Lord and Saviour

I am a legalist. This is solidly entrenched and of my own will immovable. Who therefore do I take to be  my Lord and Saviour separate and distinct from Who He is in truth? For I do submit these two are different things

I know that I do not love God, even though for the moment I am putting aside the notion that God loves me to make a point about legalism. My spontaneous responses, my careless words, make the fact that I do not love God abundantly clear, and all my legalism has done is stir up my sin to make it worse even to the point of being no  longer manageable  in any practical sense

Years ago I had a gigantic outburst of aphorism writing. One of them was : "self ruling legalists are not monarchists but autocrats". This was a pun on the Greek  for autocrat means rule of self and by monarchist here I mean being a proper subject of God Almighty. I still seek to rule myself that I may escape the taint of sin. This is not love or faith but the proud refusal to hide any evidence that I am in fact a sinner. It is also a refusal, both proud and fearful, to accept the forgiveness of sin for a trademark of the legalist is to think in his heart of hearts that the forgiveness of  sin is a license to sin. Although legalists make much noise about the commandments of God the whole motivation, given that to forsake God for the Law is deadly heresy, as Paul the Apostle says in his letter to the Galatians, is to rule one's self.  It is in short a flagrant and total denial of the gospel, and as carnal men when serious about their religion are legalist, this confirms that the carnal mind is always at enmity to God, so thus we, as carnal minds are still at enmity to God. This I submit explains why legalists are so cruel and judgemental, even if the cruelty, as in my case, was turned inwards. If their efforts were in true submission to God the fruit of the Spirit would be forthcoming, namely kindness, gentleness, mercy.

Therefore I am my own Lord. Though the average sinner might rule himself by claiming the right to self indulgence the entire dynamic of legalism is still self rule, though more self oppression than self indulgence, but no less self rule for that.

As to stopping myself from sinning  in the hope that if I do God will save me from hell at the last day, well of course the initiative here  rests with the legalist. This denies the scripture "it does not depend on him who wills or runs but on God who has the mercy."   Of course what a legalist cannot admit to he will ignore if he can't tell lies about it. That is why he is forever telling self or others to "make the act of will" or is open to being bullied by others to attempt such,

The thing is that the act of will is not the solution to the issue of sin for the will is the problem, and must be so if we are accountable for our impulses. And if the scripture says that to lust is adultery even before the impulse is acted on, because as a man thinks in his heart so he is, then of course the impulse is the true locus of our will and the true manifestation of sin. So our efforts are acts not of the will but against it, turning us into a divided kingdom that cannot stand

Naturally this goes far too deep for the carnal mind, of whom the legalist is but one kind of representative, So we legalists will either deny  the fact and ignore the scripture that plainly says so, or, if we are really deeply deluded, as I am, we will try by brute force to crush the impulse and have the effrontery to ask God to help us.

But I know for a fact, after decades of bitter experience, that He will never lift so much as  a finger to help me save myself from sin. He will save me from it by leading  me to a heart confession of our own evil desires at the deepest level  of our wicked hearts. But He will do this in gentleness and patience, for if He  did not the knowledge would destroy us if we insisted, and I did, on delving the depths of our own heart like the dwarves of Moria delved too deeply and awoke a literal Balrog  demon. We awake our own sin,  for I only speak metaphorically of Middle earth here, and   knowledge of the same in fear and guilt which is in diametric opposition to that conviction of sin which is a gift of God's grace given in relationship  to Him in One on one counsel; such carnally gotten knowledge of sin will rampage to destroy.

I am not denying His grace here I am saying we have subverted it into something it is not, that the reified power we seek does not exist and our believing that it will aid our decision after and only after we have made it is a cop out, a refusal to face  what our impulses signify and is in fact a manifestation of the Pelagian heresy.

We call our efforts obedience, or mortifying the flesh, and the thinking behind it we call faith. It is nothing of the sort, lest God owe an apology to the Pharisees.,

But of course we do not trust Him, not really, so will cling ferociously to our regime of self brutalization  even though it is killing us.

I am my own saviour,  and this beneath all the rhetoric, my lying rhetoric, to the contrary.

To even believe, I must be saved by the Saviour of mankind, Jesus Christ, God the Son, from my unbelief and that by His leading me to confess it, acknowledging that I in fact do not believe and so all my efforts to do so are blasphemous hypocrisy and deadly dangerous to the  welfare of my own soul.

Such is why, incidentally , I reject that ancient heresy  currently given a new name by John MacArthur - Lordship Salvation, for, as I hope to have explained, it is nothing of the sort .

So as a legalist, intent, nay even hell bent on saving myself, I must continue to seek the Lord the Spirit  to repent of the foul sin which is my own righteousness.

Of course He will get argument from me.

There is no point in concealing it

A declaration

As the modern debacle of the Paris accord shows clearly, with its endorsing of the greatest delusion of modern times, namely that global warming still persists (it stopped in 1998) and was caused by man, we see that modern man is as priest ridden and as irrationally tribal as our medieval European ancestors. In those days the priests were of the catholic church, corrupt and arrogant. These days the priests call themselves scientists and are a corrupt as ever, silencing dissent and not refuting debate, which debate always was always a necessary part of the endeavour of science, but appealing to their priestly authority and tweaking data according to computer programs and assumptions which the raw data refute.

THEREFORE I am now declaring myself a climate PROTESTANT. There is no mediator between man and scientific truth but the evidence and I will not be bludgeoned by priesthoods that usurp the place of evidence and reason, which, as the evidence makes clear, the warmists have done repeatedly. As another most famous protestant said centuries ago, "Here I stand I can do no other"

I will post further. I am convinced that the whole story of man made glob al warming is indeed a delusion and nothing good can come of it

" . . .Pwns atheist on genetic fallacy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS5TguR7Sfo

To rebuke death with harsh condemnation is not to offer life, or even show that we who would preach are even alive in the first place

When I saw this link on youtube I was expecting to see a calm, cool,  polite  and respectful demolition of said genetic fallacy. What I saw in stead was a blistering piece of self righteous rage from the apologist aimed at a boy who made a careless assumption.

And we dare call this apologetics and contending for the faith?

How any of us are so lost in logic, apologetic, debate and propositional truth  that our consciences have atrophied to the point that we think our retaliation, and this is what this is, is righteous and godly?

Truth is more, much more, than proposition. Truth is a Person, and though we may witness to proposition by reasoned debate, even reasoned debate done with ill  temper  as I have seen time and time again, to witness to the Man Who is truth  is done with and shown by our fruit. That is to say if we do not have the gentleness and respect that St Peter's letter enjoins upon us we do not know the Person we testify to, and in fact, in reducing the gospel to mere ideology we are thinking and acting according to the principles of the world

The mere fact that the video was entitled  "Cliff pwns atheist on genetic fallacy" when nothing of the sort was done  shows how mission can and does become idolatrous obsession.  Even the word "pwn" which comes from computer gaming, shows this. It speaks of arrogant bragging by a boy who has won an ego context

I'll say it again. If such anger as this is all we have to offer to unbelievers even when they make a foolish comment, then we have nothing to offer and ourselves are in need of the Gospel we show by our fruit to have forsken

Rome and I - in brief

This may be a preliminary post to the issue of Catholicism. It is from a facebook post of mine from some time age

Looking at a video by a notorious catholic baiter. John MacArthur on youtube I replied with this.
Catholics, who believe in the trinity, atonement, resurrection and second coming of Christ, while denying sola fide and sola scriptura are about as saved as we protestants, who believe in, well, yes, the trinity, atonement, resurrection and second coming of Christ but who show by our lives that we do not believe in sola fide (we would not be so legalistic if we did) and sola  scriptura (well, we would not chase preachers and christian writers so much if we did)

So what is the difference?

Catholics are a little more honest about what they really believe whereas we like to hide behind parroted utterances of sound doctrine which our lives show we do not believe.

And of course Protestants like MacArthur need something to hate, and Rome has been the lightning rod for that for centuries.

Given the great commonality between Rome and us of the protestant sects if they are not Christians neither are we, but if we Protestants are Christians so are they. We cannot have it both ways, as bigots of both camps insist, that the other set is not Christian

We are as Christian as each other, but that is not much

Subverted Scriptures 3

He became sin, the Word of God says or so it is paraphrased. 2 Cor 5 :21. says that God made Him (Christ), who knew no sin,   to be sin for us that we may become  the righteousness of God 

But what does the phrase made sin mean?

Naïve literalism is always the bane of the evangelical.

In this instance I submit that literalism subverts the meaning of the passage.

Joyce Meyer and others, chiefly as far as I know of the Word of Faith stable of preachers, have offered the fantastic and in my serious opinion blasphemous scenario that Jesus literally became sin. Like the medieval Catholics who they despise but so closely resemble, they need to over do the suffering, to turn the dying Christ into something hideous. In the late Middle Ages we see great tortured crucifixes covered with blood both in carving and painting. We Protestants affect to condemn such things but when our mental pictures are the same it make no difference.  Of course these preachers go further and ignoring that Jesus said "It is finished:"  John 19:30, have him being tortured in Hell, as if the cross really were not enough. Meyer speaks passionately of "My Jesus"  in regard to the fantasy character being so treated  Yes, that is her Jesus. I will concede this, but it is not the Jesus of Holy scripture.

The logic of the matter is that if Christ became sin then he became a sinner, for sin cannot be reified. It is a relationship, not a  thing. It cannot be separated out into some kind of black scum as in the episode of Star Trek the Next Generation  in which Tasha Yar was killed by such a black scum consisting of all the hate fear and rage of those  people it had encountered it. But reification is itself another bane of the naïvely  literalistic.

For if Jesus literally became sin He literally became a sinner,

If He became sin He rebelled against God,  so clearly was not God, so his death not only did not save Himself it did not save us.

What then does the term mean?

The NIV which I use as part of my Greek Interlinear quietly adds a footnote  to the word sin in this passage. This note is or "sin offering."

This is totally correct. Whatever the faults of the NIV this is not one of them.

Of course the term could be interpreted as "took the place of sin to bear its punishment."  But that is the same thing as "sin offering" when it comes to simple practicality.

Jesus the sinless lamb of God suffered in our place AS a sinless Lamb of God and not, dare I say it, as a filthy pox ridden goat.

So. A scripture is subverted. Some run with then and confirm the computing dictum GIGO (garbage in- garbage out)  by producing blasphemous nonsense which, as a reductio ad absurdam of the passage clearly shows not that the passage is in error but their  reading of it is  when it leads to such nonsense.

But alas, that is how most heresies arise. And as the ego of the heretic is usually invested in heresy, that is why heresies stay with us

My View on the Reformation - brief

This is from a comment of mine on you tube, expanded here somewhat

The depravity and foul tempers of the so called Reformers is why I reject the Reformation outright. Oh, the Catholics had the worse doctrine  but the foul fruit of the reformers show that they had their fair share of the spirit of antichrist.

There is more to a living and Biblical Christianity than doctrine. Doctrine is necessary but it is not enough. If it were sufficient then there would be no need for the fruit of the Spirit nor even the Spirit Himself  and as such God would owe an apology to the Pharisees who were, as a matter of historical fact, the one Jewish sect that were closest to Jesus when it came to doctrine. But as we all know they were the most strongly rebuked by the Messiah

I also find it a most bitter indictment of that whore which calls itself the Church of Christ that when religious liberty came to the West it came from the Enlightenment, Deists et al, who decided after seeing the blasphemous disgrace of the hate of the Christians for one another that the questions they murdered one another for were really quite stupid.

These questions were not stupid, of course, but that the Enlightenment men thought so is an example of the name of God being blasphemed by the Gentiles because of us who profess to believe

Of course all of us who are  so bent on defending our idols  will never dream for a moment that the Reformation led, by its very essence of hatred and rage, to the Enlightenment.

Strait is the gate and narrow the way, Jesus said. And looking at the fruit of these Reformation bigots I cannot see that any of them ever found it, or, if they did - and Luther may have -  ever stayed in it

There was no glory of God seen in the Reformation, just the most brutal religious quarrel in history; and I seriously contend that to honour these hate filled men, whose hate can be seen when looking at their pamphlets, full of both violent and obscene language, as well as can be seen in their deeds, to honour these is to honour a past that never was and is therefore  idolatry

On the legislated Tithe

There are detailed biblical studies out there as to why the legislated tithe is actually an abomination. I do not think that they are really very necessary, for the case against tithing is simpler than that.

At its most simple a legislated gift given under compulsion is bribery. We who tithe under compulsion would bribe God. The sin of this should be self evident,

God's gifts are free. If they are not free they are not gifts, and indeed to attempt to buy them is to insult the Holy Spirit. This is the sin of simony as mentioned in the book of Acts where Simon Magus sought to buy the  power of the  Holy Spirit.  [ reference] Although in medieval church history this term changed its meaning to the purchase of church offices with money, something no protestant Christian would dream of doing let alone have the opportunity to do, yet the original meaning is sufficiently broad as to convict us of the very same sin of Simony.

But it is also said that God loves a cheerful giver [ref]. This is true but context must be supplied. God also loves the whole world, John 3:16 and He commended his love for sinners by dying for them. [ref] So clearly He does not love any the less those who decline to give,  lest one thing He does indeed show is favouritism or as the KJV  puts it,  is  a respecter of persons. Moreover to force oneself to give because God loves a cheerful giver is to pretend to cheerfulness, a self defeating exercise.

As with everything  pertaining to the things of God the validity of the deed comes down to motive. I Corinthians 13 makes it utterly clear that  good deeds without love do not in fact count for anything.

I submit that if one forces oneself  to anything this is not obedience at all, given that God commands total obedience from a completely willing and joyful heart and that anything less, as James says,  being guilty of one point in the law is a breach of the entire law. [ref]

Why do we force ourselves to tithe? Because it is commanded? Even if it is  we do it not out of joyful gratitude against which latter  I have not the slightest objection. I am not against anyone who cheerfully and joyfully gives, only against coercion. So we do it under compulsion in the name of "obedience"  to get something. But this is purchase not the receipt of grace. And as such it is the very way of the world. Or it is done to attempt to buy off His wrath. Again this is an utter insult to the Father Who we claim to believe loves us, and I submit the legalism shows we do not believe this. Is the gospel a protection racket? Then we play into the hands of the likes of   the now late Chris Hitchens, militant God haters who say as much and rail against God for it

What does it say to a new convert that he may have experienced the grace of God but is then told he has to pay one tenth of his gross income into the Church coffers without  fail or else he is robbing God?  [ ref] It says that his salvation is not free  and requires maintenance by the payment of money.  But the Old Covenant ordinances are gone. There is now  no priesthood to maintain as the separate priesthood  ordained for the making of sacrifice was abolished at Calvary for its function was fulfilled. And as for maintaining the pastorate, although a man is worthy to receive a just and modest payment enough to support him, St Paul the Apostle refused to take such and supported himself by his own trade as a tent maker. He was not going to open himself up to accusations of being in the business for money or as the KJV Bible so eloquently describes it, for filthy lucre.

Your church does not need your money and if they demand it by force of Divine Law they are extortionists as well as heretics.

Naturally the notion preached by the Word of Faith preachers that gifts are seeds is an outright abomination; and they are rich in money not because of any just means but by extortion and theft.

It is said that God is no man's debtor, by which they mean that God will never let himself be in our debt as He will pay such debts immediately. But who is in debt to who? This is outright blasphemy for the Bible says that it is us who are in debt to God [ref] to such an extent that we cannot possibly pay, hence the Cross of Christ.

I might  say that God is no man's debtor but for the entirely different reason  that it is impossible to put God in our debt and it is blasphemous extortion to try.

His gifts are free. He gives only  gifts to His children. Indeed the only thing He gives as payment is damnation for the wages of sin is death. [ ref]

There is another tragic outcome of legalism concerning the tithe.

People have neglected their family's welfare. This churches think is a good thing for they love to say "give until it hurts"  but why does it hurt? Because it moves beyond one's peace as if "be led by the peace in your heart"  [ref]  is a scripture not applicable to this matter.

But there is also harm to the children, not to mention oneself or other dependants  through neglect in providing the necessities of life. But scripture is most clear  "He who neglects his family has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" [ref]. A family close to the breadline in terms of income is not able to afford the tithe and it can lead them to destruction to demand it of them.

A church that demands money by force of Divine Law in fact covets money and of course covetousness is idolatry. When people give to get they are giving out of the same covetousness, and it can cause suffering. For indeed the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil [ref]

On a personal note, the Lord the Spirit said to me  over thirty years ago, "I do not want so much as a penny piece from you, child, lest you think you bought your healing."  So I stopped  trying to bribe Him. He is not so stupid as to be taken in by a bribe for He knows all things, including the motive behind such bribery and He will absolutely not accept such a filthy offering

Now I know I am miserly, but forcing myself to give is no solution to this. My being unwilling it is in fact an expression of miserliness not its remedy, just as all legalism is an expression of the sin it fights, is even the very sin it fights, and no remedy to it. Some have accused me of copping out but again this is boasting in their own works if they condemn me for not doing them also. It is still the case as scripture says  that it is not of works that any man should boast [ref]

But his Grace continues to me now that I keep my money, and indeed he has prospered me well, not as in the dreams of avarice of the prosperity teachers but according to my needs.

And this is so as He will not  have his favour bought

A Paradox of Faith

I will not say this is THE paradox of faith  for there may be others, but what I would speak of today is A paradox of faith.

Our standing on the word of God, our resisting our own thoughts, our coming against imaginary demons because we refuse to admit that the verse as a man thinks so he is actually applies to our spontaneous thoughts and  not to our conscious force against them, all this is a blasphemous, painful and dangerous waste of time, for we are tempted by our own lusts, not outside forces, as St James said

In the end, in one on one counsel with the Holy Spirit in personal conversation, I have found that I simply had to come out and say to Him, time and time again, as He led in the context of our conversation

"I DON"T BELIEVE YOU!"

I have actually found that it takes more faith to say that to God's face  as it were than to constantly look inwards (for such effort is only inward looking) and rebuke such and such a thought or stand on a bible verse which every fibre of our being is saying we do not believe.

Such a warfare is a private war, but I know for a fact that I wanted this as it made me look like a hero. Even a Titan in chains.  And I see this everywhere. It is grandiose self dramatization. It is merely  the self destructive antics of a kingdom divided against itself whereby, as we are individually that kingdom, such effort could and often enough does lead to a final falling away to perdition, for I have always rejected that dangerous false security which is Once Saved Always Saved


No.

I come to believe anything, particularly  as pertains to Christian living, by confessing as sin the contrary unbelief. But not of course as a legalistic strategy. Such is what I call "reportage."  It is not honest and so is a total waste of time , for as God know it already if we do not mean it for it comes not from the heart, then it is indeed a total waste of time.

Of course it is totally counter intuitive that I should come to faith by confessing unbelief, but how can it be otherwise? We are carnal minded if our fruit are carnal. Our doctrine may be sound but it is not honestly believed. And this makes Pharisees of us for we confuse commitment to a doctrine with believing it. Indeed, if it were honestly believed surely it would bring forth endless joy and we would be known by our love joy and peace.

And being carnal minded then of course I think the gospel is utter insane nonsense, self indulgent tripe, you name it. This is what I might call "flesh" but to separate ourselves from it is deadly and the essence of legalism.

The solution? we prefer to make grace a reified force  at our beck and call, something we use to help save ourselves. This is something God will never do and it shows why God never helps our efforts. If we manage to repress a behaviour so deep that we no longer do it this is no victory.  WE have merely deepened our hypocrisy and the tension of our lives show we will pay for it.

The solution? As always there is only one: personal one on one dialogue with the Holy Spirit of Christ.  This is what prayer is

As part of our healing will, as sure as Christ will return someday, our healing WILL include conviction of sin, including the sins of unbelief; but this will only happen as we let it out and stop pretending that we believe him or most assuredly that we love him, for with such blasphemies that will come out as engendered by our effort, distilled by the high pressure we put ourselves under, we surely do not love God and likely never have.

Be honest with him.

But of course I know full well this is anathema to the religious  heart and  mind which insists on being good where it is not, so even the reality of being honest with Him will only come about by His leading us to it.

It is all much easier than struggling with our thoughts and thing we are heroes for the effort.

But it is still written that His yoke is easy his burden light

Western Democracy

I believe I have had a flash of insight as to western politics. Someone to whose comment I was replying on you tube was expressing disappointment that they elect a leader and he turns out to be a crook. Do they want a messiah? Now that is precisely the problem. What we want is  a God King who will make it rain in season and of course make the trains run on time. And when he does come he will be none other than  the antichrist

No, the matter should not  be a leader, for power corrupts. Rather the matter of politics should be POLICIES promulgated by PARTIES and policed by a politically savvy and active PEOPLE of whom the government is afraid as they know full well that an active populace would vote them out if they break a promise

But again, no, this will not happen, for democracy requires vigilance and work; but this is something modern western man is too lazy or uneducated to do. So the result is that cynicism in the political process becomes justified and the cycle follows that laid out by the Greek Philosophers whereby democracies become tyrannies.

So when this happens we in the West will deserve everything we get.

There is a God King Who is eminently fit to rule, but His rule has been rejected and even when it was professed as real it was subverted by the people who most devoutly expressed claims as to be His most loyal subjects.

Who?

Jesus Christ

A Lesson in Bigotry

I have just received a rather bitter lesson in the nature of religious bigotry.

Getting home from work and checking my youtube recommendations I come across a quote

"The cross shows us a different way of measuring success. Ours is to plant the seeds. God sees to the fruits of our labors. And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and not produce fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus Christ and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross."

If you will bother to read this without prejudice, and to aid in this I will withhold for now the name of the person saying this, you will see that there is in fact nothing wrong with this.

Humanly speaking the cross was a failure, but divinely speaking it was something else entirely. By no stretch of the imagination can the speaker be said to be saying that the cross was a failure  in its intrinsic essence. He was saying, or at least gave no reason to have us think he was denying, what all Christians know,  namely that it was only apparently so, humanly speaking  To hold any other meaning those hostile to the  speaker have to ignore the phrase "humanly speaking" as well as the very opening of this quote  "The cross shows us a difference way of measuring success".

How can the cross be offering a different measure of success if it was a failure?

I invite you to reread the quote.

Done?

Very well, I will tell you , if you do not know , who said this

It was the current pope. Francis I.

They are saying that the pope is saying the cross was a failure.

Moreover they are screaming blue murder and denouncing him with all self righteous fury

He was not saying this, however. There is nothing wrong  with this quote

In their hatred they have twisted the words that this man uttered in order to make these words something to justify their hatred

This is seen not by appealing to hatred as some kind of a priori, but by simply examining the words spoken. When we do we see that the true statement such as this can only be twisted by motivations such as hatred

A true statement, then,  is twisted into a blasphemy then the speaker is railed at for speaking blasphemy.

This reflects on the evil of those who think that libel is the way to serve truth. It is not, and neither is railing against the perceivedly evil person, for it says in Jude verse  9 that "when the Archangel  Michael was disputing with  Satan over the body of Moses he did not dare bring a slanderous accusation against Satan but said 'the lord rebuke you.'"

To rail even at evil is sin.

To bring false charges against it is open defiance of the Word of God

The arrogance of this filthy underbelly of Protestantism s quite literally a disgrace, as it the warping of minds that such hatred produces.

Even if Catholicism is riddled with heresy to bring false charges against it is only to encourage them in their error.  But alas this is something the anti-Catholic bigot does not care to consider

The Time of Day

I now realize, now that indeed nothing has happened as I expected would be the case as regarding September 23, that I have been far too generous in giving even the time of day to  those fanatics for whom Acts 1:6-8 is simply not good enough.

I listened to them, carefully weighed what they had to say against scripture and of course concluded that they simply did not know what they were talking about.

But I still insisted on examining their ideas.

Some ignored verses like Acts 1:6-8, or insisted that they were not meant for the Church, or that they were only meant for the disciples at the time, or even twisted the Greek to justify this.

They are all contemptible. Even if we set aside for a moment the fact that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, they did not even have scholarly regard for a text which spoke plainly and simply.

They jumped on a bandwagon  for they were so desperate to have the world end when they determined it should, and in my opinion were likely so consumed with hate for the world that they wanted to see it burn, that their burning lust overcame their sense and even their ability to read.

This is not simply a matter of sincere error.

To make predictions where the scripture forbids specific date setting is open defiance of scripture. To insist on doing so is to be deeply backslidden, powerfully estranged from the Holy Spirit who would have spoken to these persons if they were amenable to hearing His still and small voice. But they were not amenable.

They may not be lost because of getting wrong some issue of eschatology but they are in deep danger of loss if they are so estranged from the Spirit as  to be backslidden -  and this separate and distinct from any amount of religious activity they may engage in.

Once Saved Always Saved is a deadly heresy for it does not trust in the Love of Christ, it presumes upon it.  And the difference here is crucial. Thus backsliding is  real danger and those who rashly predicted, and in the name of the Lord Himself to boot, what did not occur, have themselves backslidden, for all their religious zeal.

One cannot be close to the Lord the Spirit and falsely predict  anything. To be estranged from the Holy Spirit is the danger; and all who predicted what did not happen are estranged from Him
 
Then of course there is the reputation of the gospel among unbelievers. If one person rejects the gospel because of a failed prediction which had no shred of biblical warrant, then though the person who did this is accountable for his own disinclination to distinguish true from false prediction, yet nevertheless those who gave such the temptation to do so, namely end time fanatics with their obstinate penchant for date setting, will also be judged with ferocity. For it is written "It is inevitable that temptations come, but woe to him through whom they come."  There is nothing in this passage nor the rest of scripture indicating  that we the Church are exempt from this dire warning.

What hellfire preachers love to say to an unbelieving world, usually in hatred, cruelty and arrogance, must be said to the church that gave credence to the folly of Set 23 2015, May 21 2011, 2007, Y2K, 1988 and so on back over, I regret to say, centuries.

What must be said, and God discern my motive for saying it?

REPENT.

As for the title of this piece and my opening paragraph: I have been far too generous in giving the time of day to people who have so little regard for scripture as to use it as a cherry picking resource for their own fantasies, to the detriment of the faith of their weaker brethren and the reputation of the gospel itself

If I have any sense I will cease to give even this aforementioned time of day to any of them.

Their arguments are all the same, cherry picking, word twisting; and this when they know how to present a purportedly rational argument. Some were incapable of even this bare minimum and just bombarded the you tube watcher,  where I found the bulk of this nonsense, with a set of images that proved nothing.

And as always we wonder why the Name of God is so hated these days, and as always we deny that our unbelief, hypocrisy and sheer  dishonest scholarship have anything to do with it.

the 23rd of September 2015

Today is the 23rd of September. In itself this is of no significance. I know this. But various religious extremists have predicted any number of events for this day, in open and arrogant defiance of the Bible which clearly says we are not to set dates.

Some claim that the Antichrist will be revealed for who he is, after having shown their racism and ignorance by insisting it is Obama.

Others say that an asteroid will hit the earth, others that the Rapture will happen whereby they gloatingly say they will be teleported off the earth before 7 years of hell will be unleashed on the rest.

Even others say, and this is true insanity, that a counterfeit alien invasion will happen, and this to force the New World Order

NOTHING WILL happen. None of the arguments they advance as to why this day are valid. So I am going on public record to say so.

But I am also going public to say that as the Bible set no such dates

Therefore to reject Christ because of this failed prediction is itself irrational and even dishonest.
They who defy the Word of God to make unwarranted predictions will damage the reputation of the gospel by their rantings but they are so infatuated by their scheme that they do not care to face the plain fact that the Bible forbids setting dates.

Upon their own heads be it

I will not be fazed by the passing of a non event. I was not bothered when Harold Camping's prediction of May 2011 failed, for I knew before hand that it would.

But my prayer is that some would not have their faith destroyed by trusting these irrational, schadenfreude riddled and heretical predictions wheen thy do not come to pass; and also that others will not think that these failures reflect on a Bible which clearly said no dates were to be set.

However as men are prejudiced against God  and are looking for excuses to both set predictions without warrant and, from other quarters to reject Him when they fail, I am not hopeful that anything other than blasphemy and apostasy will result from this latest round of futility

Subverted Scriptures 2

"The wages of God are eternal life but the free gift of sin is death"

Of course you know this is not what Romans 6:23 actually says, but I have seen it subverted this way many times.

One local street preacher used to appear in our inner city public speaking forum with a booklet. "What do you have to do to be saved?" he asked.

He opened the booklet and it had blank pages.

To be damned you need do nothing.

To those who suggest this is a straw man, well this preacher was a legalist. He was serious about his religion and was a bully who regularly insulted his hearers ("I am here to speak to morons," he used to say). To be so loveless and serious about religion is the very essence of legalism, and the upshot of this is that what came out of such preaching  to be saved one must keep all the commandments of God.

And I certainly believed this. And time and time again I have seen Christians imposing the Law on people, including other Christians, showing they do not believe in the free gift of God.

They call this obedience to Christ yet, as no one keeps the Law and as our efforts therefore do not constitute obedience of the Law it is no such thing. Indeed the letter to the Galatians spells out what error this is

But believing this, as so many of us actually do in our heart of hearts, for all our fervent declarations of faith based righteousness, we hold that the wages of God are eternal life.

Thus the scripture is subverted.

There is a second subversion here.

"The wages of sin are death."

Period.

I did this. I never ended the sentence, forgetting that the free gift of God is eternal life and that this eternal  life is not just conversion, but the whole thing,   including discipleship, as much a gift of grace as anything else lest we fall away into the Law trying to pay for it. This gift, the whole of eternal life is delivered in personal relationship with the Hoy Spirit, without Whom there is only impossible law and despair to any sensitive (so many are not) to this. But instead I thought, emotionally, of course  that as the wages of sin were death and with no free gift as in sight, I had to stop sinning. And as Romans 8 says, this is outright impossible

Oh, I could quote the entire passage, but what I focused on was not a matter of my forced determination, and being carnal minded I missed the second part of this dictum and it took the Spirit Himself to show this to me just recently

As with just about everything what we truly believed is shown by our spontaneous living, our careless words, by our lives.

If we are carnal of fruit we are carnal of mind and all of us subvert the scriptures time and time again.

It will take gracious conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit to reveal to u what our deceitful hearts have wrought, as it will take his persuasion, as loving Counsellor, to lead us to repent of it

The relationship is the thing.

Always

Subverted Scriptures 1

This may become a series.

Many scriptures are subverted. Twisted. And gross heresy results

"Work out your salvation in fear and trembling" it says in Philippians 2:12.

If this verse is misunderstood even only slightly it becomes subverted, turning into  "live a life of painful struggle beset with constant terror, devoid of rest, a vale of tears."

This I did and this I have seen done and preached, as for example by my original pastor who preached that the Christian life was "blood sweat and tears."

So it was blood sweat and tears for the Hebrew slaves in Egypt

But it is still the case that His joke is easy, His burden is light. And  peace, not the fear and trembling commonly understood to be invoked here, is the proper Godly response, along with the joy which is our strength

Biblical logic demands that this opening passage be interpreted in a way other than the plainly intuitive.

I will reword the passage to make an exegetical point

"Let  God's saving activity in your life be made manifest (work out)  in reverential awe of the gravity of sin and the seriousness of the situation and of your own infirmity (in fear and trembling)

"for", and I add the context, verse 13  "it is God who is at work in you to will and do His good pleasure"

The issue is personal relationship with the Holy Spirit. Without this is either easy believism, which does not live under grace, merely falsely invokes it , thus still denies it; or legalism, a complete forsaking of Him for the Law, as Paul in Galatians rebuked.

We are striving by force of sweated will? Then we have forsaken him for Law. We are afraid, and indeed will be if we have any sensitivity of conscience? (I was utterly terrified). Then we do not trust Him and do not rest in Him.

I certainly have done this latter, for my besetting sin is legalism.

But His mercy in One on one conversation continues

Imperator!!

I have been fascinated by the Roman Emperors for decades Some years ago. I got out, among a host of others over the years,   a book on them from the library called "Chronicle of Roman Emperors" by Chris Scarre.

One thing it does is spells out the meaning and significance of their names and titles, and for each one
gives a full list of them all at various times, at birth, on adoption, on accession,
whenever else some more were added, and finally at death.

For example

Tiberius caesar, divi Augusti filius, Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, tribuniciae
potestatis XXXIIX, imperator VIII, Consul V.

and

Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, Germanicus Sarmaticus,
Pontifex Maximus, Tribuniciae potestatis XXXIV, Imperator X, Consul III, Pater
Patriae.


I discovered that the number of times they were accorded the accolade imperator (literally commander but a paean of praise to said commander, a salutation, in short)  was counted in the list, as well as  the number of years they held the tribunician power .

As an exercise, as I have long held God Almighty to be Emperor, I tried this, namely the Imperial Titles of Jesus Christ, King of Kings (ie Emperor)


Imperator Caesar Divus Dominus Deus Iesus Christus Augustus Rex, divi Domini
Deii Augusti Patris filius, (lit son of the Divine Dominus Deus Augustus Pater)
Peccatoricus, Moricus (conqueror of sin and death, pardon the bad latin) and then on
His return Germanicus, Britannicus, Americanus, Sinicus ie victory title for every every
nation of the earth conquered), Pontifex Magnus Maximus, Tribuniciae potestatis
MCMLXVII, (ie years since resurrection) Imperator times without number, Consul
MCMLXVII, Filius Patris, Magister Militum, Proconsul (ie holding Proconsular
Imperium, cannot be gainsayed).


A word about the Tribunician  veto, which is the point of this post

As the tribune of the plebs the holder of the potestatis had the right to veto any legislation.  The office arose  in response to the Plebian Secessions  whereby the pled, tired of being exploited by the rich, left Rome en masse, not only once but twice back when Rome was merely a city state . Their Tribune, having the Tribunician Power (lat potestas) could veto legislation as part of the checks and balances that made the Roman Republic last so long.

When the Republic fell apart the Emperor took the title as part of the fiction that he was a guardian of  the Republic.
\
Now, to idealize this for my point:

He, Jesus the Emperor, has the right to veto the death sentence on me, as he represents
the plebs, of which I am one.

And so He has done

My excitement at the time of writing this, quite  few years ago now was profound. If I idealise the reality of the tribunate of the plebs and use it as a metaphor, the Divine Emperor the Son of God is For me not against me.


So I shouted to him the soldiers accolade IM PER A TOR!! IM PER A TOR!!!!

The Gory Detail

One thing whereby I see that we are not so far removed from the Catholics whom we still affect to despise is our preoccupation with the gory detail of the cross.

Indeed we may even have surpassed the Catholics in this, what with the endless parade of movies about Christ which show, in varying degrees of gruesomeness, the crucifixion.

So we shed a tear, or a million, and wax lyrical about the love which did this for us.

But do we really grasp the significance of the thing?

Let me say that if meditating on that Old Rugged Cross actually achieved anything other than morbid fascination to the carnal minds that attempt it, then Spanish Catholicism of the Late Middle Ages should be the archetype of Christianity as it should be.

But I hear a chorus   of "No" from my readers? Indeed I should hope so.

For all such morbidity produced was religious fanaticism that gave us the Inquisition, and in this day and age such religious fanaticism still makes us barren and unloving and indeed even may lead to the modern fanaticism  of Dominionism. For I ask you - with the world soaked in sermons, videos, religious movies even of relatively sound content, and the like, were the contrary true we should see the visible fruit of it, should we not?.

But still the name of God is blasphemed among the nations because we  are hypocrites. Where are the changed lives? Indeed this  indulgence in what amounts to mere empty religiose emotion produces nothing that lasts and will only encourage hard legalists to reject emotion outright, as I will explore in  my piece "The Hypocrites Charter" in due course

If we are indeed carnal minded, and I submit that our fruit show this, then no amount of spiritual exercises (a term coined by Ignatius Loyola) will be of any value, for I submit that severe treatment of the mind by forced gazing on what we view as traumatic, is  as worthless as severe treatment of the body, which scripture plainly and clearly denounces.

That something is spiritually discerned does not mean it is discerned by the human spirit as opposed to the human mind (an absurd application of that absurd doctrine that Man is made in the image of God by virtue of being a trinity, just as God is). But it does mean such is discerned under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit revealing to us and reasoning with us ("Come Let us reason together," says the Lord)  in the on going personal relationship, One on one, with the Spirit of Christ, who is our Wonderful Counsellor, which is the very core  and essence of discipleship.

But without this partnership with the Holy Spirit under his Lordship and benevolent leading we will get nowhere for we who cannot submit and cannot understand (for so scripture declares) will remain in that state unless the Spirit teach us the significance of the words that we are given to parroting - and indeed, given our carnality, we can do no other with these holy words;

I am not going to go into detail about the hideous cruelty of crucifixion. That is contrary to my point entirely. But suffice to say that after such a study I can  no longer look on the image of the cross at all.  I am not transfixed by a love that did this, I am traumatized by the horror.

The Lord the Spirit tells me that there is no cross in my thinking.

But let me explain this term. By "thinking" I mean emotional thinking. As regards doctrine and intellect I can purvey the Cross with the best of them. But no one, not even intellectuals. live in their heads. Intellectual thought is of no honest conviction if it has not become heart conviction as shown by our way of life, by the Fruit of the Spirit. On this basis it must be said that  I have never grasped the significance of the Cross, and my legalism, which continues over decades of stubborn, fearful and prideful defiance, is the evidence of this as I attempt to save myself,  for to my thinking there is no other way.

And all the effort in the world I have made has not changed this one iota.

I am carnal minded as my fruit is carnal and to me the things of God are still foolishness. I cannot submit.

That some might retort that if I am born again I am in the Spirit (the immediate context of this verse I quote here) I will reply that yes indeed. I am somehow in the Spirit, for all my carnality. I can be brought to submit. But this is quite  a different thing from saying I can simply submit, cold as it were, by simple act of will. Likewise I can be brought to  understand, but not of myself nor of  my attempts at what amount to mere Spiritual Exercises

So I suggest not a forced meditation on visible and external detail, which is valid would have made Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" a spiritual masterpiece as well as a Hollywood blockbuster; and would have made medieval Catholicism the true religion; but  rather a confession of our incomprehension and unbelief as shown by our lives and our efforts to believe

But if we are to become wise we must  first become fools, (I Corinthians  3:18). That is so say we are to admit that we do not understand what we try to understand, so indeed really are fools.

It is more honest and as always it is much, much easier when done under the personal tutelage of the Holy Spirit. And it makes us teachable

 

A prophecy

I believe the Lord has given me a prophecy. Such has not happened in literally decades; and I would rather it did not happen now, but it has come and it behoves me to deliver it

Thus sayeth the Lord

"My children, some are spreading fear and confusion in My church by daring to defy scripture through setting dates for the Second Coming of My Son, The Rapture of the Church, The Great Tribulation, and other such events.

"They speak without wisdom, without warrant and without anointing. I commanded them not.

"Therefore, My children, know and believe that when Sept 23rd this year comes and goes without event, for this is one of the dates they dare set, know that this is as I determined and this I declare before hand that you shall know that I am the Lord, Great YHWH, Holy And Terrible.

"No date pertaining to the End of the Age has proceeded from my Mouth, nor shall it ever, lest my Scriptures be voided.

"Do not fear those who  speak from presumptuous imagination, neither fear to question them and disbelieve them, and moreover do not fear when the date passes  without event, neither think  by such failure  that my Word is invalidated . The only thing invalidated is the presumption of men, as it should be.

"To those who peddle these dates, who sow confusion in My church and disturb such small peace as the Church has I say this:

"Who is it that darkens counsel? Who is it who dares speak when I have forbidden the setting of dates?

"Come before Me in prayer and see whether I am Holy and Terrible or no.

"Come before Me in prayer and assay your case and see whether it will stand in My Holy Presence, as did My servant Job, who repented in dust and ashes.

"And know that if you will repudiate this folly I am rich in mercy and My heart burns to forgive, if you will confess and repent.

"But if you will not repent  then hear that the blood of those who despair and deny the faith when your date setting fails, will be on your shoulders."

Flee to the Throne of Grace, and do it  now.

It is my heart to cry "Adorate Purpurum" and "Proskuneite" which are ancient ritual obseisances before the Emperor.

Amen and Amen

Given in Christchurch New Zealand  this 8:00 pm  the 13 July 2015

Reflections on Dog Care

Now I am no expert on the care of pets, in this instance, a dog.

I have never owned a pet in my life. We had caged birds in an outdoor aviary when I was a boy but they IMO do not really count, certainly not for the points I would make here.

But a good friend of mine has asked me to baby sit her pet dog for the weekend. The dog is a little female Jack Russell Maltese cross (not that I have any real idea what that means).

Her name is Poppy and she is sweet natured and well behaved.

She of course enjoys walking, but as I lack the experience (all of two days now) to let her off the leash in outdoor environments, she is on the leash, which is a long leash which retracts or extends depending on the pressure put on it.

As I was walking with Poppy over the last two days I have felt  the Lord say to me,  (this is a summary not a verbatim transcript of a conversation though I could in principle produce such if I chose) "would you treat Poppy with violence? would you yank hard on her leash?"  To me the answer is obvious, "Of course I would not!! She is a sweet and sensitive little child."

So the clear implication is that  as I would treat a dog  so God would treat me.

However  this morning  I cried out in anguish, and this is a literal transcript not a summary,  "BUT I AM A SINNER"  whereby I mean that I should be beaten, deprived and made to suffer.  Indeed this is how medieval religion worked, and I picked up a fair amount of this in my travels.

For as some may know I have never believed that God loved. I have certainly never believed that God loved a sinner like me

Yet dogs so mistreated become  vicious and even dangerous; and this, when speaking of Christians,  by mistreatment  from other Christians and  by, as in my case, a belief that their Master and Owner needs to take  only a violent hand with his charges.

And God my Master  tells me this is not so. If we treat dogs with kindness how much more would He treat us if we let Him do so.

But some train their dogs to be watch dogs, attack beasts, violent, aggressive and not socialized to other people or other dogs at all. So some evangelists think that savaging their hearers is their function, barking and growling. But they are wild dogs who have forsaken their Master

This gentleness I spoke us above goes to the commands  one would use to a dog. The dog I have temporary charge of has already been trained, well trained, IMO. My leading is gentle but I think firm, and little Poppy is a joy to walk with

To use the lexicon of command given to a dog, Dog our Father is telling me that there are three commandments he would teach me:

SIT, STAY and BEG

Sit means to cease running around in anxiety, something I am prone to do, Stay means in this context, to be still over periods of time, to rest in the care of the Father; and beg means to not fear to ask Him for what I want. This last is something I have always feared to do lest I be punished for presumption or asking foolishly. But I come to know, and may write on this in another post where this is more prominent an issue and about entirely another mater altogether, that He required honesty in the request. I am being told to ask even if I think it wrong, that I might pour my heart out to Him. After all He knows what I long for, and it does me good to acknowledge this even if it be sin; and His kindness continues.

A forth dog commandment I already know - HEEL. I cry out to Him constantly, but the command is not HEAL as if he were the dog and I the master demanding that He heal at my behest. He is still the Master though as I come to see, a kind and benevolent one.

Another point that struck me is this: as the onus on training a dog is on the owner so the onus on training us as Christians is on our Owner, the Lord Himself. I am aware that the Church should have a part to play in this  but all too often they usurp the whole  thing to themselves. And as a human is more than a dog, even though as living beings and created lives men and dogs have some things in common, so men must study and pray. But at all points the scripture applies: it does not depend on him who wills or runs but o God who has the mercy

So, to end this, He is a dog whisperer par excellence.

Will we stay wild and call our violence godly zeal or will he come to Him when He calls  and be trained b the only  capable dog whisperer in the business

September 23rd this year

The latest End Time prediction craze, and it is nothing but a craze, centres around September 23 this year, which is the Jewish Day of Atonement.

Now I hold that the Hebrew Feasts are indeed types (google typology is you must)  of various events in salvific history, but to set the dates of things for which we are told were are not to know the dates (Acts 1:6-8) is in open defiance of scripture. That is to say although the feast is or may be a symbol of a future event (that is in part what a type is) therefore the future event will or must happen on the date of a forthcoming Hebrew Feast is irresponsible.

Some proponents of this scheme, which when it fails will only bring about further blasphemy against the name of God, hold that an unusual concurrence of Blood Moons will fulfil the prophecy about the moon turning to blood (it does not for it is a regularly occurring natural event), while some do not.

Some say the rapture will happen on that day with the tribulation following, another says that the tribulation started in 2009 and that this day is the Second Coming of Christ.

Others claim that the asteroid wormwood, mentioned in Revelation will strike that day.

But they all have in common is a setting of dates where this is forbidden.

Indeed some have been so bold as to argue why the passage Acts 1:6-8 "It is not for you to know the times the Father has set by His authority" does not apply to us, the 21st century church.

Quite literally, they dice with death. The passage is crystal clear, the broader context, as I argued in a previous post, confirms that this  applies to all persons at all times, and so it is a special contumacity whereby they dare defy scripture on this.  Error in end time doctrine is not grave heresy  per se, I would argue. But error does lead to the Name being blasphemed and, more deadly, can destroy the faith of those who believed in the error before time revealed it to be error. And for this God holds them responsible, hence my severe claim that they dice with death

My point in posting this, as well as to vent my frustration at the dishonesty, sloppiness  as well as  the plainly observable  arrogant manner of those who defend such nonsensical scenarios as I have just wasted time on, is this:

I publicly disavow all date setting as to the Rapture, Second Coming, the Start of the Great Tribulation or indeed any event in the immediate run up to the Second Coming of Christ. The point of watching and praying, and of being not ignorant of the times and seasons, as I have said, is to recognize as they happen these things so not be caught off guard when they do. It is not, absolutely not, to be able to set a date before it happens.

I would make this heard before this latest scheme fails as every other has  failed in history,  namely that the failure of this, as it will and must fail, cannot and does not impact the truth of the gospel of Christ, and that to claim it does is the fallacy of the straw man.

Moreover I will say, in the confidence of the Holy Spirit of Christ, that nothing  of prophetic significance will happen  on this date. If they defy the scriptures to set a date the Lord the Spirit will cock a snook at them by failing to perform on the date so set.

But alas the madness will not stop. It has not stopped in 2000 years and nothing, not scripture, the remonstrances of the Holy Spirit, nor reason, will stop them.

And so the name of God will continue to be blasphemed among the nations because of them.

They do not care, so on their own head shall be it.

We are not to cease to watch and pray, but we were never enjoined to go beyond that remit as these fanatics  have done.

They claim to have warned those who refuse their exegetically irresponsible schemes, as if salvation were by eschatology not grace through faith.

But in fact a good number of people, of which my voice is only one, have warned them, and as time is always the enemy of false prophetic prediction  it is only a matter of weeks before they are exposed to ridicule or worse.

At your front door

 

This was posted by me in reply to a youtube video the title of which was the question below, namely:

 

What to say to a JW (or Mormon or any other missionary for that matter) at my door?

My reply, learned the hard way, is this:

"Not interested"

I could argue with them on doctrinal and logical grounds.

But why bother? They will not be persuaded  by me and  I will not be persuaded by them.

We would both have exhausted each other for nothing.

People do not believe anything on  logical grounds, but for reasons of personal need.  So rational refutation might attack the validity of the belief but not the motivation for it, thus the whole rational debate skirts around the issue. This also applies to intellectual types as well, though we who are so given to this mode of thought are in our vanity the last to see that we are as emotionally need driven as the common run of humanity

Besides this whole stereotyped approach -the how to reach a JW or Mormon or anyone else- is both arrogant and foolish, as if every person thought the same way!

Tears of Gratitude

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4sPh65k0No


I burst into tears of gratitude after watching this.

Not because I learned anything, because I did not.

But because there was ONE other person out there who learned this same lesson it took me years of agony to learn and this from the direct one on one counsel of the Holy Spirit for there was no Christian anywhere in my orbit who would even consider the notion of being honest to God and pouring out one's complaint to Him.

And even now I get cries of "Self Pity!!" when I advocate the honesty they have totally forgotten about it

This video was confirmation from a very unexpected source, for the title of the thing almost had me think that Zacharias would take the opposite view, the standard one

Moreover video reduces just about every other sermon and video  I have seen about Christian living to heretical trash.

The trouble is the Pharisees  who live like Puritans did, believing in the primacy of the intellect, will ignore this.

And I submit,  they ignore this to their own peril  for to harden one's heart to one's own heart will also harden the heart to the Holy Spirit, and damnation can and will result eventually

That is how important this issue is

 

The Most Offensive Verse in Scripture

I found an old facebook post of mine  on the most offensive verse in scripture. It was put out by a creationist web site and says that the verse with this honour is Genesis 1:1 and everything it entails.

I beg to differ.

I know of many creationists, including myself.

But if belief  in a passage equals obedience to it then clearly the verse that so sickens men that I have never seen it obeyed is this:

God is love.

We will believe creationism passionately, to the extent of vicious name calling, and I have seen creationists do this. Indeed such arrogance is why I do not support creationist ministries

But the very moment they/we do this we show how disgusted we are by the fact God is love for we ignore it and certainly do not believe this

The rot in the church

To their credit the charismatics [charismatic  Christians, that is] hunger for the reality they know is not provided for in mere intellectual study of doctrine. But, alas, in seeking the things of the Spirit they ignore sound doctrine and go chasing after experiences which are usually explainable as psychological reaction. But I have sat in on this quarrel from another perspective recently: that of the anti charismatic brigade. They think that their intellectualism is not barren, well, they have to as it is all they have, that and just plain bullying, as they honour preachers who are bullies, who rant and scream, and woe betide any, like me, who point this out.

So what do we have? Heretical pagans like Bill Johnson and Todd Bentley, religious crazy, on one side and orthodox pharisees on the other, the John MacArthurs and Dave Wilkersons of the church those who can move to Hitlerian ranting in a matter of seconds and who think that such fanaticism is godly zeal and know not, nor care, whom it destroys; the rot in the church is not confined to one side (the other side, it always is, of any debate, as each side smugly supposes.

How can I blame any atheist who looks at us and says we are pathetic? Because we are. We don't believe our own Book and will not admit it. We water down the love of Christ and the life he offers us into the cheap bonhomie of a country club, and think this is as good as it gets. Thus we claim an abundant life that is obvious to any honest person we simply so not have

So we burble irrelevantly in a corner unless some of us think it right to go out and insult and bully unbelievers. Not all preachers are such villains,. mark you, but it is the villains who are honoured for in their ranting fury they have made a name for themselves

So the millenia old game continues; and the Name of God is despised all the more for we really are hypocrites and will not acknowledge it, so there is no solution to it

And for those poor fools like me who desperately have real need, there is nowhere to go but this Christ that they talk about but to not believe in

Yet those of us who do will be despised by the rest.

Especially for daring to suggest that the church is as foul as atheists say it is

 

Comments.

I have not rejected any comments sent to me.

In fact I have only received one comment which I duly posted, and I suspect I received it as the sender was registered, I think, with google plus

Another friend told me his comment was not approved.

And my point is this.

I received no such comment.

Has this happened to any other?

I do not know if there is a serious malfunction on this website  or not.

I know that my audience is tiny. and as such no one other than the two I know about  may have deemed it worth commenting on my blog posts.

This may be an old man's vanity, but if any have made a  comment and it has not appeared please message me at


strefanash@clear.net.nz


I doubt I know enough to fix such a problem but at least I will know for sure that  there is one

A promotional video

This morning I looked in the youtube message inbox, which I only infrequently do. I found a link to a video, so duly followed it.

It was a thirty second promotional video for the sender's channel. It was of course a Christian's channel, hence my interest in following the link.

I was not pleased.

It effectively dared me to subscribe and asked me "where else will you find information on . .? "  and then listed certain sins, some of which I myself am utterly defeated by and have been all the nearly thirty seven years of my Christian life.

It was clear to me that this man's question had a simple answer that exposed him as arrogant and presumptuous.

Where else?

The scriptures. The Holy Spirit.

And clearly not some man made ministry, self proclaimed preacher, teacher, or internet video channel

So I messaged the man and answered his presumably rhetorical question with the above  few words and said that such was why I would not be subscribing.

I then looked around his channel to see if my instinct has further confirmation. I believe I found it. The channel also that we had to FIGHT (capitalized) against our own natures and that there was no hope for us if we did not. The brashness of his manner in the promo vid indicates to me that the capitalization of FIGHT showed me all I needed to know. This was will of the flesh legalism, not resting in the real, as opposed to falsely invoked, grace of God to be led to repentance by the Holy Spirit in quietness and gentleness. And I knew, and I invoke decades of hard experience on this,  that the reason this person was not in total despair at his self imposed regime was because of his lack of sensitivity to the inward nature of sin.

The purpose of a teacher or "ministry"  is not to say "come to us"  but to encourage people the seek the Lord the Spirit  as described adequately in the scriptures.

Anything else is the lineaments of a cult

For seeking men will only have them lay Law on you, which is the royal road to death given that the carnal mind can neither preach Law nor use it correctly.

I don't know if this person will reply to my message. I am not even sure he got it  for the computer paused for a long time while sending it and it may have failed to be delivered.

No matter.

I did learn something

 

The Twin Poles of Error 2: "Law" and "Grace"

When it comes to the Law of God, and by this I mean the moral core of the thing, not the sacrificial ordinances which were fulfilled at Calvary, nor the acted parables for holiness, such as not mixing fabrics in one's dress, nor the food laws, when it comes to the Law as summarised in the Ten Commandments and then in Two Greatest commandments there are, it seems to me, two and only two responses that the carnal minds of us carnal Christians can make.

The first is to deny the law outright, to claim it has been abolished. This is not true for Jesus said the Law will never pass away. Those who deny the Law call this grace, but it is nothing of the kind. This is the heresy of the easy believist and is not even faith

The second is to try by force of will to keep the Law, to become legalists, thus feeling obliged to try by force of will to obey the commandments which the Bible clearly says are utterly impossible. This  those legalists,  so endeavouring,  call obedience to God, but this too is nothing of the kind. However neither is it Law for the Love of God and neighbour is lost in the preoccupation   with detail that is the heresy which is legalism.

The thing is both sides will cling to their understandings and resort to brutal name calling to any who dare contradict them, who may have learned the hard way that neither of these two are proper responses to the Law of God and that grace is something else.

So easy believists live like pagans and legalists  are dead set on showing that the Christian faith is everything the atheists think it is, namely a mind control death cult.

And no one really cares that the name of God is being blasphemed among the nations by the fact that we are one of the two errors I mention here. Moreover we are blind to the fact that if we are not one of the two it is because we have been led to repent of being one of the two and can testify to the living Grace of Christ which led to this.

I see that the greatest enemies of the gospel are in fact within the House of God and often the delusion is so powerful that not even the Holy Spirit will be heeded, and this to the perdition of those who flatly refuse the still small voice who still says "Come to Me you who are heavy laden [ either with Law for the legalist or  with  the common cares of life  for the easy believist]  and I will give you rest."

Alas, how we have fallen, how we have defiled the Oracles of God, and how we sanctimoniously deny that we even have; and how stubbornly we cling to our defilement  of these as if the muck of this ( the defilement of the Oracles, not the Oracles themselves) is all the spiritual food we can ever know.

Ontological Soup

One of my metaphorical fancies, for the making of an albeit serious point, mark you well, is to liken all of reality to a soup; and then to compare the differing cosmologies and ontologies to the differing consistencies of soup.

To clarify, an ontology is merely a view as to what exists and what not. Some people's ontology, for example, allows for such entities as spirits and others not

The thinnest of all these soups, IMO, is atheist materialism. It is just matter ( the basic stock) with a little salt thrown in. It is clear, but without nourishment.

To make my point I go to the extreme other end of the spectrum where entities are multiplied excessively, giving the soup the consistency of wet concrete and the digestibility (ie rational coherence) of the same. I speak of extreme pentecostal religion. There is the stock; there are personalities; there is God; there are morals.

So far so good, a good healthy nourishing meal. But then they multiply entities beyond all reason. words become reified essences that have "power" not because of their meaning but by intrinsic supernatural endowment. Curses float round in the ether also sharing such reified essence. And they attach themselves to family lines like they do in bad horror movies. Faith also shares this reified existence, for some say it s a substance, indeed even the substance reality is made of. But some of these people have seen the atmosphere infested thick with billions of demons, one for every sin that every person has ever been temped with and also the source for every evil thought and doubt that any person comes up with - the classic "devil made me do it" excuse. Some also hold that demons infest amulets and books. Where all these unemployed demons hung out when the population of the earth was about 100 million and printing was non existent is a question they never considered. So demons are summoned where none exist and the wild imagination of the undisciplined thinker is taken to be divine revelation.

And the soup gets thicker and thicker

So that which exists, this soup, is thick with unnecessary entities, all invoked by bible verses misused to the extent of ignoring those passages that give prosaic explanations of such things as doubt and fear.

Such thick, dense and stinking slop I could not digest, rationally or even emotionally.
It made me sick, and when I finally crawled out from the cheap joint where they served this  they cursed me

It has taken me years for this nonsense to be expelled from the relevant orifice.

I cannot live on salt and water but it turns out the Bible describes a reality that is more rational than the crazed claims of the charismaniacs

The Question

The commandments make it clear that certain things must be done or be produced in our lives.

If, for example, we never forgive anyone who sinned against us what will be our fate

Easy believism is not an option  for faith is a relationship not merely assent to a proposition, therefore a relationship where God does not act is out of the question and ignoring the commandments as if they were irrelevant is easy believism

The question is this:

Does this mean that we do it invoking His help?

Or does He does it invoking only our consent as the occasion requires.

I believe I know the answer.

Do you?

 

The Most Perfect Picture

The most perfect picture of the love of God the Father I have ever known, short of direct divine revelation, came from an incident in my childhood, a kindness from my own father which I never forgot  even though I was and am  still slow to draw the meaning from it as applies to the love of God.

I was about 10 years old, so this was in or near 1968. The family was going out, though I cannot remember where, but that is not the point of this remembrance. I had taken some childish fit of sulks and would not come with them.

So I was sitting on the sofa in the kitchen/diner (I can picture it now, more than 45 years later) crying, as small boys do, and Mum Dad and my brother (there were only the four of us) were outside.

What did my father do?

He always was very good with small children. He delighted in them and they loved him.

He came in, spoke softly and gently to me, wiped the tears from my eyes and persuaded me to change my mind and come with them on the outing.

Though I have not yet grasped in my heart of hearts the acted parable that  this was  or at least could be seen to be,  it became clear  at least on a cerebral level, years after I was  converted,  that this is how the grace of God works.

If church teaching were true and my father were acting as the churches preach God's grace, he would either have left me in the empty house (there were no home alone laws then), shouted at me to "make the act of will" to get out there, come in and dragged me out or even beaten me.

But he did none of these.

He came in and comforted a distressed small boy and by personal persuasion had me change my mind and consent to come with him.

The problem with the standard teaching of grace is that it leads men to make the decision then grace, viewed as some kind of abstract power or energy, will enable the person to act.

But this skirts the fact that the will of man is the problem, not the solution. We cannot make ourselves genuinely and heartily willing by what C S Lewis condemned as maistry, but when we are told that God will not make our decisions for us, the way it is framed leaves us with no other choice.

The grace of God is not a power we get after we have chosen, it is the direct, personal and above all relational intervention whereby he persuades us to repent, that is where He persuades us to choose and that  in one on one counsel. For He is among other things Wonderful Counsellor, as said Isaiah the Prophet.

In taking my issues to the Lord the Spirit of Christ in prayer, which  for me ceased  some thirty years ago to be the typical church sanctioned recitation of a formulaic shopping list aimed at the ceiling, I have seen that He has been all kindness, patience and gentleness in His dealing with me.

I repent, that is to say change my mind,  as He persuades me to do so in one on one conversation, which conversation has been going on for more than thirty years now. As this is gentle personal persuasion it does not   violate my freedom of will. He is not tinkering with a mechanism,  neither from a distance or even up close, He is  interacting with a person, a child. But if he did not intervene in this fashion I would be bereft, lumbered with impulses which, if I am responsible for them, and scripture is most plain that I am,  are the true set of my will  and which, in the sense that the church preaches this matter, He has not raised a finger to help.

No, I am not denying grace. I am saying it is something else entirely.

It is personal one on one relationship and when we are in it He is all kindness and patience.

Just like my now late father at least in this instance, who never was a Christian.

My only regret is that he died before I remembered to thank him for this, the Most Perfect Picture.