Paul's Passing Thoughts

FACT: New Calvinism is a return to authentic Protestantism.

FACT: Protestantism is another form of Catholic progressive justification and salvation by church authority.

FACT: Disagreement on the philosophy of Plato was the catalyst for the Reformation, NOT a biblical view of salvation. “Infused grace” is the scriptural cloak for the real issue.

FACT: The Reformers rejected all notions of assurance apart from the authority of the church over salvation.

FACT: The Reformers rejected all notions of a church apart from the state. Americanism is NOT a Protestant idea.

FACT: John Calvin believed in a temporary election of some resulting in a greater damnation for the glory of God.

FACT: The church does not appear in history until the 4th century. The church has no ties doctrinally or historically to the 1st century called-out assembly of Christ.

FACT: The problem with church is church.

One reason the election debate is never-ending follows: there are just as many verses in the Bible that seem to teach predestination as those that teach human choice. However, verses that speak to choice do seem more definitive.

So, if God is not a God of confusion, where are the statements in the Bible that end the argument? The opportunities for Christ and the apostles to end the argument during biblically recorded conversations would number into the hundreds, but they never seize on the opportunity.

For example, “And Jesus said to him, ‘Go your way; your faith has made you well.’ And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.” Technically, Jesus is telling the guy that it is his faith. At the very least, he is allowing the guy to assume it is his faith. Why not say, “Go your way, the faith I have given you has made you well.” Again, this is just one example among hundreds where the biblical authors pass on an opportunity to clarify the issue in no uncertain terms.

Verses that say salvation is impossible with man are often cited as proof texts, but of course, it is impossible for people to regenerate themselves like it was impossible for this guy to heal his own eyes. Of course, only the Spirit can baptize the believer into Christ through the death of the old self and resurrection unto all things being new. That doesn’t mean we can’t be persuaded to exercise our own faith.

Furthermore, it is curious how Peter exhorted the Jews: “With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.'”

How odd that Peter would put so much effort into persuasion if faith is nothing but a gift from God and beyond the ability of mankind. Peter seems to indicate the opposite by exhorting people to save themselves with their own faith. The faith of the individual precedes the supernatural act by God.  Again, Peter passes on saying something like, “You will save yourself from this corrupt generation if God gives you faith.” Statements like that would end the argument, but they are never said.

Here is the point: what is not said specifically is a hermeneutic, especially if it is something supposedly central to salvation and the gospel.

paul

“Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for ‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.’ And this word is the good news that was preached to you.”

Someone posted this verse on our Facebook page this week and I am making good on my threat to post on it. Let’s jump right in.

If you have believed the gospel, you have “purified” your soul. This isn’t a substitution; this is a state of being. You are now holy as your Father in heaven is holy. You have been born of Him by His seed and through the Spirit. Some translations include, “through the Holy Spirit” which is fine. That isn’t saying our belief is brought about by the Spirit, it is saying that the purification of our souls, or the new birth, happens by the power of the Spirit. It is the same power that raised Christ from the grave. Church theologians want to interpret that as our faith coming from the Spirit because supposedly, faith, posed as an ability of man to choose, is a work. But clearly, the Bible states that we are saved by “faith, not by works” setting a demarcation between the two. Faith is not a work.

Secondly, we find out what the new birth is for: it is “for” love…not law. The new birth totally changes our relationship to the law. We don’t get up every morning with a goal to not sin against the law; we get up every morning with a goal to love. We don’t get up every morning to live a “lifestyle of repentance” because we are still under the condemnation of the law because we have no new nature and being transformed from death to life is only a manner of speaking, we get up every morning to live a lifestyle of love. That’s a meme: “Those born again live a lifestyle of love, not repentance.” Besides, you can’t sin when you are loving anyway. If you want to sin less, love more. If there is any atonement (covering) at all in the new birth, it is, “love each other fervently from the heart because love covers a multitude of sins.” Christ came to end sin, not cover it up. The true gospel is not a cover-up. That’s another meme. There is NOW…NO condemnation for those in Christ.

Thirdly, once saved always saved. You are born again by a what? Right, an “imperishable” seed. And, the seed is the word of God. That’s the seed. The seed is the word of God implanted by the Spirit and maintained by the life within itself, not some pastor, or a church. Pastors are not the Spirit, and the only temples are the bodies of those born again. The Spirit dwells in those temples, and the High Priest of those temples is the believer who possesses the individual body. Hence, how the body of Christ meets should reflect that in every shape and form. “Seed” has to do with family, not an authoritative institution. The gathering of saints together for God’s purposes, viz, love, should reflect that. If you go to meet with other Christians for purposes of repentance, you are still under law. We meet to encourage each other unto good works and love according to the wisdom of the law, not making the law another seed other than Christ: there is no life in a law that condemns you at any point or time.

Fourthly, our original birth into the world was with a seed that is like that which gives life to plants and flowers; and it withers away. When we are born again, the person who was born by that seed dies, and is reborn with the seed of God. According to Peter, that is the cardinal point of Isiah 40: 6-8.

That’s the good news. Salvation does not grow, those born with an incorruptible seed grow. We are enslaved to righteousness accordingly, not sin. Our wages are life, not death. We abide forever because the seed within us abides forever. We affirm infused grace by the seed of God within us. To deny infused grace is to deny the biblical new birth. “You must be born again.”

Church, therefore, is an under-law false gospel. The church train wreck is caused by a fundamental denial of the biblical new birth. Come out from among them and be separate.

paul

From chapter one draft:

As noted in the introduction of this book, the core ideology of a group should always define it because the ideology determines behavior that will always be present in some capacity. Even though the best example of this principle is Nazism, it is one of the few examples where the principle is consistently applied. That’s unfortunate. Nazism is universally condemned, not because every Nazi worked in a concentration camp, but because people realize that the core ideology is what drives the movement. Hitler invented the Volkswagen; many people love Volkswagens, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone who will use that fact to defend Hitler.

The Furry Fandom was conceived by an ideology several years ago that produced certain outcomes, and consequently, those same outcomes are prevalent in the movement today. Like a tree, ideology will always bear the same fruit to various degrees. If a movement survives, it remains predicated by the core ideology because the ideology is its life blood. Thankfully, we have labels that are quick references to ideologies. Ultimately, this book will make the case for keeping children away from the Fandom because the core ideology puts children at grave risk on several different levels psychologically, emotionally, and physically. The movement threatens a child’s total state of being.

Ironically, Furries will often refer to themselves as a “subculture,” while also referring to themselves as a “fandom” or “hobby.” Supposedly, this is merely a group of people who have an interest in anthropomorphic art. The idea that a subculture and anthropomorphic art are synonymous with the concept of “hobby” or fandom is an oxymoron. The Corvette club is hardly a subculture. An interest in Corvettes is not a lifestyle. A culture is obviously a lifestyle. A philosophy of life is not found in Corvette-ism. A Husky club centers on a love and interest for Huskies, not a desire to be one or an attempt to find one’s true identity in a Husky.

Furthermore, anthropomorphism itself has a historical religious foundation that goes back thousands of years. We would think it curious that a person has an interest in Hindu art while having no interest in Hinduism whatsoever. In short, the comfort level people have in the face of these illogical defenses is stunning.

“And I might mention the following: her video reeks of an adult putting a subject in cartoonish terms so the great unwashed children of the world can understand it. The motif of the video alone exposes her elitist mentality.”

Folks, the pro/anti-vax controversy is a brutal arena. In the arena of discussion, neither side is taking prisoners. Why is this issue so volatile? Answer: for the same reason present-day politics is volatile.

People in general, want to be free to exercise commonsense. Unfortunately, elitism has a strong tendency to dismiss commonsense based on a person’s cultural status. This goes past a person’s educational status and flirts with the idea that commoners are unable to discern reality itself. In other words, commonsense is rejected as an intrinsic ability within humanity to know things.

On the one hand, elitist presuppositions grounded in Platonist ideology underpinning much of Western thought has little patience with serfs not accepting elitist unction. How strongly do the elitists feel about this? Look at history; no pain of death has been spared those who dare question the ruling class. On the other hand, the common folks have little patience with freedom to apply commonsense being hindered, and the suggestion that intrinsic commonsense is not an epistemological reality.

If a peasant’s child goes into convulsions right after receiving vaccinations, and those peasants who know of it are getting their children taken away for refusing to get their children vaccinated, that’s when pitchforks are used for things other than throwing hay.

The internet is a potent tool for sharing the experiences of people worldwide, and when people see a recurring trend, they take note of it. The internet enables the public at large to connect dots.

Let’s talk about some commonsense stuff regarding medicine. Even though I am only a MAC (state tested medication aide), I can apply some commonsense to what I know about the administration of medicine in nursing facilities. It is evident, in my field, that one size doesn’t fit all. There are these things called, allergic reactions, intolerance, adverse effects, right dose, right time, right drug, right route, and I could state more. A lot of drugs are substitutes for other drugs that target the same medical problem because a medication for the same condition may, well, kill the resident. These standards apply to vitamins, minerals, antibiotics, OTC, and every other kind of drug.

But regarding vaccines, one size fits all? Sorry Doc, I may be a lowly MAC compared to your medical degree, but you are obviously full of it. And, if you and your elitist buddies are behind legislation that abducts children of people who question that logic, I might even state my opinion in stronger terms.

Locally,  a pediatrician  named Nicole Baldwin attempted to debunk concerns about vaccinations with a short video on Tik Tock. The blowback was significant enough to make her the latest martyr in efforts to calm the great unwashed herd of commoners. Her great struggle was reported on CBS This Morning, a bastion of liberal elitist wisdom. Curiously, the same kind of red herrings, straw men, and doublespeak are used in political venues against those who dare believe in man’s ability to self-rule.

For example, “There is no link between vaccines and Autism.” First, the so-called “antivaxx” crowd is not saying Autism is the only issue or it is Autism per se, but Autism-like symptoms and other symptoms such as convulsions. Secondly, there are no links between the two; so what? There are no direct biological or physiological links between allergic reactions to medications and unique physiology of the individual. For the most part, adverse and allergic reactions to medicines can only be determined by observation. This is why MACs are not allowed to give the first dose of a medication, but are responsible for observing the resident for a period of time after the administration of the drug by an RN or LPN.

Here is my point: the dialogue used by the medical community in this debate is disingenuous and endowed with truth as authority. It’s the same verbiage and deceptive forms of communication used by elitists in the political realm. And it’s like the police saying a traffic accident never occurred because there is no direct link between a cause for the accident and the mangled car with the injured driver inside. Furthermore, the injured person sitting in the car wasn’t necessarily injured by the accident. Really? Even though harm is taking place at the time of some vaccinations, the two are unrelated. A person begins choking while eating a sandwich, but the sandwich is dismissed as the cause. It’s nonsense.

And I might mention the following: her video reeks of an adult putting a subject in cartoonish terms so the great unwashed children of the world can understand it. The motif of the video alone exposes her elitist mentality.

I will summarize and conclude this post with the comment I left on her FaceBook page:

As a STNA and MAC attending nursing school I find the medical community’s collectivist attitude towards this problem very sad. The experience of many parents tells us that something is going wrong with a small percentage of children who get vaccinated. When parents experience their children suddenly becoming cognitively disabled or going into convulsions within hours of receiving vaccines, you can bet they are going to be skeptical of vaccines.

And by the way, 46% of parents are not skeptical of vaccines because they are uneducated serfs, they are skeptical because of what parents are experiencing, and that is what they are finding on the internet, NOT the mere beliefs of dumb hillbillies. I find the attitude that a few children are expendable for the collective good of most children detestable [viz, “The benefits outweigh the risks.” I suppose, if it isn’t your child!].

EVERY child matters. Again, the notion that the internet is a conduit for misinformation by the great unwashed and uneducated is an excuse for not addressing what is actually happening.

What people are experiencing is the issue, not superstition. I think it a little arrogant to tell people their experiences are invalid because of research. I am no doctor, but you only need to be an STNA to know doctors are wrong often and don’t know everything. Trust me, I have many firsthand testimonies.

paul