Francis was chosen 7 months before Benedict resigned: the election was rigged

Pope Francis was chosen 7 months before Benedict resigned. The “election” was a fake, just like the one that elected Obama.

From a new story that came out on February 19th, 2015:

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, former Vatican Secretary of State, has said he knew Benedict XVI was planning to resign “at least seven months” in advance – and that it was “not at all easy” to keep it a secret.

The cardinal made the revelation in a candid interview in which he offered a staunch defence of his record and his lifestyle – much criticised in the Italian press – since stepping down.

Asked if he was surprised by Benedict XVI’s resignation, the cardinal said: “I had guessed it, but put it out my thoughts. I knew long in advance, at least seven months before. And I had many doubts. We debated the topic at length after it seemed already decided. I told him: Holy Father, you must bestow upon us the third volume on Jesus of Nazareth and the encyclical of faith, before you sign things over to Pope Francis.

See http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/02/19/cardinal-bertone-i-knew-of-benedicts-plan-to-resign-seven-months-in-advance/

I was originally made aware of the story from a post on http://biblefalseprophet.com/2015/02/20/cardinal-bertone-knew-of-resignation-of-pope-benedict-xvi-and-the-coming-pope-francis-7-months-in-advance/

Some Catholics have thought all along that Benedict was forced by some shady malevolent cardinals to resign…and if Francis was already chosen 7 months ahead of time, as this statement implies, then that may very well be true.  The same NWO powers that are behind Obama are certainly behind this.  After all, the agendas of the big O and the big F are the same: communism and you know what.

Vatican threatens to sue Catholic blogger for pointing out their rejection of Christian morality

A Catholic blogger has been threatened by a lawsuit by a top Vatican official for commenting on the proceedings at the Vatican’s Synod against the Family. (i.e. where Pope “Who am I to judge?” plans to push through Obama’a agenda for the RCC.)

The blogpost announcing the bullying tactics:

YOUR BLOGGER VOX CANTORIS IS THREATENED WITH A LAWSUIT BY VATICAN OFFICIAL AND PAPAL ADVISER – FATHER THOMAS ROSICA, CSB

A list of blog posts on other blogs commenting on this news:

BLOG POST COLLECTIONS – THREAT OF LAWSUIT AGAINST VOX CANTORIS BY HIGH PROFILE VATICAN OFFICIAL AND ADVISER TO POPE FRANCIS – THOMAS ROSICA, CSB – SEE BELOW FOR ORIGINAL POST

Tell that crown thief “No way Dohse!”

I said I’m done blogging about what goes on over at PPT, and that I’m not going over there any more.  But I have to finish this subject concerning running the Christian race to obtain the crown, so one more post.

In our last installment you saw me flabbergasted over Dohse of PPT daring to say in straight-up Calvinist fashion “You can’t run in a race that is already finished.”  Since I made some comments about that, he of course has changed his tune.  Now instead of denying that there is a race to run he is going to merely deny that the prize obtained at the end of the race is salvation and instead argue that it is extra Baptist crackerjack rewards (as promised in What is the Race of Faith? Justification or Sanctification? Or Both? A Biblical Evaluation: Introduction).

So we need to look at what this crown of life, or crown of righteousness, or crown of glory that John, Paul, and Peter speak of, is.  Is it salvation itself, or is it some crackerjack reward that is purely an extra?

Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. (James 1:12)

I’ve read the gospels. The Lord never promised a literal crown.  The crown of life = eternal life.  Its a metaphor.

And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (1 Peter 5:4)

Again with the crown symbolism.   Notice how Peter assumes all the saved will receive this crown, not just those who earned something extra.

Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. (Revelation 2:10)

This has always been interpreted to mean that those who deny Christ under persecution lose their salvation.  Do the Baptists dare change it to mean that they only lose crackerjack box rewards or quarter machine toys?  Yes, they do, because Baptists have no shame in twisting scripture whatsoever.  They will tell you point blank, with Dohse leading them, that you can deny Christ in persecution and still be saved due to OSAS.

Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. (Revelation 3:11)

So the crown can be lost.  And any man who causes us to lose it can be said to have “taken” it, such as Dohse plans to do by convincing you of OSAS so that you will persist in wilfull grave sin thinking “Hurhur, I’m saved no matter what I do.”

And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. (2 Timothy 2:5)

You can’t get the crown by cheating (i.e. faith alone and OSAS).

I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:7-8)

Paul is in prison about to be beheaded by Nero.  He is not telling Timothy about some crackerjack prize he intends to win.  No, but he is telling him why he does not fear death.  This is the ground of his assurance that he is saved: he has fought the good fight, he has finished his course.  In other words, like in Revelation 2:10, he has been faithful unto death rather than denying Christ in persecution.

(I should also point out here that since Paul says this crown is not for him only but for all who love Jesus’ second coming, this is not a special extra crown for super special saints, but is the standard reward of all saints–that is, salvation or eternal life itself.)

Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, (Colossians 2:18 NKJV)

(KJV syntax is really archaic and hard to read in this verse)

Don’t let anyone steal your crown or cheat you of it.  He lists some things that can do it, like convincing you to worship angels.  But there are other things, like convincing you of OSAS so that you live in wilfull obstinance to God’s moral teachings.

Paul himself says as much:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?  If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)

The discussion is about adultery.  Those who commit adultery while Christians defile the temple of God that is their body, and Paul says God will destroy them.   Does that mean losing crackerjack Baptist rewards, Dohse?

But wait, how do I know the discussion is about adultery when he speaks of them defiling the temple of God?  Because I bothered to read the whole book.  He gets more into it in chapter 6.

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. (1 Corinthians 6:15-16)

This is how the initial audience was defiling the temple of God.  And Paul told them in chapter 3 that God would destroy those who do so.

Now finally, we also have this:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:19)

The warning at the end of Revelation implies that the person spoken of had these rights.  How can you take away rights a person didn’t have?  So they had a right to the tree of life, or book of life, and to the holy city the New Jerusalem, and to all the good things written in this book.  In other words, they were saved.  But because they removed things from the book of Revelation, God took away those rights from them.  In other words, they lost their salvation.  So much for OSAS!  Again, at the beginning of the book of Revelation we have something similar:

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Revelation 3:5)

So to the one who does not overcome, but gives in to persecution, he will blot their name out of the book of life.  Is that loss of salvation or just loss of Baptist crackerjack rewards Dohse?

How does true Christianity deal with Romans and Galatians?

This could alternately be titled: Is the Christian race already finished for us or do we actually have to run it ourselves?

You could also title this: Dohse comes out of the closet as still being a Calvinist.

This began as a comment responding to a comment by Dohse on his post “Once Justified, Perfectly Justified – For those who claim a Believer can lose his Salvation or become Unjustified“.   In response to a few comments I made, he said:

You confuse gift with reward. Justification is a gift and sanctification is for reward. You can’t run in a race that is already finished. You also confuse salvation and redemption.

Yes, you really read that!  Dohse said that the Christian race is already finished for you and you not only don’t have to run it, but can’t run it!  So much for his “I rejected Calvinism” stich.

[And below is my response, with a few typos corrected and a few things added.  If he approved/approves my comment I guess you can see the typo-ridden version over there.]

No, I just have Biblical definitions for all these terms rather than Augustinian ones.

Justification is being recognized as a valid candidate for baptism. Sanctification is a prerequisite for the reward of making it to heaven–“pursue holiness without which nobody will see the Lord” Paul says. (Well, its Hebrews 12:14 so maybe its Barnabas that says it.) Paul tells us we are running in a race (I think I already gave you the passages [I did, 1st Cor 9, is 2nd Timothy 2:5]), so your claim that the race is over is antipaul. As a recovering antipaulinist, I’m appalled. And I don’t confuse salvation and redemption, you do. Salvation is being saved from your immorality; redemption is the resurrection. Paul says in one place, “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” (Rom 8:23) Yet, he also speaks of a possibility of being disqualified from that redemption, lest you take this thing about the Holy Spirit as a firstfruits as meaning OSAS, for he also says in Philippians 3:11-14

If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

If the race is already finished, as you say, and there is no point to run it, because its finished, then how is it that Paul didn’t consider himself to have already attained but keeps pressing forward toward the prize?

Or again, when Paul says in 2nd Timothy 4:6-8

For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

i.e. what is the point of fighting the good fight, or of finishing the course, if the race is already finished for us?

See, Dohse, the problem with you so-called “Paulinists” is you don’t even bother to read Paul. You bury your heads in the most complicated portions of Romans and Galatians and ignore everything that is written plainly. Romans and Galatians, it must sadly be admitted, are poorly written in such a style as to be nearly incomprehensible most of the time. But the so-called “minor” epistles, like Thessalonians, and the Pastorals, are written in a style that is as plain as day. So the modus operandi of Protestantism is to pretend those plain epistles don’t exist and to confuse everyone with Romans and Galatians. And that’s all you are doing yourself. Do yourself a favor and go read the supposedly “minor” epistles, because TRUE Christianity is based more on those, and always has been. Romans and Galatians are the basis for HERESY, not that Paul wrote heresy [not intentionally, anyway], but that without reading the other epistles first we don’t know what the hell Paul meant in Romans and Galatians because he apparently lost his ability to write before writing them, or maybe they were his first attempts to write in Greek and he still didn’t have a good command of the language, or maybe they were originally written in the Latin and Galatian languages and our Greek translation is a really crappy translation. Who knows what happened [e.g. they could even be forgeries], but by a comparison of Romans/Galatians to the rest of the epistles, we can tell they are defective in some way, so any TRUE Christian goes to the supposedly “minor” epistles and makes sure he understand them first, then he interprets Romans/Galatians through THEIR lens. In fact, before even going to the “minor” epistles, a true Christian understand the gospels and Acts, then goes to the “minor” epistles, and only then will he touch Romans/Galatians with a ten foot pole.  That is all.

By the way, this is my second post responding to the nonsense Dohse posted in that blogpost.  The first was Baptists just can’t give up their constant attacks on the gospel. I’ll admit to being too worked up over this.  I guess its disappointment in Dohse.  I thought his little TANC movement might amount to something.  But its just another New Calvinist movement in different garb.  The whole thing is a deflection.  He pretends to be against Calvinist only so he can then sneak Calvinism on you in the form of OSAS.  You see that he said the Christian has no race to run, its already run for you.  Well, that’s Calvinism.  What else could it be?  How is saying that the Christian has no race to run and that’s its already run for you much different from saying basically that Jesus obeys for you?  Its Calvinism pure and simple, so take all the heat in these two posts as just pure disgust with Dohse wasting what looked like it had promise.  TANC is dead.  Its joined the ranks of Mark Driscol and Piper.  I almost wouldn’t be surprised if we found out in a few years that Piper was funding it.

I’m not even going to go to Paul’s Passing Thoughts anymore.  Its just a waste of time. How can someone read a passage saying…well, I didn’t quote the best passage did I.  Hebrews 12 is more clear than 1st Corinthians 9: And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us.” Maybe if I had used that one, Dohse wouldn’t have said “You can’t run in a race that is already finished.”  Or am I giving him too much credit?  Probably I am.  Yes, I am, because 1st Corinthians 9:24 is actually even clearer than Hebrews 12, saying “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.”  It not only tells us that we have to run, but that we have to run in order to obtain, which demolishes OSAS for sure.  So yes, I’m done with Paul’s Passing Thoughts.  His thoughts have passed and there wasn’t much to them.  His only reason for rejecting Calvinism (as he claims) to begin with was because it threatened his precious OSAS (or so he thought) but anyone who really knows what Calvinism is knows that OSAS is Calvinism and Calvinism is OSAS. He’s clinging to Calvinism and he rejects Calvinism because Calvinism threatens Calvinism, basically.  Well, yeah, Calvinism is self-contradictory, but really?  This dude is so confused, even to the point of no return.   So I’m done with that blog.  Plus, if I blog more on positive stuff rather than responses to his Calvinism, I’ll feel better.

But I do want to thank Dohse because he has helped me a lot. Dohse, Debating you has been good therapy to help me get over my antipaulinism. Especially on this OSAS stuff, because seeing how easy it is to defeat it with Paul–honestly its like swatting a fly by dropping a MAC truck on it–has helped me see that Paul isn’t the problem after all.  The problem is people not reading the so-called “minor” epistles but only Galatians and Romans which they aren’t equipped to understand because they ignore the whole rest of the Bible, but mostly they ignore Paul’s other epistles.  Thanks for helping through my antipaulinism, and now I’m out.

Reading through the Psalms on a monthly basis

I’m tired of only being negative on this blog all the time, so here’s something positive.

Certainly there’s nothing in Scripture binding such a practice, but I have found that going through the Psalms daily is a great encouragement.  I began using the Book of Common Prayer 1928 (U.S. version, it’s online many places like here) for that purpose.  Not the whole book, obviously as its an Anglican/Episcopalian book containing a lot of stuff of no interest to me.  But I mean using the “Psalter” part, which is just the book of Psalms divided into a 30 day schedule which operates according to the numerical day of the month.  It further divides each day into morning and evening.  The result if you follow it is reading about 6 Psalms a day until you finish reading all the Psalms by the end of day 30.  Of course, when I say 6 Psalms a day, I mean some have been divided into smaller Psalms, like for instance Psalm 119 which is treated as 22 Psalms.  It uses a modified Coverdale translation. If it were straight Coverdale it would be about 60 years older than the KJV, but its been modified some.

In any case, I find it comforting, and encouraging in the faith.  The Psalms are not like other parts of the Bible in that they are mostly just praise of God, not doctrinal harangues like in Paul, which makes them optimal reading for when you need a spiritual boost.  You can’t read the Psalms and not come away uplifted, in other words.  And if you reject false doctrines like faith alone, certain Psalms, like Psalm 119 will comfort you greatly in the sea of heresy we have to live in.

Anyway, reading through the Psalms in this way is something I did for a few months last year. But I lost track of it.  I’ve started again and hopefully will stick with it.

Some would poopoo on this practice saying its a Catholic or monastic practice.  So wait? You’re telling me that only Catholic monks can read the Psalms?  But in reality, its not a Catholic practice at all.  The BCP (whether the 1662 or 1928) takes the Psalms in numerical order from 1 to 150.  It does so at the pace of 30 days, but it goes in order.  Catholic and monastic practice is to rearrange the Psalms into some new order created by a monk guru, and assign them to certain hours, make certain ones repeat more often than others, etc..  See for example this site Psalter Schemas for a wealth of information on various monastic and Catholic schemes or rearranging the Psalms.   Unlike these schemes, what the BCP has done is to just incrementally go through the Psalms in order, just as you might if you were to pick up your KJV and just read 3 to 6 Psalms per day with a bookmark (except doing that, you lack the ready made division of longer Psalms into smaller units). That would be a good idea too, especially if you don’t like the Coverdale translation as found in the BCP 1662 or the modified Coverdale in the 1928.  The KJV is always good, and there are certain Psalms we probably already have memorized in it, like Psalm 23, which makes you stumble sometimes when trying to read another translation.

In any case, my point is simply this: when I first found out that anyone reads the whole book of Psalms over a period of 30 days, then starts again the next month, and just keeps doing this, I thought basically “Why didn’t I think of that?”   Its such a simple and useful thing, but not something immediately obvious to do if nobody ever suggests the possibility.

PS: I just found this. If you want to see what changes were made to the Coverdale translation of the Psalms between the 1662 and 1928 versions of the BCP, this site shows that.

Baptists just can’t give up their constant attacks on the gospel

Baptists are all Calvinists whether they will admit it or not, that is, if they accept OSAS.  We’ve got a Baptist who pretends not to be a Calvinist but is stuck like a broken record on his defense of OSAS and therefore his opposition to and constant attack on the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ continues, for OSAS is anti-gospel.

Once Justified, Perfectly Justified – For those who claim a Believer can lose his Salvation or become Unjustified and the post that it links to argue for OSAS, yet again.

So, Paul Dohse approves of OSAS, and he trots out Alex A. Guggenheim to prove it.

Ok, wow, because Alex A. Guggenheim says it I must believe it. I mean, obviously, unlike John MacArthur, John Piper, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Spurgeon, and ever other Calvinist, he must actually have authority. Sorry but Hebrews 10:25-27 and 1st John 1:7 still stands no matter what this braying jackass wonderful Baptist gentleman or any other says. (See my apology for the harsh language at the end)

(The harsh language is called for because this purposeful deceiver and twister of Scriptures gives us some jibber-jabber about Hebrews 10:10 but ignored Hebrews 10:25-27 because he knows it obliterates the false doctrine of OSAS which he knows in his heart came from Satan himself, but which he full well intends to spread anyway, and I’ll tell him that to his face. In fact I’m going over there to say that in a comment right now.

Now you give us some jibber-jabber about Hebrews 10:10 but ignored Hebrews 10:25-27 because you know it obliterates the false doctrine of OSAS which you knows in your heart came from Satan himself, but which you full well intends to spread anyway.  How else could you have seen Hebrews 10:10 but not Hebrews 10:25-27?  And anyone who writes an article defending OSAS knows ahead of time that the opposition will bring up those passages, so you know and I know that you ignored them on purpose because your interest is in deceiving people with Baptist doctrine and landing them in hell, not on teaching the truth.

)

Yes, indeed, Guggenheim, Nice try, but Hebrews 10:25-27 and 1st John 1:7 still stand. You Calvinists and Baptists need to quit playing these immoral games. You commit grave sins and continue in it, and you’re done son.

….but only until you repent and ask for forgiveness of course. We can bring in here too, John’s other statement in 1st John that if you see a brother commit a sins that is not mortal you can pray and get him forgiven (1 John 5:16) but he says if he commits a sin that is mortal, he doesn’t say you can pray about that and get him forgiven (because in that case his repentance is necessary and prayer on his own part). We can also bring up Christ teaching us to pray “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us” and even the parable in Matthew 18 where Christ actually REVOKES the forgiveness already granted to one after he refuses to forgive others. If we must continue to pray for forgiveness, then we don’t have a onetime forgiveness but must continue to be forgiven as we continue to sin. John says as much in 1st John 1:7 where he tells us we have the continual cleansing of Christ’s blood “if” we keep walking in the light, i.e. keep repenting and praying for forgiveness and striving to live the Christian life, or as Paul (or Barnabas) puts it “pursue holiness without which nobody will see the Lord.” (Hebrews 12:14) Its not a simple: “Woohoo I’m saved; now time to go commit all the sin I want.” Baptist (i.e. Calvinist) doctrine is false. You do have to actually try to live the Christian life, or you get disqualified from the race. Another Pauline metaphor, from 1st Corinthians 9.

How is it that all these big “Paulinists” have never read any of the passages where Paul likens to the Christian life to a race where you can get disqualified for not following the rules????

Continuing the metaphor from 1st Cor 9, is 2nd Timothy 2:5

“And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.”

Or, in modern English:

You can’t win a race if you don’t follow the rules.

So the Christian life has rules?  So much for faith alone and all this OSAS nonsense.  Just because you joined the race doesn’t mean you win.  You cheat, you lose.  “Faith alone” is cheating.

Apology (2/6/2014): I have decided I do need to apologize to you Dohse, and also to Alex.  You guys are so brainwashed into the Baptist method of twisting Paul in a Gnostic direction by paying attention only to Romans 4 and rejecting and ignoring all the rest of the epistles, that even if you have a marginal awareness of passages like 1st Corinthians 5, you have no capability to bring them to the forefront of your mind or understand them after a reasonable manner or incorporate them into your system.  Baptistism has totally disabled you, almost with the force of demonic possession.  Therefore, it is too harsh of me to consider you to be wilfull twisters of scripture, and I should not have called Alex a braying jackass, because you are just victims of a denomination from the pits of hell, and in some sense not truly responsible for your actions since you are not in full possession of your faculties.

Baptist attacks on Mark 16:16 refute themselves

A comment I made on this post Games Calvinists Play to Keep the System Breathing, Part Two months ago has been generating some animosity from a Calvinist Baptist fanatic against baptism recently.  His most recent argument is the famous Baptist attempt to split Mark 16:16 in half and twist it to their hellish desire to throw baptism away in their worship of Satan and John Calvin.

David, you need a verse that says ‘he that believeth but is not baptized shall be damned’ to prove that those who are not baptized shall be damned.

Baptism is the most foundational commandment of Christ. Its the first thing anyone who believes is commanded to do: Repent and be baptized. Its the first part of the great commission given as a response by the one who accepts the gospel. “Go make disciples, baptizing them…” The first thing the respondent does is be baptized. Therefore it is immediately obvious that anyone who rejects baptism does not really believe. So the statement “he that believeth not shall be damned” covers those who reject baptism.

In any case, my comment that sparked it all was this one:

Calvinism absolutely contradicts the gospel because the gospel is for “whosoever will” and thus affirms the reality of freewill. Jesus also commands repentance, which Calvinism spits on. And Jesus doesn’t teach waiting around for God to zap you with an enabling grace, but rather “seek ye first the kingdom of God” and whosoever will let him COME…not let him wait to be dragged in.

I didn’t even actually mention baptism…but they instantly know when you mention freewill that baptism is coming, because when you mention freewill they know that you are a person who actually follows the Bible rather than Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Justification…again

Right, when justifcation is linear, or progressive, we live and function within the process. That means what we do or don’t do has to be qualified as a “work” or not a work or a “faith alone work.” See that problem? It’s all works.  (PD at PPT in Tweet, Tweet: Calvinism Simply Explained in the comments)

I can see that, but at the same time I can see that OSAS is false.  So the solution is not to view justification as once saved always saved, but to view it merely as what makes one acceptable for entry into the covenant essentially like the New Perspective guys say. Justification = being made an acceptable candidate for baptism, and this is done by faith and confession of faith alone.  Then in baptism you receive the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit, and so long as you don’t persist in wilfull sin you have the continual cleansing of Christ’s blood from that point on.  What’s so hard about that?

Its plainly taught by every New Testament writer, even Paul. I’m dropping the antipaul stuff, because honestly, he doesn’t teach anything the Baptists and other Calvinists have accused him of. I see that more and more every time I use Paul to beat your false doctrine of OSAS, again. Its a question of terminology.  The Reformers defined “justification” according to the normal meaning of the Latin justicia, but Paul didn’t write in Latin, nor did he even use the term in the normal usage of the Greek dikaiosis.  Paul’s meaning is sufficiently clear when he uses the story of Abraham to illustrate justification.  Abraham was not saved by faith alone.  Abraham was justified by faith alone in the sense of being made acceptable for entry to a covenant with God.  And then, just as soon as he was acceptable for such entry, he entered the covenant with circumcision as the sign of the covenant.  Paul explains all that.  In like manner, believing in Christ justifies us only in the sense of making us acceptable for entry into the New Covenant, and then in baptism we enter it.  If this were not the case, there would be no progression from Romans 4 to Romans 6….and yet anyone can see there is such a progression.

So to clarify, we are no longer seeking justification once we’re baptized.  And therefore there is no need to be afraid of works.  But this doesn’t mean OSAS.  To lose one’s salvation is not to be unjustified…you can go to hell justified.  If you believe in Christ but become a murderer, you no longer have eternal life abiding in you, despite that you were still made acceptable for entrance into the covenant, and despite that you may have already entered it.  You can always remedy the problem by repentance anyway, because you’ve entered.  If you hadn’t entered, you’d still need to be baptized to enter.  But since you’ve entered already, you don’t need that again.

And if you keep in mind the fact that faith in Christ is what initially saved you when you were baptized, and that in baptism your old sins were washed away, then you won’t fall into the problem that Peter talks about of forgetting that your sins were washed away.  And if you don’t forget that, you won’t be trying to save yourself by works, although you will recognize that if you don’t walk in the light as Jesus is in the light you will lose the continual cleansing of his blood and therefore you cannot just start persisting in wilfull sin and think you’re still saved.  What’s so hard about that?

——

All of the above is a comment I published on that blogpost at PPT, which is probably not approved yet.  I should have in that comment included a reference to Hebrews 10:25-27:

Not ceasing to assemble together as is the practice of some, but exhorting each other so much the more as you see the Day approaching. For if we persist in wilfull sin after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins [for us], but a fearful expectation of judgement and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries [of the gospel].

In other words, just like John’s passage in 1st John about walking in the light and having a continual cleansing of Christ’s blood if we do, this passage gives us the other scenario: if you persist in wilfull sin after becoming a Christian, you lose the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice (until you repent).  That the author in Hebrews (probably Barnabas) means Christians and not just people who heard the gospel but haven’t accepted it yet is clear from the subject at hand, namely that is speaking of those who cease assembling with the church the saints (don’t want anyone to think I mean the “institutional church”) in verse 25.  There is no way to defend OSAS in view of that passage.

The above system is perfectly clear from the majority of the New Testament, and clear enough even in Paul if you stop reading him through a Lutheran/Calvinist lens.

Now, some clarification on what I mean by “I’m dropping the antipaul stuff, because honestly, he doesn’t teach anything the Baptists and other Calvinists have accused him of.”  I mean I’m no longer going to accuse him of intentional heresy, but rather take the position that he intends to write the truth and the reason he sometimes seems to be teaching outright heresy is because he’s a crappy writer.  In other words, I still don’t consider him infallible or inerrant.   Honestly, in all the above, we don’t even need Paul to explain any of that.  Drop the word “justification” and all of it is abundantly clear from the rest of the New Testament.  The constant wrangling on this subject is only necessary because of Paul’s misuse of the word “justification” in a sense that is not proper to that term, and a few incautious off-the-cuff statements he makes here and there, and because of the fact that evil men and seducers wax worse and worse in latching on to Paul’s misstatements and use them to try and twist the whole New Testament.  I will no longer attack Paul, but at the same time I maintain my position that the Pauline Corpus can at best be viewed as Deutero-Canon, and that one must interpret it by forcing it into harmony with the rest of the New Testament, primarily the Gospels and Acts, and not the other way around.  To start with Paul and force the rest of the New Testament to agree with your interpretation of Paul is the sure road to heresy. You must start with the Gospels and Acts, and force Paul to agree with them.

 

Do you want to know what a church service will look like in the NWO church? Here you go.

You might want to turn the sound down, as the chimes can probably make you go deaf.

I’m not entirely sure why this cheesy dance routine involves 3 Muslims chicks in burkas chasing a fag in white, but I guess its not supposed to make any sense. Its just supposed to turn people against Christianity by making it look ridiculous; that’s all the Catholic church seems to be interested in.

(I was made aware of the video by a post on biblicalfalseprophet that linked to this article in Crisis Magazine.)

In other news: the pope is still not Catholic

The continuing anti-catholic rhetoric from Pope Francis is amusing, and yet scary.  Its amusing because it demolishes the smugness of Catholics pushing papal infallibility (at least the smugness of those with any sense).   But its scary because it means the NWO and NWO church is drawing nigh.

In case you didn’t realize it, Vatican II is as relevant for Protestants as for Catholics.  There were many Protestant theologians at Vatican II.  Catholics are just now realizing that Vatican II Protestantized the Catholic church.  But how or why would that happen?

Well, just as soon as Vatican II was over, the Protestant churches dropped their traditional lectionaries and liturgical calendars and accepted the new Vatican II lectionary and liturgical calendar.  Furthermore, many Protestant denominations that had neither a lectionary or liturgical calender before jumped on the bandwagon and accepted the Vatican II lectionary and liturgical calendar!

So its fairly clear that Vatican II was some kind of agreement between the Protestant and Catholic establishments to criss-cross their doctrine and practice.

It could have gone something like this:

Protestant Theologians: Ok, if you’ll accept faith alone and change the mass from a sacrifice to a meal, and drop transubstantiaion, we’ll accept some Catholic ritualism.

Then priest, later pope, Ratzinger (aka Benedict the 16th) at the council: Yes, very good. Here, you Protestants start using this liturgical calendar and lectionary, and we’ll do as you ask.  We’ll even sign a concord agreement with the Lutherans in 1999 saying “We believe in faith alone now too.”

Protestant Theologians: Excellent.  And after you are made pope, and then retire, your successor will help us to push homosexual marriage, yes?

Then priest, later pope, Ratzinger (aka Benedict the 16th) at the council: Of course, of course.

By the way, on the story they’re talking about in the video, they asked in the comment box, “Do you suppose the woman with the 8 C-sections really exists?”  My answer: Certainly not.  Its like the Sadducees with the woman who married 7 husbands and each one died without giving her a child.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.