Paul's Passing Thoughts

Theses: the church wages war against the Holy Spirit through;

1. The separation of God’s word from His people. 
2. The separation of Jew and Gentile.
3. The institutionalization of God’s family adding additional mediators other than Christ (church, not assembly). 
4. Denial of the new birth, or infused grace. 
5. Progressive justification dependent on submission to the church. 
6. The eradication of worship and love in exchange for obtaining final justification. This circumvents the Spirit’s purpose to sanctify.
7. The execution of God’s election is transferred from the Spirt to the church. 

Let’s examine seven ways the early church began to wage war on the Holy Spirit and how these traditions continue in our day.

First, the newly appointed religion of the Roman Empire (the institutionalization of Christ’s assembly, or “church”) under Constantine sought to remove the private interpretation of the Bible from the common people. Let us remember, the word is the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph 6:17) and what the Spirit uses to sanctify (John 17:17).

At that time, the endeavor to hinder private interpretation was a far less problem regarding the New Testament than Old Testament Scriptures which were painstakingly preserved and canonized by the Jews. The Old Testament Hebrew had also been translated into Greek (the Septuagint) circa 250 BC. Greek and Latin were the most common languages during the Roman era, but Latin was the language of bureaucracy, law, and the military.

This is when two primary theologians of the Roman church emerge and seek to demonize the people of God making a strong distinction between the Jews and Christianity. Remember, one of the primary objectives of the Holy Spirit was to make Jew and Gentile ONE body in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:11-22). This is/was one of the primary objectives of the Holy Spirt. The church’s two foundational theologians in its 4th century infancy were St. Augustine of Hippo, and St. Jerome. Both were Saints and Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church. And…

“Church Fathers like St John Chrysostom, St Ambrose, St Jerome and St Augustine (second only to St Paul as a Christian authority for the Western world) had by the end of the fourth century AD crysallised a demonic image of the Jew who combined superhuman malevolence with total spiritual blindness…The monkish, ascetic St Jerome, embittered by the spectacle of successful missionizing in Antioch by the large Jewish population, denounced the synagogue in theses terms: ‘If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul…you are still saying less than it deserves’” (Robert S. Wistrich: Anti-Semitism|The Longest Hatred; Pantheon Books 1992, p. 17 ). “This theology is for the first time institutionalized in the fourth century AD, when Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire” (Ibid p. 19).

To divide Jews from the body is an audacious throwing down of the gauntlet against the Holy Spirit. One of the primary objectives of the new birth is to unite Jew and Gentile into one body, scripturally, this is also known as “the mystery of the gospel.” But Jerome and company were far from going to war with the Holy Spirit on that front alone. Jerome set out to translate the Bible in the bureaucratic language of the empire and make it inaccessible to the laity and common people via the Latin Vulgate. Eventually, Rome made it against the law to translate the Bible or even teach from it unless accredited by the Church upon pain of death. This was Rome’s mandate for about 1000 years. And remember, Rome is the first “church” which is historically irrefutable:

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned…”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “…helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

~ Source: Huffington Post .com: Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years; Bernard Starr, Ph.D. 5/20/2013.

The Church also took it upon itself to establish the formal canon of the New Testament which was only in the form of letters written by the apostles and others. There were many copies of these letters circulated among the laity and commonly accepted as Scripture:

2 Peter 3:15 – And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Colossians 4:15 – Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. 16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. 17 And say to Archippus, “See that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord.”

1Corinthians 14:37 – If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Therefore, the idea that there was no agreed upon collective Scripture for New Testament era believers is unfounded, and the body of Christ hardly needed Gnostic academics to tell them what was inspired and not inspired. Nevertheless…

The Council of Nicaea called by the Emperor Constantine met in 325 C.E. to establish a unified Catholic Church. At that point no universally sanctioned Scriptures or Christian Bible existed. Various churches and officials adopted different texts and gospels. That’s why the Council of Hippo sanctioned 27 books for the New Testament in 393 C.E. Four years later the Council of Cartage confirmed the same 27 books as the authoritative Scriptures of the Church.

~ Source: Huffington Post .com: Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years; Bernard Starr, Ph.D. 5/20/2013.

And…

In 382, Pope Damascus therefore commissioned Jerome (c. 347-420) to translate the Bible into Latin, a task which took him twenty years to complete. This Bible came to be known as the versio vulgata (common translation) and became standard for the Western Church.

~ Source: gbgm-umc.org: Three Early Biblical Translations.

Many would argue that keeping the word from God’s people is a church sin of the past, but this is not the case at all. Initially, the church taught that the laity was unable to understand the word of God except for using it to better understand one’s total depravity and total inability (historical-redemptive hermeneutic), plus censorship of the Scriptures was the law of the land. Deprived of its ability to enforce censorship through the state, the church’s ability to persuade the laity to relinquish all understanding of the Bible to church authority has proved adequate. State force is no longer necessary as the laity has been sufficiently intimidated by the church’s claim over salvation by God’s proxy. You either agree with the church or you believe a false gospel and are going to hell.

Attempting to obstruct the Spirit’s work in baptizing the Jews and Gentiles into one body, and confiscating the sword of the Spirit from the laity was manifested in a third way. In translating the Bible into English from the Septuagint (LXX), and for the most part not the original Hebrew, the English translators substituted the word “assembly” for “church.” The Greek word for assembly is “ekklesia” as translated from the Hebrew word for assembly, kahal, or edah.

This is a very significant fact in the transition period that produced another version of the institutional Catholic Church, Protestantism. These are merely two sides of the same institutional church that waged the exact same war against the Holy Spirit and continues to do so in our day. As aforementioned, it was against the law to translate the Scriptures without the permission of the Catholic Church, but this happened anyway because of the “Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church” (closed quotation from Wikipedia).

In the early Middle Ages, most Western Christian people encountered the Bible only in the form of oral versions of scriptures, verses and homilies in Latin (other sources were mystery plays, usually conducted in the vernacular, and popular iconography). Though relatively few people could read at this time, Wycliffe’s idea was to translate the Bible into the vernacular, saying “it helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence”.

~ Source: En Wikipedia .org: Wycliffe’s Bible.

Although unauthorized, the work was popular. Wycliffite Bible texts are the most common manuscript literature in Middle English. More than 250 manuscripts of the Wycliffite Bible survive.

The association between Wycliffe’s Bible and Lollardy caused the kingdom of England and the established Catholic Church in England to undertake a drastic campaign to suppress it.

~ Source: Ibid.

However, by no means did the Protestant Reformation abandon the core fundamentals of the institutional Church’s war against the Holy Spirit which was a devotion to the separation of Judaism from the body of Christ, and academic authority in regard to private interpretation of the Scriptures. Though the Protestants presented themselves as commendable for the distribution of Bible translations to the common people, they never believed the laity could interpret it for themselves, nor did they ever state such. To the contrary,

“The Protestant Reformers in leaving Rome did not leave all Romanism behind them. In particular, they brought with them the prosecuting principles of Rome, and worked them freely and vigorously in support of the Reformed faith. They changed the Pope but not the popedom… Persecution is the deadly sin of the Reformed churches, that which cools every honest man’s zeal for their cause, in proportion as his reading becomes more extensive—Hallam… Rightfully and nobly did the Protestant Reformers claim religious liberty for themselves; but they resolutely refused to concede it to others” (William Marshall’s The Principles of the Westminster Standards Persecuting (William Marshall, D.D., Coupar – Angus. Edinburgh: William Oliphant & Co. 1873).

The English translators did something in the English translation of the Bible that Rome did not even do in the Latin Vulgate. They translated “assembly” as “church” which had no validity whatsoever. The Greek word for assembly and the Greek word for church are two entirely different Greek words with completely different meanings. The Hebrew words for assembly and the Greek word for assembly allowed for a connection between the Judaism of the Old Testament and the Christianity of the New. The word “church” puts forth the idea of a completely different program and plan of some sort. In the like institutional core fundamentals, the Catholics kept the Bible from the laity, while the Protestants skinned the cat a different way by taking liberty with translation. Tyndale was much more virtuous on this wise, translating assembly as “congregation,” but unfortunately was executed by the Catholics for the effort.

The rendering of “assembly,” “synagogue,” as “church” in Protestant translations of the Bible present an egregious distorted dichotomy in regard to the Jewishness of God’s overall plan for the ages. It is best to delve into this while discussing the fact that the 1st century home fellowships were merely a continuation of the Jewish synagogue, and that word seems to suggest some sort of institution, or temple-like mini-institution.

To the contrary, some sort of substructure or mini temple version would have been a blasphemous notion to the Jews. Furthermore, for the most part historically, the Jews have had little choice to do anything other than worship in the privacy of their own homes. Moreover, synagogues were of the laity and far removed from any priestly authority whatsoever. The intended model for Christian fellowship and assembly has never changed since the exodus and before. It is a body and ground-level family unhindered by the musings of bureaucratic control. It is not a machine controlled by men, it is a body that lives and grows.

The Protestants never sought to separate from the Catholic Church and indeed they did not. It was a protest, and an attempt at reform, not a revolution by any stretch of the imagination. Institutional accreditation was vital to the Protestants, and critical to their credibility. This means they NEVER left the Catholic Church. Protestants retained solidarity with the Doctors of the Catholic Church for this reason, particularly St. Augustine. The most prominent fathers of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin, were avowed Augustinians till the day they died. Contemporary Reformers constantly strive to outdo each other in quoting Augustine at every opportunity, and God’s people are completely unmiffed by the exaltation of this serial anti-Semite Platonist. Why? Because what happens under the roof of an institutional church is mostly inconsequential; it is the depot that punches your ticket to heaven.

There are four primary ways that the institutional church wages war against the Holy Spirit, and this is a joint effort that includes Catholic and Protestant alike. We have examined three of them: the separation of God’s word from His people, the separation of  Jew and Gentile, the institutionalization of God’s family adding additional mediators other than Christ (church, not assembly),  but the fourth is what separates the Catholic from the Protestant. The accusation of this war is not as absurd as it sounds, for the permanent indwelling of the Spirit suggests ability on the part of the individual. Both sides endorse the incompetence of the individual and need for enlightened mediators between the great unwashed masses and God; in other words, an efficacious soteriological caste system.

This fourth war strategy involves the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the new birth. The Catholic Church acknowledges the indwelling of the Spirit and the new birth, but insists that this only enables the salvation candidate to cooperate in the finishing of the salvation process; primarily by faithfulness to the Mother Church. Rome is not shy or ambiguous about this idea. Yes, Catholicism and Protestantism alike hold to an unfinished progressive justification which requires the mediation of the church to complete. Both are a progressive justification.

Protestants, that is, Protestants who know what Protestantism is, deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the new birth all together. Let’s think about this: if the Holy Spirit permanently indwells the believer, salvation MUST be FINISHED, there is simply no way around that. A permanent indwelling of the Spirit makes a progressive salvation dependent on the church completely unnecessary.

In Protestantism, the “new birth” is redefined as a perception or ability to understand the total depravity of man as set against God’s holiness, but the “believer’s” state of being remains unchanged. That is why Protestantism describes salvation as a mere “legal declaration” in which a righteousness that remains outside of the believer must be progressively imputed to the believer until “final justification.” And, this can only be obtained by faithfulness to the authority of the church.

Catholicism believes in an internal righteousness, or “infused grace,” (infused righteousness), but this only enables one to colabor with the church for a final salvation. Both are salvation via an additional mediator, viz, church, and both advocate progressive justification. Many scholars believe this was the solidary issue that sparked the Protestant Reformation. Previously, Catholic scholars held to a strict Platonist dichotomy between righteousness and humanity, but began to be influenced by Thomism circa 13th century. The Protestant Reformation was really a debate concerning Plato versus Aristotle, and both churches have sought to hide this fact from the great unwashed, particularly the Protestant stripe. It was by no means a biblical debate, but a philosophical one. The idea that the Protestant Reformation was predicated on scriptural debate is an audacious rewriting of history and rank propaganda. Simply stated, the authority for truth among medieval church theologians was the philosophers primarily and the Scriptures secondarily, and stated such in no uncertain terms.

Hence, in revisiting a prior point for clarification on the first four theses, the retranslating of God’s family function to “church” invoked the idea of authority and additional mediators other than Christ. This was the institutionalization of first century Christianity. Authority as truth: this amounts to a gospel of authority; ironically, the choosing of an authority according to one’s preference. All religions and denominations claim their own authority gospel, but it is up to the individual, at least in the post American era, to choose which authority they think will save them.

Church necessarily has a problem with individual worship. If the individual can please God with personal worship (which is biblically defined as the practice of truth), what do we need church for? However, the church makes so-called “corporate worship” efficacious to a right standing with God. Christ said,

believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

The coming of the New Covenant and the “mystery of the gospel” which is the baptizing of Jew and Gentile into one body emphasizes an individual worship in the sanctified body of the believer. This makes all of life, worship in general, and the goal of worship, love, in particular. Church actually redefined worship as a corporate salvific endeavor and not an individual endeavor to use truth to love God and others. This circumvents the Spirit’s purpose of sanctification which is redefined as the progression of salvation.

Lastly, the church wages war against the Spirit’s purpose of fulfilling God’s elected means of salvation. God’s elected means of salvation does not include the authority of men as the church asserts. There is only ONE mediator between men and God and ALL authority has been given to that one person, and that person is the ONE seed. The church cannot give life, only the Word, who is Christ. Church makes itself a major element of God’s elected plan of salvation.

According to church orthodoxy, which makes election a concern of salvific preselection, whether one perseveres in the faith or not is defined by faithfulness to church. If one perseveres to the end, they are shown as preselected by God. The verse they adore reads, “Those who are no longer among us were never of us.” Hence, one can really elect God’s election by staying faithful to church which focuses on justification and not the Spirit’s purpose of sanctification.

Love isn’t the highest priority, keeping yourself saved is the highest priority.

Paul M. Dohse

TANC Ministries

According to the Bible, there are only two basic people groups in the world; under law and under grace. If you will, lost and saved. Biblically, under law is framed as “under sin,” and “under condemnation.” It is important to understand that those under condemnation are dominated by the under law mindset. I have written about this before, but suffice for this post to say that those under sin are like sin in that they want to control others, and while condemned themselves, condemn others. As far as accusations to condemn others in an effort to control them or punish them for not being what they want them to be, people draw from the sin catalogue that violates their own consciences. This is why people accuse others of what they themselves are often guilty of. We see this constantly.

The Bible says that sin is empowered by condemnation, and that condemnation comes from the law. Because sin is at odds with God, and is driven by a desire to control humanity in unified opposition to God, it uses God’s law, which is good, to create sinful desires in people. These desires can take on a myriad of different characteristics like a desire to have sex with animals. This is kind of hard to understand, but here is an example that may help a little: have you ever stood at the edge of a cliff and had a weird temptation to jump? Of course, that would be against God’s wishes for many reasons, but hence the morbid temptation. As these desires are practiced, that is, the ones that don’t end your life, the desire intensifies leading to addiction, viz, the desire becomes so intense that we cannot say no to the desire. And yes, saying yes to the desire over and over again can add physiological dependence as well because of how cells try to adapt to a behavior’s effect on our bodies.

Jesus came to get rid of the condemnation by dying on the cross. His death ended the law. This stripped sin of its power. However, this was His primary part in salvation. God elected the salvation plan, not individuals, and the Spirit raised Christ from the dead. The Trinity worked together to establish the new birth which baptizes people into God’s family. There is a spiritual death with Christ and a spiritual resurrection with Christ BY the Holy Spirit.

THIS CHANGES OUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE LAW. This is where all religions and denominations miss the boat, that is, their single perspective on the law. Any single perspective on the law necessarily requires that all subjects remain under its condemnation requiring an ongoing covering for sin rather than an ending of sin. I find it striking that lofty Protestant scholars constantly refer to salvation as “the atonement” (covering) rather than what the Bible calls salvation: an ending of sin. This is where assurance of salvation comes from: there is simply no law that can judge us. And…”where there is no law there is no sin.” That’s what the Bible states.

Now, being under grace doesn’t mean that we are no longer under a law, nor is it a divine legal loophole for living any way we want to. The new birth does change our hearts from ones who were once indifferent to God’s law to ones who now love God’s law. This boils down to the Spirit’s two uses of the law: for those under law; to convict them of sin and the judgement to come, and those under grace; to sanctify them. Sanctification is a setting apart from something former, and endeavoring in what is not the norm. The new creature colabors with the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in this endeavor. To the believer, the law is now God’s wisdom for loving others and finding progressive peace with no fear of condemnation. Unhealthy introspection concerning motives is unnecessarily because those who properly understand the new birth know that it is the new birth that justifies, not perfect law-keeping. It can be rightfully said that Christians no longer sin, but fail to love, which is a family matter, not a matter of condemnation. No, Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church and many others, true Christians are NOT “under the righteous demands of the law”…that’s a false gospel that denies the new birth and how the new birth changes the believer’s relationship to the law.

Now a short conclusion concerning the thesis of this post: Even Christians who understand the new birth intellectually often function like they are still under law. That includes me. Habits and church brainwashing die hard. FYI: living statistics for church people and secular people are the same for one reason and one reason only; both are still under law.

In the conclusion of this post, I will point out some under law mentalities. First, we judge how well people are doing by how well they keep the law, that is, laws that are often those of our own preference. When someone offends you, did they actually break a law, or one of your personal preferences that you have made into a tablet of stone? Marriage is probably the best example with personal preference laws complete with punishments like the silent treatment and withholding sex. The silent treatment is actually a bloodless death penalty: you no longer exist in the household till the sin is atoned for in full, or until you “ask for forgiveness.” Pardon me, but Christ already took care of that. Certainly, an apology for failure to love may be in order, but we should be careful with the “forgiveness” approach, especially when a personal preference law has been broken. It may not be a sin just because someone didn’t do something you wanted them to do.

Secondly, under law thinking doesn’t consider another person’s motives. That’s because under law doesn’t care about motives, it only considers whether or not a law has been broken. Did we not hear the following in church for years? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” To tell someone, “Oh my goodness! I didn’t mean to do that! That wasn’t my intentions at all!” is only making excuses and “not owning your sin.” Excuse me, but the Bible says, “love believes all things” and by the way, there is no sin to own, Jesus ended it.

Thirdly, the person is not seen through the lens of the big picture, that is, the sum and substance of their whole life, but the person is evaluated based on the present and particular “sin.” Is this not another thing we heard in church for years? Taking James 2:10 out of context, “If you break one law, you are guilty of breaking the whole law.” Trust me, many, many marriages are like that. Good luck.

Fourthly, under law thinking doesn’t employ biblical patience. Patience is enabled by seeing the person through the lens of their efforts and motives. Patience is possible when we know who the person really is, and the offence is seen as a stumbling, not a disrespect to one’s authority based self-importance. The Bible calls this a “love covering.” This is important because in the offenders mind, especially one who understands the new birth and makes every effort to live by it, they can never do enough to earn the approval of those who have under law thinking, and basically, that’s true. While striving to do what the Bible commands, viz, “make every effort to love God and others with all of your heart, soul, and mind,” under law thinking never remembers that this is how you live your life, but rather rejects the premise about you all together because of a single sin. The Bible says believers have a “willing spirit,” but are weak, and in some cases weaker because of some present life challenge. Under law thinkers disregard the willing spirit altogether.

Moreover, under law thinkers often cause others to function under law according to the following: others don’t do things for under law thinkers out of love, but rather to prevent condemnation by the offended. In marriage, we call it, “nagging.”

Fifthly, all in all, we must remember that church orthodoxy calls for a remembrance and looking for sin in order to appreciate what Jesus has done for us. This calls for all of reality to be interpreted through the law prism. This merely throws gasoline on the fire of humanity’s sad under law existence saturated with condemnation.

This has been drilled into our heads for years and evolving from this mindset will take work. This post only presents a few basic thoughts to get the ball rolling. But it begins with judging people by how much they love, not how much they sin.

The Bible says that love doesn’t keep a record of wrong, so we may assume that it keeps a record of right, and judges others accordingly. When someone offends you, where does your mind go? Which record does it focus on?

In many cases, in under law thinking, only one record exists in our mind to begin with. That’s not only a lie about the other person, but is more akin to hate than love.

paul

We now know what the missing denominator was in figuring out why Republicans act like Democrats. We now, no longer, scratch our heads and wonder why George W. Bush can have such a cozy relationship with the Clintons and Obamas. It’s Elitism, and it has components of individual freedom that has also confused us until Donald Trump cleared things up.

How can the benefactors of capitalism be against capitalism? Trump cleared that up as well. We also understand that a democracy is not a representative republic, and why Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College. We also understand what open borders are all about as well.

Elitist democracies have existed in the past, here is what they looked like. In the first century, in many cultures, 90% of the population were indentured slaves or bond slaves. Only the elitist class, or upper crust of society were allowed to vote. Open borders were huge because indentured slaves earned their citizenship by serving in the households of the elitist class of any given country. This is exactly what is going on in our day, though technically illegal according to U.S. laws. Indentured slavery isn’t law, and we don’t have open borders. Not yet.

Elitism doesn’t function with a large middle class. There are only two classes in elitism: the ruling class, and the working class; the ruling class, and the commoners; the lords, and the serfs. All the power is where it should be: with the educated high-bred people, not the uneducated low-bred. In an elitist democracy, hillbillies are not allowed to have a say in how society is run. In an elitist society, that would be like letting the inmates run the asylum.

And too many of the commoners are willing to buy into Elitism, at least initially. The worship of the elitist class is evident; whether movie stars, charismatic politicians promising free stuff, musicians, pop culture icons, journalists, novelists, or whoever else that inspires awe in a populous suffering from self-esteem anemia. When our children die a tragic death, it doesn’t make the news, but when an elitist is diagnosed with cancer or suffers a family tragedy it escapes no media venue, and they become the experts on how we should endure a similar fate. So what? if uncle Charlie is addicted to OxyContin, but if our favorite movie star is addicted to it we can’t wait to talk about it at the office watercooler. Hollywood actors are called on to testify before Congress about any number of social issues while no one stops to ask what exactly makes them an expert regarding such. The most disgusting examples of human beings walking the earth can get any woman they want, or as many as they want, doing whatever they want, because they play lead guitar in a rock band. And so it goes; our tendency to worship others in light of our total depravity.

Here is the thing about elitists of all types: the size and empowerment of the middle class is directly related to their self-importance. The elimination of manufacturing in the U.S. was no accident. Environmental religions seek to do one thing: kill jobs that empower the middle class under the auspices of saving the environment. Open border advocates seek to import more of elitist societies into America to make America an elitist democracy as opposed to a representative republic. Yes, the imports are primarily from socialist nations, but socialism and elitism are more than just kissing cousins; in socialist societies, the upper crust live well on the backs of the working class who are serving the greater good, and NO greater good empowers the hillbillies of any given society.

Open borders are all about eliminating the middle class which further empowers the elitist class. Plainly, a class that Trump was IN, but not OF. Now that he is President and pushing an individualist representative republic, the war is on…big time.

paul

One can get worn out and totally burned out with following American politics. The temptation is to turn off the constant bickering and tune into something else more pleasant. Besides, the following is obvious: Republicans and Democrats are not going to come together to find common ground for purposes of serving the American people.

Why is that? The original intent of the American Constitution is a government elected by the people to find common ground for better serving the people. When a politician can say something like, “Do not ask what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country,” and such is made political folklore, you know what part of the problem is: ignorance concerning what America is really about. Perhaps that’s the whole problem.

What we see in American politics is a power struggle. No, not between two parties, but between people who stand for Americanism and those who stand against it, or want a watered down version of it.

Many who have pro-American principles have a vague understanding about what really drove the framers of the American Constitution. If not most. The core leaders of the American Revolution were philosophers. They pondered the deep questions of metaphysics and presuppositions about mankind.

Their conclusions were unlike any that dominated world thought prior to their time, and religion never got onboard. Before America, religion and presuppositions about mankind were mutually inclusive. The American Revolution redefined man’s nature, and divorced government from religion. In addition, the founding fathers of Americanism knew the church was disingenuous concerning its claim that orthodoxy originates from the Bible; they knew religion in general, and the church in particular are predicated on philosophy. There has never been a theology developed that marries American philosophy with religion and backed by the Bible. Perhaps John Locke and  Søren Kierkegaard flirted with it, but the work remains undone.

The fact that America happened is really a significant miracle. It is based on the collective rule of individuals. It is what we call, “self-rule.” And before I forget, let me add that the framers were geniuses and the world will never see another group like them assembled together at the same time for a common purpose. And, when it gets right down to it, they built such a strong foundation that such a return of men like them is unnecessary; we only need a defense of what they established. There is no need to reinvent the wheel of government.

Americanism is not outdated, and never will be because it is the only defense, in the political sense, against something that has never changed and never will change: sin. No, believing in America will not save your soul, but it will save you from the present political consequences of sin. The Bible states that God’s kind of government is his “minister.” Hence, we should pay our taxes to support God’s minister. God’s kind of government, “rewards good and punishes evil,” and those who do right should not fear such a government, but should only fear God’s kind of government if they do wrongly. That’s what the Bible says. And by the way, if a government is not God’s kind of government, we are not obligated to obey it; in fact, obeying it may be a sin. See, “Nazi Germany” for an example in the encyclopedia of your choice. In addition, the framers even insisted on a well armed populous to defend against any people who attempt to overthrow Americanism. That’s what the Second Amendment is about. Any government that seeks to overthrow the people should be overthrown by the people…if it’s God’s kind of government.

The Bible also says that every individual has a responsibility before God to be all they can be, and to love God and others with all of their heart, soul, and mind. So, God’s kind of government frees people to do that. We don’t ask what we can do for the government, we ask what the government can do for us so we can be better equipped to help others.

This all boils down to individualism versus collectivism, ability of man versus the inability of man, and the basic goodness of man versus total depravity. There is only ONE mediator between God and man, Christ. Institutions that support individualism are God’s ministers, but trust me, God isn’t employing any mediators other than Christ. Church and Communism/Socialism represent the same thing: mediation, because the individual is unable and totally depraved. When America destroyed the church-state, Communism filled the void, the historic timeline is not a coincidence.

Before America, darkness and death was the historical motif. The world is a demonstrably better place to live since the American Revolution. Hardly anything is more obvious. This is because of how Americanism defines the individual. Technology exploded in the world after America because individuals were set free to think, dream, and explore. Man was told that he can understand reality, and learn about it from empirical observation. America made the individual the sole judge of what he/she can accomplish and know. This is why other countries steal our technology. When people are told they are unable to understand reality and unable to rule their own lives, they will act like it.

What are we fundamentally talking about here? How do we boil down the present-day political mess to its least common denominator? Folks, it’s all about the freedom. We were created to be free, and love doesn’t fear freedom. What is your presupposition concerning mankind? Here is a test: do you fear that more freedom will lead to the destruction of mankind, or will more freedom lead to a better world? And who do you trust to oversee the freedom of mankind?

I am going to keep this really, really basic. Before America, the prevailing philosophy was the total depravity of mankind; man is basically evil. Hence, the rigid caste system that ruled the world and still does to a significant degree. And since man is totally depraved, he must be ruled over by those who understand man’s depravity. But who should these people be? Who should rule over mankind to prevent too much freedom from destroying humanity? It was mostly determined by pedigree. A good example would be the British Royal Crown. Before America, these folks weren’t just figureheads for the most part as they are today, they ruled the world because their lineage was worthy to oversee the great unwashed. This is who America went to war with to create a government never seen before on the face of the earth.

Let’s back up a little. Social classes dictated by the marriage of politics and religion determined the order of things. Here, we are talking about caste systems. This system was seen as critical for precuring the survival of mankind. Till this very day, marrying across social class lines is a crime in many cultures, and this was the case in Colonial America just prior to the American Revolution as well. Weakening the upper social classes with the lower ones was/is seen as a threat to the survival of mankind. And by the way, you can add race to that as well. It can be fairly said that this basic tenet was the most significant primer for Nazism during WWII.

Yes, America blew that up, but it didn’t go far enough. Though the American Constitution has no tenet that would bolster any caste system, but instead has laws against its prejudice, such mentalities die hard. Americanism propagates the idea that status in a caste system can be earned by any individual regardless of race and social class, but it’s still a caste system. America made social mobility possible, and this alone transformed the world for the better. The core value of social mobility based on a different presupposition about humankind slowly transformed the world and America. Hence, the difference between freedom in America now versus the 40’s and 50’s and the elimination of segregation.

However, America traded despotism for expertism. Don’t get me wrong, we will happily take it as opposed to what the world was, but nevertheless, this is the case: ruling over others is no longer a birthright, but it can be earned through education, social pandering, and in some cases, outright monetary purchase. In our day, the Clintons are a good example of that.

But, America’s soft-slavery is also for the better in another way: being enslaved by experts is a choice. In America, the experts must use manipulation to control you. This is different from the despotism of the past where ideas were even against the law upon pain of death. Trust me, there is only one thing standing between your ideas that upset others and your death; American jurisprudence. America replaced the murdering ruling despots with Elitism. Despotism is now limited to the arena of ideas, not the arena where gladiators and lions slew slaves for entertainment, or those who dared question the overseers of the great unwashed.

Hence, the despots of our time restrained by the American Constitution hate the freedom of ideas. Point is case, Silicon Valley icon Jason Pontin who stated,

Do you see everything we are talking about here? The total depravity of mankind? The expertism? The Elitism? Curiously, we may be seeing a furthering of the American core value towards individualism in regard to the following: people are beginning to question the high value put on formal education. Obviously, highly educated people are often dumber than a box of rocks. We must remember that much of formal education, and especially in the religious realm, is all about purchasing an elitist pedigree for the purpose of having power over others. Also, in all of this, it often confuses people when elitists are anti-capitalism when capitalism made them rich to begin with. The reason for this is really very simple: they think capitalism is for the elitists only. Putting monetary power in the hands of the great unwashed puts humanity at risk and steals food from the mouths of the precious victims who know their place in the elitist caste system. This is directly related to the size, freedom, and empowerment of the middleclass. A capitalism not limited to the uppercrust creates a robust middleclass which is also indicative of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is all driven by a desire to control others. But why would people want to control others?

Freedom/slavery is a major biblical thesis. In the Bible, Sin is personified as a slave master as set against another master who is Christ. Yes, yes, sin is about doing naughty things God doesn’t like, but what is often missed is what the Bible states as the very essence of sin: it’s driven by a desire to control/enslave others. Complicating matters as well is what people will do in efforts to not be controlled, viz, victimhood, and using that victimhood to actually control people themselves. You are unmerciful if you hold them to any standard, and by the way, you are also unmerciful, and therefore immoral, if you don’t capitulate to their every perceived need due to the fact that they are a victim of…fill in the blank.

In the Bible, law-breaking is really a secondary issue. Sin uses law-breaking to control people, so Christ came to die on the cross to end the law. Because Sin hates God, it uses God’s law to incite people to break it leading to guilt which enslaves people. Guilt leads to condemnation which increases in the face of future judgement by God. The Bible states that people primarily fear death because they know a judgement by God follows. Christ removed the guilt on the cross and stripped the Sin master of his ability to enslave. Hence, any Christian who has a proper understanding of the new birth does not ask, “Did you sin today?” but rather, “Did you love today?” This gospel part of the post is also egregiously simplified, but suffice to say that we shouldn’t sin according to what the Bible calls sin because sin is not a true loving of self and others. It should be rather evident that all self-destructive behavior flows from self-hate and doesn’t much regard people who care for you which certainly falls short of loving others as well. As the Bible states, sin is pleasurable for a season but eventually leads to present death by a thousand cuts and ultimate death followed by God’s judgement.

Please note: as stated by the Bible, there is sinful desire and godly desire; the former hates and the latter loves according to the truth. A desire to control others is sin…period. This is why marriage counseling is ALWAYS two people coming with their condemnation lists that argue for why one should be able to control the other. Or, one thinks the other is their slave/servant. Few slave masters see themselves as unloving. More than not, they see you as someone who needs their care and oversight for your own good. “Without me, you could never make it.” Sound familiar?

Now you should understand the hatred for Donald Trump that we see in our day. He is a political outsider that doesn’t play by Washington’s political caste system. Worse yet, he threatens to empower the middleclass which is a deathblow to Elitism. It is bad enough that Americanism eliminated outright control-lust manifested by overt social caste systems, Trump now threatens to overthrow Despotism Light in the form of earned expertism that is the ruling class of Elitism. Humanity stands on the brink of annihilation because Trump is empowering the dumb hillbillies who occupy middle America which should be ruled over by West Coast elitism and East Coast elitism and their consummate experts who gained their pedigree through the likes of Yale, Harvard, and Berkeley.

We might touch on one more question here. How does Despotism Light gain such a huge following of zealots who take the authority of expertism as gospel truth? Answer: they have bought into the gospel of human depravity and the necessity of the great unwashed to be overseen for the prevention of humanity’s annihilation. They see America’s success as the great housing bubble or the .com crash. They see America thriving on unsecured credit. Since self-rule is obviously an insane idea, America’s force for good in the world is obviously an illusion because its basic ideology is not politically correct. Trump, and others like him, are setting up America for a hard fall whereas keeping people as miserable as possible is a truthful representation of the human condition, and empowering undeserved losers is an injustice to boot.

Lets look at some examples on ground level. I am a nurse aide presently endeavoring to obtain a certification in medication. This is known as a “medication aide” or STMA (state tested medication aide).  I am presently a STNA (state tested nurse aide). I plan to go further in becoming a LPN (licensed practical nurse) or RN  (registered nurse). The biggest obstacle in becoming a STMA is the pushback from the healthcare profession. Why is that? LPNs see it as an unfair invasion into their territory. Most of what an LPN does is the administration of Medications and one can become a STMA in about 6 weeks and a thousand dollars. Becoming an LPN is a year and 20,000 dollars. But remember, LPN programs received the same kind of pushback from the RNs. Is it a kind of social class struggle of sorts? Yes. I have many LPN/RN friends, and lost several of them upon endeavoring to become a STMA. It has become personal.

Here is another example. During the electronic security boom of 1960-2000, alarm technicians, who for the most part only had high school educations, where making anywhere from 40,000 to 60,000 dollars per year. The company administrators who were normally college educated were making half that much. As one familiar with that industry, I can tell you that technicians had to put up with constant harassment from company administrators. Class envy and human worth assessment are very real. As a college educated person, you may not lay claim to the authority to rule over others, but at the very least, the “uneducated” should give up their place in line at Starbucks for you since they are not even worthy enough to be in Starbucks to begin with. An insurance salesman who worked in a large office in Dallas, TX once shared this with me: an administrator who resented what many of the salesmen made monetarily had a huge life-size memorial of her college diploma displayed by her desk.

Yet, another example. When I was in home health care, I cared for a lower middleclass couple. I was often treated like a lowly servant which perplexed me because “what do these people have to be uppity about?” This perplexed me to the point that I began to observe our interactions more carefully in order to make sense of it. I finally came to the following conclusion: it was their liberal worldview. This made them better than me. You see, the Lager version of despotism has a huge middleclass that may not have power, but see themselves as morally superior because of their hatred of humankind. They are morally superior because they see their need to be ruled over by the experts they worship. They are part of the Elitist kingdom, and therefore morally superior, but not of the expert ruling class. The church counterpart describes this as “humbleness” and “meekness.” Whether secular or religious, they see the experts as the “knights of the reality-based community.”

I would that all believe the gospel and be reconciled to God, but the biblical definition of sin and all that it means is not confined to the subject of religion. Perhaps understanding why culture behaves like it does will lead one to be part of God’s family because all of reality is connected to biblical truth in some way.

But regarding secular politics, it is a simple matter of believing or not believing in the gospel of self-rule, and no country has implemented that political gospel for the betterment of the world than America. It took some 10,000 years of misery for a group of men to finally stand up and say, “NO” to the Elitist caste systems that has always ruled the world.

It is a fight that can make one weary indeed, but at least America has reduced the fight to the arena of ideas. In this arena, we fight for freedom because we were created for freedom, not slavery. And because of that fact, being manipulated into believing the ideas of slavery will always lead to the arena of blood and death. There are no exceptions.

paul