if they were to have a chance to once again subdue England under the pope ("Bloody" Mary's Catholic reign of terror ended unsuccessfully and abruptly with her execution at the hands of Protestand troops, to be Providencially replaced by His Highness, King James the First of England). So in order to fight the sway that the King James Bible held over the English-speaking people, the Jesuits commissioned the Duay Bible, still the Catholic standard. Interestingly enough, this "Bible" perversion is based on exactly the same manuscript heritage as every new translation being spewed out of Nelson, Tyndale, and any other publishing house. I've dealt with Siniaticus and Vaticanus before on this blog, so I shan't revisit that topic. Suffice it to say that any version besides a King James Bible is based on the same corruption that the Catholic Whore employed to keep the world under bondage for several hundred years.
Ok, I now forget where I was going with this, primarily because I'm exhausted and about to fall asleep. Comments are great...maybe they would help motivate me to post more often.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Unity or cowardice?
How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.
Of course it's good. It's awesome when believers can fellowship together in harmony and mutual understanding if not always mutual agreement on every little thing.
However, where does unity end and compromise begin?
I don't have the desire nor the time to go into detail, but I was recently berated for my "attitude" and my "anger" because I defended the words of God against a "Ph.D candidate" who made ridiculously idiotic statements about the "archaic" nature of the King James Bible and said that there were many terrible translations in it. This is a guy who apostatized a few years back and is now proudly a "renegade" who refuses to believe in any Authority that he can hold in his hands and OBEY. It always comes down to authority.
Basically, there was a thread to post what Bible version each person used, so I simply stated that I believed the King James Bible is the perfect, pure, preserved word of God, given by inspiration. I did not attack anyone, I did not list the errors and corruption in other "Bibles," and I did not even hint at my true belief about other translations.
"RenegadeBrad" comes along, though, and copy/pastes this huge list of ignorant "errors" that have been refuted more times than I care to mention, as well as a list of "archaic words" in the KJB, including such hard words as "onyx" and "osprey." (this from a self-described "Ph.D candidate" that admitted that he could understand fewer than 25% of these words) When I replied in the defense of the word of God, I was reviled for saying that I could understand 50-75% of the words without having attended college, and that anyone with a decent grasp of entymology and the English language should have no problem understanding even more of the "archaic" words than I even do.
But oh no, we can't have THAT: it turns out that the board administrator is personal friends with "Brad," and so now I'm "stuck up" because I was home schooled, and I'm a "clanging pot" and a "yapping dog" simply because I DEFENDED the WORDS OF GOD. I attacked nothing and no one: I simply defended against an attack by someone else: but I'm the one that gets castigated, not the individual who instigated the altercation with his attack.
Heck, I'm always up for an attack, and I'm more than willing to show where modern versions are corrupt and satanic in origin, but that's not what the thread was for. In fact, that's not even what the forum as a whole is for, and I had been very careful not to cross the wishes of the admin. But simply because the other guy was friends with the admin and he was more "gracious" in his attack on God's holy word than I was in its defense, I'm causing division and breaking the rules.
So, when does unity become compromise? When you throw truth out the window to preserve peace.
"You mess with that Book and I'll mess with you!" ~Dr. Peter S. Ruckman
Of course it's good. It's awesome when believers can fellowship together in harmony and mutual understanding if not always mutual agreement on every little thing.
However, where does unity end and compromise begin?
I don't have the desire nor the time to go into detail, but I was recently berated for my "attitude" and my "anger" because I defended the words of God against a "Ph.D candidate" who made ridiculously idiotic statements about the "archaic" nature of the King James Bible and said that there were many terrible translations in it. This is a guy who apostatized a few years back and is now proudly a "renegade" who refuses to believe in any Authority that he can hold in his hands and OBEY. It always comes down to authority.
Basically, there was a thread to post what Bible version each person used, so I simply stated that I believed the King James Bible is the perfect, pure, preserved word of God, given by inspiration. I did not attack anyone, I did not list the errors and corruption in other "Bibles," and I did not even hint at my true belief about other translations.
"RenegadeBrad" comes along, though, and copy/pastes this huge list of ignorant "errors" that have been refuted more times than I care to mention, as well as a list of "archaic words" in the KJB, including such hard words as "onyx" and "osprey." (this from a self-described "Ph.D candidate" that admitted that he could understand fewer than 25% of these words) When I replied in the defense of the word of God, I was reviled for saying that I could understand 50-75% of the words without having attended college, and that anyone with a decent grasp of entymology and the English language should have no problem understanding even more of the "archaic" words than I even do.
But oh no, we can't have THAT: it turns out that the board administrator is personal friends with "Brad," and so now I'm "stuck up" because I was home schooled, and I'm a "clanging pot" and a "yapping dog" simply because I DEFENDED the WORDS OF GOD. I attacked nothing and no one: I simply defended against an attack by someone else: but I'm the one that gets castigated, not the individual who instigated the altercation with his attack.
Heck, I'm always up for an attack, and I'm more than willing to show where modern versions are corrupt and satanic in origin, but that's not what the thread was for. In fact, that's not even what the forum as a whole is for, and I had been very careful not to cross the wishes of the admin. But simply because the other guy was friends with the admin and he was more "gracious" in his attack on God's holy word than I was in its defense, I'm causing division and breaking the rules.
So, when does unity become compromise? When you throw truth out the window to preserve peace.
"You mess with that Book and I'll mess with you!" ~Dr. Peter S. Ruckman
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Clearing the Air
I decided that it was time to put something else up, so the first thing visitors see is no longer a complete bashing spree on Abraham Lincoln. I certainly don't regret anything, take anything back, or apologize for anything that I said; why apologize for speaking the truth?
Anyhow, the Lord has been working in our lives and bringing us to the place (I believe) where he can use us and further us more visibly toward getting to the field.
On another note, my wife and I have already picked out some names for our kids; being a Grey-Blooded Southern boy, at least three of the boys' names will be Robert Edward, Nathan Bedford, and James Ewell Brown. Girls we've decided to name with Bible names and Biblical virtues as middle names. That way we can be historical and Biblical all at the same time, and our kids can be thankful of their heritage and know their names stand for truth and integrity.
Anyhow, the Lord has been working in our lives and bringing us to the place (I believe) where he can use us and further us more visibly toward getting to the field.
On another note, my wife and I have already picked out some names for our kids; being a Grey-Blooded Southern boy, at least three of the boys' names will be Robert Edward, Nathan Bedford, and James Ewell Brown. Girls we've decided to name with Bible names and Biblical virtues as middle names. That way we can be historical and Biblical all at the same time, and our kids can be thankful of their heritage and know their names stand for truth and integrity.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The danger of God's "permissive" will
Everyone loves Peter: loudmouth though he was, there's a fighting spirit about him that just doesn't quit. One of the best-loved and oft-preached stories is that of Peter walking on the water. Let's recap:
First point: Jesus told them to get in the boat. Jesus never left room for getting OUT of the boat: He said GET IN AND GO ACROSS.
Second point: Peter did NOT ask permission to go across: he said "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water." In effect, he was QUESTIONING Christ's claim about Who He was, and giving Jesus an ultimatum about His identity! Peter was AGAIN shooting off his mouth without using his head.
Like one preacher said, Judas was a better example of FAITH and OBEDIENCE than was Peter: he (and all the others) stayed in the BOAT like Jesus told them to, and they didn't question Jesus when He declared Who He was!
This just goes to show us that God's permissive will requires faith as well, but should we really be there? Christ allowed Peter to come to Him, and all the while Peter was flat disobeying and showing off. Time and again Peter gets into trouble: before AND after Christ's resurrection! Even Paul stood him up for being out of line! How then are we going to view direct disobedience and LACK of faith as a great example for us in our Christian walk?
STAY IN THE BOAT!
Matt. 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
Matt. 14:28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
First point: Jesus told them to get in the boat. Jesus never left room for getting OUT of the boat: He said GET IN AND GO ACROSS.
Second point: Peter did NOT ask permission to go across: he said "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water." In effect, he was QUESTIONING Christ's claim about Who He was, and giving Jesus an ultimatum about His identity! Peter was AGAIN shooting off his mouth without using his head.
Like one preacher said, Judas was a better example of FAITH and OBEDIENCE than was Peter: he (and all the others) stayed in the BOAT like Jesus told them to, and they didn't question Jesus when He declared Who He was!
This just goes to show us that God's permissive will requires faith as well, but should we really be there? Christ allowed Peter to come to Him, and all the while Peter was flat disobeying and showing off. Time and again Peter gets into trouble: before AND after Christ's resurrection! Even Paul stood him up for being out of line! How then are we going to view direct disobedience and LACK of faith as a great example for us in our Christian walk?
STAY IN THE BOAT!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
"The Rest"
I did everything that I could do to try to pay the debt I owed,
And I'd gone as far as I could go working 'neath that heavy load.
While searching for a resting place, something strange occurred,
When a Voice from out of nowhere spoke the sweetest words I've heard:
(Chorus)
Come unto Me all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
You can lay all your burdens down and receive My Righteousness;
For the Father is pleased with the work I've done and there's nothing left to do.
Come to Calvary's Cross where the labour is finished,
And I'll leave the rest to you.
Even now sometimes I still try to do things on my own:
I gather my strength, give it all I have, work my fingers to the bone.
When it seems that I can't go on and all my strength is spent,
I find myself down on my knees, where I hear these words again:
(Chorus)
Come unto Me all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
You can lay all your burdens down and receive My Righteousness;
For the Father is pleased with the work I've done and there's nothing left to do.
Come to Calvary's Cross where the labour is finished,
And I'll leave the rest to you.
And I'd gone as far as I could go working 'neath that heavy load.
While searching for a resting place, something strange occurred,
When a Voice from out of nowhere spoke the sweetest words I've heard:
(Chorus)
Come unto Me all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
You can lay all your burdens down and receive My Righteousness;
For the Father is pleased with the work I've done and there's nothing left to do.
Come to Calvary's Cross where the labour is finished,
And I'll leave the rest to you.
Even now sometimes I still try to do things on my own:
I gather my strength, give it all I have, work my fingers to the bone.
When it seems that I can't go on and all my strength is spent,
I find myself down on my knees, where I hear these words again:
(Chorus)
Come unto Me all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
You can lay all your burdens down and receive My Righteousness;
For the Father is pleased with the work I've done and there's nothing left to do.
Come to Calvary's Cross where the labour is finished,
And I'll leave the rest to you.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Evolution "theory," pt. 2
Of course the Darwinists hit my previous "evolution" post like I expected them to; they don't like it when you question their faith.
I've tired of messing with them; lately I've instead focused on more Spiritual discussions. My current topic of focus is called "The uselessness of Religion." I named it that because I knew it would get peoples' attention; the reason I started it was because I know how stuck on "religion" people get, and how negatively it is viewed by outside viewers. Oh well, perhaps more on that later.
Evolution is a lie, ok? I know some new visitors won't agree, but that's fine, you'll get over it or leave. Darwin saw different species of finches and supposed that they "evolved" from a "common ancestor" instead of varying based on their habitats. Then he and some of his buddies forged a "missing link" that came to be known as "Piltdown Man." The thing was the skull of an ape, the jaw of a human, and some mis-matched teeth all filed down, treated with acid, and stuck on with BUBBLE GUM. Then they buried it in a gravel pit and someone "discovered" it a year or so later. Of course the "Scientific" community jumped all over it, claiming it was "proof" of their evolution garbage. But alas, someone who applied a bit of objectivity to the situation discovered that it was a hoax. However, you don't hear much about "Piltdown Man" anymore, do ya'?
The same with Nebraska Man: a man found a TOOTH and designed a whole RACE of "humanoids" based on the ONE TOOTH! It was later discovered that far from being a hominid tooth, it was actually from a species of extinct PIG. That's how "objective" evolutionists are.
The only real reason I bring it up is because I've met a lot of Christians that are confused about the evolution mess. They think that "science" contradicts the Bible, so in order to believe the Bible they have to reject "science." This is far from the case, ladies and gentlemen. The Bible is light years ahead of science: they're still catching up with the Bible.
Moreover, almost single field of modern science was pioneered by a Born Again Christian who believed the Genesis account of Creation. That's not even mentioning all the archaeologists that traveled all over the world to attempt to prove the Bible wrong but actually found the Bible to be 100% correct.
In the book "The Case for Christ," the author tells how he, an experienced journalist, lived his entire life as an atheist. At one point, he grew so tired of peoples' belief in Jesus Christ that he decided to approach His story from a legal standpoint: in effect he decided to come at Jesus and His existence like he would a questionable news story. Halfway through his study, he accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour, as a result of his attack! He then proceeded to publish his findings in the book that I named above, showing that Jesus' existence is easily ascertained by eyewitness accounts.
Evolution, on the other hand, has no eyewitnesses, nor can it! (in the Scopes monkey trial, EVOLUTION LOST) Evolution is based on assumptions, guesses and lame hypotheses that cannot be proven nor ever will be.
If you're a Christian that has struggled with evolution and its attack on the Scriptures, rest assured that your Bible is 100% correct, and no person will ever prove otherwise. You can KNOW that Jesus Christ is real, His Word is Truth, and He IS the Creator of this Universe. Faith, at that point, changes from "believing" to KNOWING.
I've tired of messing with them; lately I've instead focused on more Spiritual discussions. My current topic of focus is called "The uselessness of Religion." I named it that because I knew it would get peoples' attention; the reason I started it was because I know how stuck on "religion" people get, and how negatively it is viewed by outside viewers. Oh well, perhaps more on that later.
Evolution is a lie, ok? I know some new visitors won't agree, but that's fine, you'll get over it or leave. Darwin saw different species of finches and supposed that they "evolved" from a "common ancestor" instead of varying based on their habitats. Then he and some of his buddies forged a "missing link" that came to be known as "Piltdown Man." The thing was the skull of an ape, the jaw of a human, and some mis-matched teeth all filed down, treated with acid, and stuck on with BUBBLE GUM. Then they buried it in a gravel pit and someone "discovered" it a year or so later. Of course the "Scientific" community jumped all over it, claiming it was "proof" of their evolution garbage. But alas, someone who applied a bit of objectivity to the situation discovered that it was a hoax. However, you don't hear much about "Piltdown Man" anymore, do ya'?
The same with Nebraska Man: a man found a TOOTH and designed a whole RACE of "humanoids" based on the ONE TOOTH! It was later discovered that far from being a hominid tooth, it was actually from a species of extinct PIG. That's how "objective" evolutionists are.
The only real reason I bring it up is because I've met a lot of Christians that are confused about the evolution mess. They think that "science" contradicts the Bible, so in order to believe the Bible they have to reject "science." This is far from the case, ladies and gentlemen. The Bible is light years ahead of science: they're still catching up with the Bible.
Moreover, almost single field of modern science was pioneered by a Born Again Christian who believed the Genesis account of Creation. That's not even mentioning all the archaeologists that traveled all over the world to attempt to prove the Bible wrong but actually found the Bible to be 100% correct.
In the book "The Case for Christ," the author tells how he, an experienced journalist, lived his entire life as an atheist. At one point, he grew so tired of peoples' belief in Jesus Christ that he decided to approach His story from a legal standpoint: in effect he decided to come at Jesus and His existence like he would a questionable news story. Halfway through his study, he accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour, as a result of his attack! He then proceeded to publish his findings in the book that I named above, showing that Jesus' existence is easily ascertained by eyewitness accounts.
Evolution, on the other hand, has no eyewitnesses, nor can it! (in the Scopes monkey trial, EVOLUTION LOST) Evolution is based on assumptions, guesses and lame hypotheses that cannot be proven nor ever will be.
If you're a Christian that has struggled with evolution and its attack on the Scriptures, rest assured that your Bible is 100% correct, and no person will ever prove otherwise. You can KNOW that Jesus Christ is real, His Word is Truth, and He IS the Creator of this Universe. Faith, at that point, changes from "believing" to KNOWING.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
The sons of God
I love deep, complex topics. I really enjoy digging deep within the passages of the Bible, finding deep meaning and uncovering personal truths. I even enjoy when a book expounds something to me that I'd never noticed about the Bible. It's true that there are more books written about the Bible than any single other topic, yet there's always something new to be found within its pages.
I firmly believe that there is a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; I do NOT believe in evolution, "Theistic" evolution, the "Day-Age" theory or any of that other nonsense. I do not believe in pre-Adamic death or human races; to believe such things is to go against clear Scriptures about death, sin and God's creation. What I DO believe, however, is that God's first earth (and heaven-SINGULAR) was inhabited by a race of spiritual beings, known in the Bible as the "sons of God." Today we know them as angels and devils: angels are the perfect beings that have served God from the Creation, and devils are those that rebelled against God and were cast out with Satan. In the cataclysmic battle that followed (paralleled in Rev. 12), the entire creation of God was destroyed: i.e. "without form and void." I believe this whole occurence was likely less than 1,000 years long; perhaps it parallels in reverse the Tribulation period (1,000 years of peace, 7 year rebellion, destruction and recreation?).
Regardless, we know that these "sons of God" were present at the creation, even before Adam.
Obviously these creatures, whoever they were, were present at the creation and beheld God's wondrous power that fashioned the earth out of nothing. These same beings show up in the first part of Job:
and again:
These creatures are obviously spiritual, for one cannot physically present himself before God and converse with Him vocally, nor was that possible in those days. They also show up in Genesis 6 (don't give me this "godly line of Seth" nonsense; that's completely retarded), so these guys are rather well-known. But the question anyone might ask is "why are they called 'sons of God'?" Well, I'm glad you asked.
Here, Adam is called the "son of God." Why?
Why is that relevant, you ask? Well let's see: Adam was made in God's image, a trichotomy. The other "sons of God" (Angels and fallen angels; sorry, spoiler) were also made in God's image, though they were completely spiritual (though able to take physical form). So we've established that the "sons of God" are those that have the image of God.
Today, mankind is made in the "image" of ADAM, NOT God. When Adam fell, the part of him that communed with God died, and his soul became inextricable with his body: i.e. for the rest of the Old Testament, until the writings of Paul, "soul" and "body" are completely, 100% synonomous. Therefore, anyone who is born today is a son of ADAM (C. S. Lewis had that right, messed up though he was!), NOT a son of God!
Why then are we called "sons of God"?
Why? Well, at Salvation, something unusual (and a little "odd-sounding") happened to you: you were circumcised. Yes, even you ladies. Verses? OK.
This circumcision had nothing to do with the "privy member," as the Bible says: it had to do with your SOUL and your BODY. Your body, or flesh, is permanently wicked: "in me, that is in my FLESH, dwelleth NO GOOD THING." Your OLD NATURE is perverse, wicked and vile, and all it wants to do is SIN. However, when you get saved, God performs an OPERATION without hands on you. Verse again? OK. Next verse, actually, so still in the same context:
Amazing, isn't it? When that spiritual circumcision takes place, you are then a NEW CREATURE, created in the IMAGE of GOD. Therefore, you are now a son of God, made in His likeness and not Adam's! God cuts away your justified soul from your grave-bound body; the body returns to the dust, but your SOUL will now go to be with God forever when you die.
Oh the riches of the fulness of His grace!! Amazing love, how can it be, that THOU my GOD should'st die for ME!
I firmly believe that there is a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; I do NOT believe in evolution, "Theistic" evolution, the "Day-Age" theory or any of that other nonsense. I do not believe in pre-Adamic death or human races; to believe such things is to go against clear Scriptures about death, sin and God's creation. What I DO believe, however, is that God's first earth (and heaven-SINGULAR) was inhabited by a race of spiritual beings, known in the Bible as the "sons of God." Today we know them as angels and devils: angels are the perfect beings that have served God from the Creation, and devils are those that rebelled against God and were cast out with Satan. In the cataclysmic battle that followed (paralleled in Rev. 12), the entire creation of God was destroyed: i.e. "without form and void." I believe this whole occurence was likely less than 1,000 years long; perhaps it parallels in reverse the Tribulation period (1,000 years of peace, 7 year rebellion, destruction and recreation?).
Regardless, we know that these "sons of God" were present at the creation, even before Adam.
(emphasis mine)
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Obviously these creatures, whoever they were, were present at the creation and beheld God's wondrous power that fashioned the earth out of nothing. These same beings show up in the first part of Job:
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
and again:
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
These creatures are obviously spiritual, for one cannot physically present himself before God and converse with Him vocally, nor was that possible in those days. They also show up in Genesis 6 (don't give me this "godly line of Seth" nonsense; that's completely retarded), so these guys are rather well-known. But the question anyone might ask is "why are they called 'sons of God'?" Well, I'm glad you asked.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Here, Adam is called the "son of God." Why?
Gen. 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Why is that relevant, you ask? Well let's see: Adam was made in God's image, a trichotomy. The other "sons of God" (Angels and fallen angels; sorry, spoiler) were also made in God's image, though they were completely spiritual (though able to take physical form). So we've established that the "sons of God" are those that have the image of God.
Today, mankind is made in the "image" of ADAM, NOT God. When Adam fell, the part of him that communed with God died, and his soul became inextricable with his body: i.e. for the rest of the Old Testament, until the writings of Paul, "soul" and "body" are completely, 100% synonomous. Therefore, anyone who is born today is a son of ADAM (C. S. Lewis had that right, messed up though he was!), NOT a son of God!
Why then are we called "sons of God"?
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Rom. 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Phil. 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Why? Well, at Salvation, something unusual (and a little "odd-sounding") happened to you: you were circumcised. Yes, even you ladies. Verses? OK.
Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:(emphasis mine)
This circumcision had nothing to do with the "privy member," as the Bible says: it had to do with your SOUL and your BODY. Your body, or flesh, is permanently wicked: "in me, that is in my FLESH, dwelleth NO GOOD THING." Your OLD NATURE is perverse, wicked and vile, and all it wants to do is SIN. However, when you get saved, God performs an OPERATION without hands on you. Verse again? OK. Next verse, actually, so still in the same context:
Col. 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Amazing, isn't it? When that spiritual circumcision takes place, you are then a NEW CREATURE, created in the IMAGE of GOD. Therefore, you are now a son of God, made in His likeness and not Adam's! God cuts away your justified soul from your grave-bound body; the body returns to the dust, but your SOUL will now go to be with God forever when you die.
Oh the riches of the fulness of His grace!! Amazing love, how can it be, that THOU my GOD should'st die for ME!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
