Top 10 Phrases And Words Todd Friel Uses That Are Not Found In The Bible

Top 10 Phrases And Words Todd Friel Uses That Are Not Found In The Bible:

A Satire Of Todd Friel's Ten Reasons To Not Ask Jesus Into Your Heart

10. Total Depravity---the concept yes but no exact reference.

9. Original Sin---the concept yes but no exact reference.

8. Trinity---the concept yes but no exact reference.

7. Hell---though sheol-the grave, gehenna-Valley of Hinnom a garbage dump in Jerusalem, etc. are.

6. True and false converts

5. John MacArthur---obviously not.

4. Charles Spurgeon---obvious as well.

3. inerrancy---nope.

2. Protestantism---nada.

1. Absolute Truth---nope---this is a neo-Platonic dualistic and Gnostic concept of Modernism.

Bonus points: driving to church on Sunday, the rapture, Way Of The Master and Wretched radio, toilets are also not in the bible but peeing on walls is:
---

Pastor Steven Anderson (Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, Arizona) sermonizes on the phrase "him that pisseth against the wall" in I Kings 14:10. The phrase is also found in I Sam 25:22, 25:34; I Kings 16:11, 21:21; and II Kings 9:8

If the duty of the Christian is not to follow Christ but live by the bible---we should make sure we get these key Salvation-effecting points right.

Christmas: A Time For Social Justice

Justice or Tzedakah literally charity is found 28 times alone in the Old Testament. Poverty or raysh and ptocheia literally beggary appear 15 times in the bible. Poor or ebyown literally beggars and ptochos literally a beggar appear 205 times in the bible. The English word hell appears 0 times in the bible. A word for gay marriage or the concept of gay marriage appear 0 times in the bible. A word for abortion appears 0 times in the bible. So lets tally up those references---there are 0 references to Fundamentalists' pet issues but there are 248 references in all to social justice issues---so you make the call. Christmas is definitely a good time to think about social justice though social justice should be pursued year round.

Random Links

Opinion: What are the consequences of resurgent Baptist Calvinism?
By Fisher Humphreys--- an interesting succinct, thoughtful, perceptive, unbiased and fair analysis of the rise of Conservative Calvinism in the Baptist church especially the SBC.

Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity: The Teachings of Jesus Contradict PST---an interesting and thought provoking critique on the more absurd aspects of the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement. The author argues that the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement clashes with "both the actions and the teachings of Jesus." Do you agree or disagree? What are your thoughts? I'll weigh in later but for now I'll just say that the author makes some good points that I agree with.

Old AOL News Articles:

Columbine Killer's Mother Speaks Out---interesting and heartbreaking interview.

'Hot Mormon Muffins' Calendar Debuts---funny and weird. This is not something that you associate Mormons with.

Study Finds Transcendental Meditation Reduces High Blood Pressure---interesting findings.

Church of Scientology Convicted in France---crazy.

Al Mohler, Tim Keller, Idolatry And Conscience

Recently Dr. Prescott posted this:

Al Mohler on Conscience

Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary and architect of the heretical 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statement, has taken up writing about conscience lately. Today, he writes about "The Idolatrous Religion of Conscience" and concludes with a quote from Martin Luther:

"It is the nature of all hypocrites and false prophets to create a conscience where there is none, and to cause conscience to disappear where it does exist."

I find it ironic that Mohler is now demonstrating such concern about forms of idolatry. Particularly when the article on "Scriptures" that he wrote for the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message demoted Jesus and elevated the Bible to such and extent that his statement is the clearest expression of Bible idolatry ever approved by a Baptist convention.

For the record, I too believe that conscience can be elevated to idolatrous levels. No one should trust a conscience that is not informed by both scripture and by the Holy Spirit (Mohler also turns a deaf ear to God's Spirit).

I also find it ironic that Mohler cites Martin Luther so approvingly. I'm not sure where the quote he cites is to be found in Luther's corpus, but I'm certain that you can find quotes similar to this in Luther's denunciations of the Anabaptists whose conscience prohibited them from baptizing infants. Instead, they insisted on baptizing believers.

Interestingly enough it is not just the bible that has been made into an idol by the SBC and fundamentalists in general but also doctrines themselves specifically those doctrines that are deemed right and correct by fundamentalist leaders. Here is a quote from Tim Keller which demonstrates the doxolatry/orthodoxolatry of fundamentalists:

Tim Keller on The Idol of Right Doctrine
Posted on October 21st, 2009 by peteenns

“An idol is something you rely on instead of God for your salvation. One of the religious idols is your moral record: “God accepts me because I’m living a good life.” I’m a Presbyterian, so I’m all for right doctrine. But you can start to feel very superior to everyone else and think, God is pleased with me because I’m so true to the right doctrine. The right doctrine and one’s moral record are forms of power. Another is ministry success, similar to the idol of achievement. There are religious versions of sex, money, and power, and they are pretty subtle.”

Rev. Tim Keller, author of Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters, from an interview with Christianity Today.

We should beware of all forms of idolatry, false doctrines and false forms of conscience.

The Bible=Too Liberal; Jesus Followers=Anti-American Neo-Marxists

No this is no joke---there are groups of theological/political fundamentalists/conservatives who actually believe this way. One such group of course is Worldview Weekend who I've blogged about several times before. Yesterday AOL news had this article about one of Worldview Weekend's members---Phyllis Schlafly and her son Andy Schlafly's latest project---The Conservative Bible Project:

Bible Too Liberal? Conservatives Say Yes

By Anne Miller, AOL News
posted: 9 HOURS 5 MINUTES AGOcomments: 3154
PRINT|E-MAILMOREText SizeAAA

(Oct. 6) -- Debates between conservatives and liberals are going biblical. A collaborative online project seeks to update the Bible with a more conservative translation -- and has drawn the ire of less right-leaning bloggers and columnists. The Conservative Bible Project is the brainchild of attorney and teacher Andy Schlafly, a son of conservative standard-bearer Phyllis Schlafly. His Bible-related Wiki, which allows contributors to post information, comment on others' and suggest tweaks or fixes, went up this summer. The project quickly drew fire. "These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture?" So asked Rod Dreher, a conservative blogger for Beliefnet. "They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism?" Schlafly said he aims to counteract modern translations, not edit the Bible. "I think liberal bias was less of a problem in older translations," he said. "It's refreshing to read anything that is free of liberal bias, and the Bible is the most well-read book in the world, so that should be the first thing to clean up." As an example, he cited a recent church service he attended near his New Jersey home. "There was a reading from the gospel, and the pronoun used to refer to a child in this translation was 'it'," he said. "So this translation of the gospel referred to a child as an 'it,' a thing. And that is liberal, it's offensive and it's incorrect." The 10 commandments of the project include avoiding unisex or "gender inclusive" language, being concise (Lord, instead of Lord God) and expressing "free market parables." Meanwhile, a Time magazine writer called the project "insane." A Salon writer suggested a few sarcastic entries of his own. Schlafly counters that his critics "are liberals who are unhappy that their game is up." And a few dozen people have already logged on to help craft the new translation.
Schlafly predicts the conservative version will be completed, and available for a publisher to download and print, in about a year.

2009 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
2009-10-06 14:22:51

Wow this is just over the top football bat insane! It's not surprising though as the Religious Right in the past have already condemned Jesus for being too liberal: A Baptist Perspective: JAMES DOBSON AND ANN COULTER CONFIRM THAT JESUS IS A GODLESS LIBERAL. Therefore we could conclude that it was only a matter of time before they realized that the book that they idolize doesn't support their worldview and in order to make it so, they would have to rewrite it to fit their agenda. Rewritten verses are likely to chastise the poor, be even more homophobic, castigate all liberals whether theological or political, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-theocratic fascist government/Calvinazism or anti-separation of church and state, pro-capitalist materialism, pro-enemy hate, pro-borders, anti-immigration and a myriad number of ways to support a myopic and isolationist worldview born out of Right-Wing philosophies.

Here are some hypothetical verses likely to be included in the conservative bible:

But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who conserves His resources and gives only to those that work hard enough to earn wisdom; God will reward them with it.---for James 1:5.

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, invest and save all your possessions and make a net gain, and you will have treasure on earth as in heaven. Then come, follow me and Reganism."---for Matthew 19:21.

And: The Sermon on the Mount
5:1 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.
The Beatitudes
2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
3 “Blessed are the rich in spirit and those that work hard to get ahead, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed not are those who mourn, for they shall not be comforted. Comfort and feeling good about ourselves is from the devil, sissies, weak pansies and liberals.
5 “Blessed are the proud and arrogant, for they shall conquer and triumph over all of the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for legalism, for they shall satisfy God's wrath.
7 “Blessed are the judgmental, for they shall receive due reward for being right and correcting everyone else.
8 “Blessed are the proud of heart, for they shall see God in themselves.
9 “Blessed are the warmongers, for they shall be called sons [1] of God.
10 “Blessed are those who persecute non-fundamentalist Christians, pagans, queers, atheists and liberals for legalism's sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of facts against you truthfully on account of your idolatry. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the pharisees who were before you.

........

Christ Came to reinforce the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to reinforce them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

.........

Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him and slap him back. 40 And if anyone would try to sue you and take your tunic, [7] do not let him have anything. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, force him to go two miles. 42 Give nothing to the one who begs from you, and refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Hate Your Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Hate your neighbor as well as your enemies and pray for your enemies' death, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the good---the Elect, and sends rain on the unjust---the non-Elect. 46 For if you love those who are your enemies, what reward do you have? Do not even the liberals do the same? 47 And if you greet those that are not your brothers, [8] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the heretics do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect by separating yourselves from liberals, heretics and sinners just as your heavenly Father is perfect and separated from them.

........

Judging Others
7:1 “Judge others often, so that you be judged to be truly elected by God. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged righteous, holy and pure---guardians of the Absolute Truth, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you a reward. 3 Always see the speck that is in your brother's eye, so that you do not notice the log that is in your own eye. 4 Say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ so that you can avoid the guilt of the log in your own eye.

Next---today, I got this in my email from Worldview Weekend:

RED-LETTER CHRISTIANS: NEO-MARXISM IN THE CHURCH?

By Jan Markell
www.olivetreeviews.org

October 5, 2009

In many Bibles, all the words of Jesus are in red. There is nothing wrong with that. But something is wrong when Leftist Christians or so-called Christians want to mute the words of Paul and other writers and only follow Jesus' words. They call themselves "red-letter Christians."

Jan Markell proves again how arrogant and self-conceited she is---but then that is the majority of those that belong to the Worldview Weekend crowd. First Jesus' words are more important than Paul's and other scripture writers because Jesus is God incarnate---they are not---also, Jesus is God's self-revelation to humanity. More of Jan's article:

They feel it is convenient to blot out the words of Paul on homosexuality and focus in on the good deeds Jesus talks about. Most are pacifists who reject an "eye for an eye" (Leviticus 24:19-20). They focus on Jesus' words about helping the poor, ministering to "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40), loving our enemies, etc. That justifies abandoning hundreds, even thousands of condemning verses in the Bible they choose to wish away. That makes homosexuality OK and war wrong! And remember, Paul and the others in the Bible represent Jesus' words. They were His spokesmen.

So Paul is the final word on God huh? We should read Jesus in light of Aristotle through the lens of Paul through the lens of Augustine and Calvin right? Instead of reading Paul in light of Jesus. Is Jan Markell insane? So love and peace are wrong but state supported mass murder and genocide are Godly?

Moving on with Jan's screed:

Some who believe this way practice a form of neo-Marxism and others would call it "Christian Marxism" -- an oxymoron if there ever was one. They note that the early church shared everything (socialism). A close cousin to this is "liberation theology."

Those who are high profile in this movement include Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren and his Emergent bunch, and the National Council of Churches. Jim Wallis says, "In those red letters, Jesus calls us away from the consumerist values that dominate contemporary American consciousness." Translate that to mean he loathes capitalism and opts for socialism and/or communism.

Christian capitalist materialism/consumerism= the bigger oxymoron. Yes Jan, the early church was communist and socialist but not as you think of communism and socialism. Unlike you, the early church viewed communism and socialism through the lens of God's grace and the community of believers providing for all of their needs---not the government and certainly not a corporate controlled free-market economy. Here is an example:

Acts 4:32-37---NRSV: The Believers Share Their Possessions
32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means ‘son of encouragement’). 37He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Back to Jan's article:

Wallis continues, "Jesus calls us to be merciful, which has strong implications for how we think about capital punishment. When Jesus tells us to love our enemies, He probably means we shouldn't kill them. Most important, if we take Jesus seriously, we will realize that meeting the needs of the poor is a primary responsibility for His followers. Ghandi once said that everybody in the world knows what Jesus was teaching in those verses except Christians." To your average evangelical, the words of Ghandi are meaningless.

Yeah because we should only listen to those who believe just like us right?

Reading on:

Red-letter Christians feel evangelicals spend far too much time worrying about abortion and homosexuality. Wallis and Campolo make the college circuit and get standing ovations from young people who are seeing them as newfound gurus. Red-letter Christians champion "social justice," the cause of illegal immigrants, environmentalism, high taxes, discrimination issues, socialized medicine, and getting rid of the death penalty. They are first to stand in line to play the "blame America" game.

Red-letter Christians support unrestricted big government, sometimes equating the welfare state with the Kingdom of God.

This crowd loves to spend other people's money. They put down conservative Christianity when, in fact, it is conservative Christians who are first to step up to the plate whenever there is a disaster at home or abroad!

Yes that's because social justice is a big issue to Jesus. There are countless numbers of verses in which Jesus speaks about social justice issues---but not a single verse in which Jesus mentions homosexuality or abortion. Yes we should abolish the death penalty as well as regulate abortion to only health reasons. As to the welfare comment, yes it has been corrupted and abused. Really that's news to me---so John Piper stepped in to help the Lutheran church when he said God sent a tornado to punish the ELCA for accepting homosexuals? Or how about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson---they really helped Katrina victims huh?

Continuing on Jan says:

As David Noebel of Summit Ministries writes about Wallis, "Wallis and his Sojourners' community believe Castro, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the other revolutionary forces are the Communist paradises the U.S. needs to emulate in order to establish 'social justice.' " Noebel emphasizes the startling and frightening fact that Wallis is Obama's spiritual advisor.

Ronald Nash in his book, Why the Left Is Not Right, says, "Wallis was pro-Viet Cong and gloried in America's defeat in Vietnam. Wallis said, 'I don't know how else to express the quiet emotion that rushed through me when the news reports showed that the U.S. had finally been defeated in Vietnam.'" But he said not a word about the blood baths that followed.

That may be---but support of the Vietnam War was stupid then and it is stupid now. It was a total failure and we had no business being over there. It was the beginning of all of America's problems today.

What a lie Jan:

The issues you will never hear red-letter Christians talking about include winning the lost, the lateness of the hour, or sin and repentance. Their mantra is peace, yet they do not understand that only Jesus ruling from Jerusalem will bring peace to this planet. They would scoff at that and say peace would be better accomplished if they saved the planet with their works based on the red letters of Jesus. And their understanding of the peace of God is minimal.

Tony Campolo on sin and repentance:

Christianity teaches that Jesus is truly divine and that his life and ministry - such as his sacrifice on the cross -- transcend human time. Thus, Jesus is constantly carrying the sins of the world and of individual sinners. During a visit to another campus, Campolo said he met a young man who was a perfect example of those who fail to take this doctrine seriously.

"He said, 'Yeah, I do a lot of things that are wrong, you know, a lot of stuff sexually. I'm really into it. But, you know, I believe it's all taken care of on Calvary,' " said Campolo. "I was furious. I said, 'The next time you're screwing around, I hope you can hear Jesus screaming in pain! Because at that very moment, as he hangs on Calvary, he feels your sin and is absorbing it!' "

It's normal to hear preachers use this kind of language. But during the past
year, it has become common to hear the likes of Geraldo Rivera and Larry King
leading discussions of sin and grace, repentance and forgiveness. While this has been a troubling experience for many people, Campolo believes it has been
good for the country.

For one thing, people on both sides of the political aisle are being forced to
seek common ground on moral issues.

"All of a sudden we realize that no one sins to himself," said Campolo. "When you commit a sinful act, it has a rippling effect that goes around the world and back. We recognize that there is no such thing as private sin, anymore. It's all connected. And what is more, we have this sense now that there are a set of absolutes out there. There is a right. There is a wrong."

Jan spreading more misinformation:

"As Mark Tooley of the Institute for Religion and Democracy writes, "These people only criticize the U.S. and Israel in its human rights critiques, while remaining largely silent about monstrous regimes. They focus on America's supposed mistreatment of Indians, about slavery, and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But they will never talk about the Holocaust." You will also note they don't talk about the butchery of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong IL.

Red-letter Christians join the chorus of those who believe in a utopia with no wanting or war. Yes, that will come someday, but not the way they think. This could come as a shock to them just because they have little to no regard for other parts of the Bible. They have almost created a new meaning for the term "biblical illiteracy."

It is also tragic that these folks are frequently called "the evangelical Left." They don't have even 1% of evangelical theology in a single bone in their body. They cherry- pick the verses they like, almost exclusively the red letters of Jesus.

Yes there are injustices everywhere. You're one to talk Jan---after all, one of your heroes and fellow fundamentalist bibliolater---John MacArthur in his zeal for the Calvinazis' literal interpretation of Romans 13 said that Christians should obey Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Suddam Hussein, etc. Yes, Jesus is peace and He reigns in heaven as well as on earth---but that is no excuse for not doing all that we can to promote peace and follow Jesus' example. No the only biblical illiterates are the fundamentalist bibliolaters who cherry-pick away Jesus' words and place Paul---a mere sinful human's words above Jesus'. Also, fundamentalist bibliolaters follow a new and contrary revelation to God's self-revelation in Christ by promoting dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism, the deluded babblings of a Scottish teenager and Darbyism---a scary cocktail and mish-mash of lunacy.

Read the rest of Jan's article: Here. There's nothing much else to say but scary stuff.

Church May Not Provide Support for Depressed

So a study says---here is an excerpt from a PsychCentral article:

Church May Not Provide Support for Depressed
By Rick Nauert PhD Senior News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on October 2, 2009

An ongoing study by a well-respected Baptist university has found that local churches may not be the best place to receive counseling or support for mental illness.

Baylor University researchers built upon a 2008 study that found nearly a third of those who approached their local church in response to a personal or family member’s previously-diagnosed mental illness were told they really did not have mental illness.

In the new study, investigators discovered individuals experiencing depression and anxiety were dismissed the most often.

(Read the rest: Here).

This doesn't bode well for the church as a whole. The church should always provide support in times of need but then you have fundamentalists denying peoples' psychological problems. See this sermon by John MacArthur for example: Elements of Joy--Part 1. We must work to correct these problems. John MacArthur also believes biblical counseling is the only true way to treat mental health problems but this is just foolishness---spouting off random scripture verses in an attempt to exorcise one's psychological demons will only lead to further mental health issues.

See: Christian Counseling, http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?14,12133,page=1, "The Day Gods Word Went on Trial" and http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/2007/07/john-macarthur-and-kenneth-nally.html for example. In order then to correct these problems---the church must admit the reality of mental health problems and be willing to aid those suffering from such in positive ways. The church must also extend it's hands where needed while encouraging the role of psychologists where they are needed. I think this would be a step forward in providing support for the depressed and other mental health patients in the church.

Important Scene From Inherit The Wind

Stuff Todd Friel Hates

1. The Girls Scouts Of America:

I just caught the tail end of Todd Friel's Wretched on FamilyNet while channel surfing. I only saw maybe 10 minutes of it, but that was enough to last me a whole year.

On this episode, Friel was bitching because The Girl Scouts of America is run by liberals and that they want to teach girls how to be leaders and not the footstools for men. Friel's monolouge sounds condescending, dismissive, and just plain rude.

2. VeggieTales:

On the show, Todd tied this in with VeggieTales. He made the case that:

Sunday school tries to present sanitized Bible stories for kids, so they learn them as cutesy fairy tales rather than stories of an angry and vengeful God, by whom we need to be saved from sin.

The cartoon offers cute little morality plays, also presenting of tidied up versions of Old Testament stories but never really inserting a Veggie Jesus into the action. Instead of salvation through grace, they emphasize things like responsible behavior and doing the right things for good reasons, rather than because the Bible said so.

---The Atheist Experience: Todd Friel does not like VeggieTales

3. Rick Warren:


4. Contemplative Prayer:

5. Rob Bell: blah blah blah: Rob Bell and Todd Friel

6. Glenn Beck:


7. Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton recently proclaimed to Holy Flame Pentecostal Church in Little Rock, "As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative." Really? a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage conservative evangelical? Did you know there was such a thing? There is now.

8. Atheists:


9. Non-Fundamentalist Calvinist Christians: “Are You Really a Christian?” by Todd Friel

10. Basically anyone that does not agree with his narrow view of the world: http://www.worldviewtimes.com/bio.php/authorid-2/Todd-Friel, todd friel, Wretched

11. There are plenty of other things---care to add to the ever-growing list?

12. Oh yeah...I almost forgot Todd Friel hates The Shack:

Fundamentalism= True Humanism

Reasons Why Fundamentalists Are Truly Humanists

Fundamentalists worship/have faith in the bible---a product of sinful/errant humanity which happened to be inspired by God---for the bible was written by human hands, compiled by human councils and printed by human inventions in human-made factories. Yet despite the errors in the bible whether attributed to scribal mistakes or printing errors, fundamentalists maintain a blind faith in sinful humanity’s ability to accurately produce the mind of God otherwise known as the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or infalliballism.



Fundamentalists believe that humanity supersedes the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation which is what bible literalism is. Fundamentalists believe that God only speaks to us through the bible and/or sinful men but does not directly speak to us. See Way Of The Master Radio November 29, 2007 Hour 2 for example. Fundamentalists believe in the human created institution of government and rule by military force for security rather than a radical dependence on God's grace as the root of all true security.

There are other reasons as well, but what are your thoughts?

Martin Luther: Too Liberal To Be A True Christian

25 Reasons Why Luther Wasn't Reformed Enough To Be A True Christian:

By Dr. Pastor Rotgut Guzzleman, PHD in fundamentalist eisegesis, THD in being saved as I'm elect and you're not, BA in obscurantism, general degree in flarklechubbin', Head of the Hyper-Hyper Calvinist League, Doctorate of Bibliolatry from King James Bible College, holder of Absolute Truth, Pastor of the Only True Church of the Only Elect Souls, etc. In other words, I know my stuff and you don't.


1. He stated:

That Christ died for all men, and, as the Lamb of God, took away the sins of the whole world.

How dare he say Jesus died for all men. All is a liberal word and includes gays, pagans, communists/socialists, anti-capitalists, non-Republicans, anti-Americans and bible-rejecting theological liberals like PCUSA who aren't true Calvinists, etc. After all our final Prophet John Calvin teaches us the true meaning of the word all. The Bible also says:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]

which we know only refers to John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Al Mohler, Charles Spurgeon, James White, Todd Friel, Will Kinney and 137,000 other Elected and Predestined Calvinist saints---the rest of humanity is going to hell because God chose to destroy them before even creating humanity.

2. Luther dared to revise the God-ordained AV1611 King James Bible and was too soft on homosexuality by revising the AV1611 King James Bible in I CORINTHIANS 6:9 and I TIMOTHY 1:10. This means as such Luther is part of the Scholarship Only cult and is an Alexandrian heretic apostate supporter of Westcott and Hort.

3. Luther didn't use the King James Bible AV1611 which God gave to humanity as the King James Bible is Jesus. Here is a reproduction of Jesus (AV1611 KJB) descending from heaven by God's command:

Heavenly KJB AV1611:


Descending to earth:

4. Luther was a closet Arminian---see # 1 for proof. Also Luther denied Eternal Security OSAS Doctrine. This tells you that not only was Luther a closet Arminian but a closet Romanist/Papist, Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian heretic on the road back to Rome--instead of following Saint Augustine who was not a Papal ring kissing Roman Catholic but a true Calvinist:

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

5. Luther had an unbiblical marriage and did not practice the Biblical Doctrine of Separatism in his marriage, because he married a Catholic nun. The Bible warns against this:

2 Corinthians 6:14 (King James Version)

14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

6. Luther denied the Orthodox Doctrine of Premillennial Dispensationalism and the Rapture.

7. Luther rebelled against the government---the Pope---though the Pope was corrupt---Christians are to obey their government without question as our patron Saint John MacArthur kindly corrects Luther on this:

If our government changes its form, as governments often do, we are still called to submit and be model citizens. We are called not only to obey, but to obey with a spirit of obedience. We are to give honor to those who are in authority over us so that evil might not be spoken about the name of Christ. If there are critics who are looking for ways to condemn Christians, please let them condemn us for our faith and not our political viewpoints.

Romans 13 makes this clear.

8. Luther was not a true Biblical inerrantist as he practiced biblical criticism and criticized the God-ordained Protestant canon.

9. Luther included the non-Christian books of the Apocrypha in his revision of the KJB AV1611 instead of leaving them out like God's Bible---the AV1611 did.

10. Luther drank alcohol and drinking is a sin. Smoking is also a sin, but Charles Spurgeon is exempt as he is truly one of the elect and thereby could do as he pleased.

Luther's alcohol for those who love their sin:


Spurgeon endorsed tobacco good only for God's elect:


11. Luther was against the Gospel being preached as he wrote against Calvinism and as we know because Saint Charles Spurgeon told us so:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

Yeah that's right no other philosophy in Christianity is the Gospel nor is Jesus the Gospel: only Calvinism is the Gospel.

12. Luther was part of the liberal animal-rights activist agenda as Luther was anti-hunting.

Luther on why we shouldn't eat animals:

"It follows not, that because God created all things, we must eat of all things. Fruits were created chiefly as food for people and for beasts; the latter were created to the end we should laud and praise God." (Table Talk of Martin Luther, CXXXI)

Therefore we can conclude Luther was against gun rights as well.

13. Luther was not a card-carrying member of the American Republican Party therefore he was anti-American.

14. Martin Luther was a socialist---in his own words:

In his treatise The Freedom of a Christian, Martin Luther observes thatthe Christian should “be guided in all his works by this thoughtand contemplate this one thing alone, that he may serve andbenefit others in all that he does, considering nothing except theneed and the advantage of his neighbor.”13 The spiritual freedomto do so arises out of justification by grace through faith. Luthernotes that in Ephesians 4:28, the Apostle Paul “commands us towork with our hands so that we may give to the needy.”14 Lutherelaborates on this text from Ephesians as follows:This is what makes caring for the body a Christian work, thatthrough its health and comfort we may be able to work, to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 17
9acquire, and lay by funds with which to aid those who are inneed, that in this way the strong member may serve the weaker,and we may be sons of God, each caring for and working for theother, bearing one another’s burdens and so fulfilling the law ofChrist [Galatians 6:2]. This is a truly Christian life. Here faith istruly active through love.15Luther reiterates this link between faith and works of love in hiscommentary of the book of Galatians:Because thou hast laid hold upon Christ by faith, through whomthou art made righteous, begin now to work well. Love God andthy neighbour, call upon God, give thanks unto him, praise him,confess him. Do good to thy neighbour and serve him: fulfilthine office. These are good works indeed, which flow out of thisfaith and this cheerfulness conceived in the heart, for that wehave remission of sins freely by Christ.16

This is nothing but that old line of liberalism as Saint John MacArthur warns us about in this video: After-all, the only duty of the Christian is to preach Hyper-Hyper-Calvinism to the elect and the elect only so that they can rub their salvation in the non-elect's faces.

15. Martin Luther was a communist as he communed in monasteries.

16. Luther was a glutton---although Spurgeon was too, he is again exempt as he is truly one of God's elect.

Non-elect glutton:

Elect glutton:

17. Luther quoted from Papists which means he wasn't anti-Catholic enough.

18. Luther didn't use only the King James Bible and King James Only tracts like this: in his debates against the Romanist cult but again quoted from the Papists and used a false corrupt Alexandrian bible.

19. Luther was pro-adultery---in his own words:

One spouse may rob and withdraw himself or herself from the other and refuse to grant the conjugal due or to associate with the other. One may find a woman so stubborn and thick-headed that it means nothing to her though her husband fall into unchasteness ten times. Then it is time for the man to say: If you are not willing, another woman is; if the wife is not willing, bring on the maid. But this only after the husband has told his wife once or twice, warned her, and let it be known to other people that her stubborn refusal may be publicly known and rebuked before the congregation. If she still does not want to comply, then dismiss her; let an Esther be given you and allow Vashti to go, as did King Ahasuerus (Esther 2:17).

(Quoted from Ewald M. Plass, ed., What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for Active Christians (St. Louis: Concordia, 1991), paragraph 2811)

20. Luther was anti-Zionist, so therefore he is pro-Palestinian and pro-terrorist by not supporting the God ordained Holy State of Israel.

21. Luther was sex obsessed and used coarse language.

22. Luther was a Mary worshipper and prayed the rosary. He said:

"Our prayer should include the Mother of God . . . What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor . . . We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her " (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).

23. Martin Luther wrote about Christian Liberty which contains a satanic acrostic for Tiber---the anti-Christ code-speak for the Romanist New World Order, Ecumenism and the One World Religion/Government of papism. Also, liberty when ty is taken off alism can be added which spells Satan's philosophy, liberalism. Also, Christians aren't free but slaves who are called to absolute obeidience unto their God of wrath and hate.

24. Luther was Emerging/Emergent and Neo-Orthodox and said that God is love instead of a hateful God of divine wrath, war and venegence as the Bible plainly teaches.

25. Last and worst of all, Luther wasn't an Independent Fundamentalist King James Only Calvinistic Baptist so we know with Absolute Certainty that he and any of his followers are unregenerate, reprobated, non-elect unsaved hell-bound apostate heretics.

Another Lovely Screed From Brannon Howse

So I just received this in my email box:

Posted: 09/14/09



Is America at a Dangerous Tipping Point for Receiving God's Judgment?

By Brannon Howse

This is one article in our new, 48 page, free, full-color magazine you can order here: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/digest.shtml


Other articles include:

Understanding Fabian Socialism and What it is Doing to America
The Strategy and Purpose For Destroying America's Economy
The Similarities Between The Churches in Germany that Allowed Hitler and the Churches in America Today
Why They Need a Crisis and The Youth of the Working Class
How Should Christians Respond To What is Happening to America?
The Anti-Christian Individuals That Have Brought America to the Brink of Self-Destruction and Why They Are the Heroes of Academia and the Mainstream Media
How and Why This Can Be the Greatest Hour For the Church


I believe America is at a dangerous tipping point for receiving God's judgment for two reasons. The first reason is America's withering support for the nation of Israel. This began under the Bush Administration but has rapidly advanced under the Obama Administration. In early June of 2009, President Obama traveled to Egypt to deliver an address to the Muslim world. In his speech President Obama cited what he called the holy Koran numerous times. This is the very book that calls for Muslim to murder the Jews as well as Christians.

Of course Brannon assumes that the Koran calls Muslims to kill unbelievers being a bible literalist but the majority of Muslims interpret those verses differently. But playing by Howse's game---how about these lovely bible verses:

Numbers 31:16-18 (New International Version)
16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Luke 19:26-28 (New International Version)

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

The Triumphal Entry
28After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.

Continuing with Howse's screed:

Days before his trip to the region President Obama declared that Iran has the right to a nuclear facility for energy. Why do they need a nuclear facility for energy when they have all that oil? We all know they want a nuclear bomb. Obama has clearly thrown Israel under the bus; by weakening Israel's national security and making them vulnerable to a nuclear strike by Iran. In addition he has increased Iran's threat to America's national security. Since 1998, Iran has been practicing shooting a missile off a cargo ship. If one missile, with a nuclear war head, was launched from international waters over the United States and detonated only a few miles above the center of our nation, an electronic magnetic pulse could very easily put America back in the mid 1800s technology wise by damaging vital electrical devices such as America's power-grid and our military defenses. Military experts and scientists have testified before the U.S. Congress and declared that the only way our enemies could bring us down militarily is through an EMP bomb.

What a moron---Iran can't hurt Israel as Israel already has it's own stockpile of nuclear arms to deploy if any of it's enemies threaten it's borders. No it's wackjobs like Howse that have thrown Israel under the bus by making biblical Israel which has always been spiritual into a United Nations created landmass.

Howse again:

In Genesis 12:3 God says that He will curse those that curse Israel and bless those that bless Israel. I believe one of the only reasons God's wrath has been delayed for America is because of our support for Israel and now America has almost completely withdrawn this support and I believe it puts us at great risk for being cursed by God.

The second dangerous national tipping point that is inviting God's wrath is found in the book of Nahum. The prophet Nahum shows up in Nineveh about 150 years after Jonah to tell the nation that God is not going to give them the chance to repent this time but His wrath is going to come upon them. Why? Because in Nahum 1:11 we read that the people had begun to "plot evil against the Lord." Rejecting God is one thing; plotting evil against him is the tipping point for national judgment. In fact in Nahum 3:19 we read, that their national "injury has no healing, your wound is severe." One translation says, "Your wound is incurable."

In fact, when God finally chooses to bring His judgment on America, it would be a waste of time to even pray for mercy. No need for a national day of prayer. In Jeremiah 7:16 God Himself declares to Jeremiah not to pray for Judah. "Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or a prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me: for I will not hear you." In Jeremiah 15:1 God tells Jeremiah, "Even if Moses and Samuel stood before Me, My mind would not be favorable toward this people." Then in Ezekiel 14 God says that when a nation sins against God in persistent unfaithfulness He will stretch out His hand against it. In verse 14 God says, "Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves."

Yeah because we see how well God judged Nazi Germany in the 13 years that the Holocaust went on. Also if God wanted to judge America, God would have done it already---but since we aren't God's Chosen Nation anyway---this is sheer nonsense.

Howse continues:

On June 1, Obama signed a proclamation that declared June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, And Transgender Pride Month, 2009." Combine America throwing Israel under the bus and our nation plotting evil against the Lord, and I think we may be at, or near, that tipping point. The next few months will reveal whether this is true or not. But it has become very clear that America is not on the side of God when our nation has murdered nearly 50 million unborn children, states are rushing toward homosexual marriage, God is outlawed in our nation's public schools, the criminalization of Christianity is greatly increasing, only 1% of adults have a Christian worldview and false-teaching and pagan spirituality has become mainstream.

Gasp---the sheer horror---how dare we love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Many more people are being killed in the illegitimate war that you support. God should be kept out of schools as state-led religion is heretical and as Roger Williams says:

forc’t Worshpp stincks in Gods nostrils. 2 That it denies Christ Jesus yet to be come, and makes the Church yet National, figurative and Ceremoniall. 3 That in these flames about Religion, as his Matie his Father and Grandfather have yielded, there is no prudent Christian way of preserving peace in the World but by permission of differing Consciences.

Also we are a secular republic not a theocracy. Pagan spirituality---what? You mean like the Neo-Platonism of Fundamentalism, church buildings, temples, pulpits, crosses, paper-printed scriptures, etc.

Back to Howse:

Abraham Lincoln said, "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

In 2 Corinthians 3:17 the Apostle Paul writes: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom". The question for America is have we rejected the things of the Lord and thus His Divine providence and protection? In other words, is God judging America? I think the answer is yes.

Founding Father Dr. Jedidiah Morse wrote:



"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. are these words of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president:

" God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

George Washington wrote: "We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself have ordained."

George mason, The father of the Bill of Rights, speaking at the Constitutional Convention declared: "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

Again we are not God's Chosen Nation and these ideas have general secular meanings in a Deistic sense.

Howse rambling on like the Fundamentalist tool that he is:

I believe God uses the same template to judge nations and I believe that template can be understood by studying what God said would happen to the nation of Israel if they did not obey God and follow His precepts and principles. I believe God always warns nation's before He judges them and in doing so gives them the chance to repent. However, if the nation does not repent, God's judgment will become more severe. In reading what God said He would do to the nation of Israel if they continue in their rebellion against God as found in Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26, and Isaiah 5, it is in many ways like reading the newspapers here in America.

Read on: Here.

News And Views About Fundamentalists

First of note is a post from That Baptist Ain't Right: That Baptist Ain't Right: GA Baptists Applaud Indoctrination at Baptist College---here is an excerpt from that:

Shock. Absolute shock. A GA Baptist College is establishing a Creation Research Center at its campus.

That's right: science is no longer an academic subject at Truett McConnell College. Instead, a rigid, narrow theological view decides what is genuine science & what is not. According to the GA Baptist newspaper, The Christian Index, the college is establishing the creation research center with the view that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Good heavens. GA Baptist students will be cheated on an education & the school will be laughed at by all schools with any academics.

I knew this was coming. I even blogged about it last year when the editor of the Index bragged on the school's Biblical Worldview. Poppycock. Telling students to reject science & adopt a spiritual textbook as a scientific text is to shortchange our students. And when these bright young minds start examining the evidence --- overwhelming that the earth is not 6000 years old & there was not a spontaneous creation in 6 literal days --- these students will start to question the validity of all matters of faith.

The Godslingers have taken over the GA Baptist Convention & are now trying to indoctrinate our students to not only a certain, narrow theological slant, but also a political view & an anti-intellectualism.

Here's another link to That Baptist Ain't Right---That Baptist Ain't Right: Leaving Fundamentalism---in which you can catch up to Dr. Bruce Prescott's excellent post series about leaving Fundamentalism.

Finally, here is the latest post in Dr. Prescott's post series: Mainstream Baptist: Stepping Away From Fundamentalism, Step Seven and a good one at that---here is a snippet of that post:

Premillenial dispensationalism was the only kind of "end times" theology that I knew. Supposedly, only "liberals" believed anything else. I needed some help trying to make sense of eschatology, so I turned to my Southern Baptist pastor and future father-in-law, Dr. Doyle Winters, for assistance.

Dr. Winters was a conservative New Testament Greek scholar with a Th.D. from Southwestern Seminary. He advised me that he did not hold to the dispensational premillenial view of the end times. That theology was invented in the late nineteenth century and has been promulgated mostly through the Schofield Reference Bible, he said. It is not the way that eschatology has traditionally been understood throughout the history of the church. As he spoke, I finally realized why he was so unimpressed with the white leather Schofield Reference Bible that I gave his daughter years before on the first Christmas we were dating.

Dr. Winters' understanding of the end times was best summarized by Dr. Ray Summers, a Southern Baptist Greek scholar, who wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation entitled Worthy is the Lamb. He loaned me his copy. I read it and biblical eschatology finally began to make sense to me.

Sola Scriptura Or Prima Scriptura: Not Solo Scriptura

Here is part of an interesting article by Blake Huggins over at Emergent Village:

We might as well deal with the Elephant in the room first. For many people, admitting that Sola Scriptura is not longer viable is roughly equivalent to saying we are throwing out the Bible altogether and opting for some sort of slippery relativism. But a rejection of Sola Scriptura is not a rejection of Scripture! Which is why it is important to provide an alternative to the “sola” — because we’re not rejecting Scripture wholesale, in fact I can say without reservation that my respect and love for the Bible is deeper and more unwavering now than it ever was.

But here’s the thing. Whether we realized it in the past or not Sola Scriptura has never been possible. It just can’t work. Because the moment I say that all I need is Scripture alone, I’ve assumed that I occupy some sort of void space, when in fact neither I nor Scripture exist vacuum. I can’t simply read Scripture (or anything for that matter) for what it is without biases or lenses. My position as an urban, white, American, male influences my reading more than I will ever know. The same could be said of the writers of Scripture. Even the notion of Sola Scriptura itself is conditioned by a cultural lens and a certain interpretation albeit an increasingly outmoded one. To read is to interpret; all our readings are always already interpretations and all our interpretations are always already situational. To me, that is inescapable.

So, admitting the immanent end of Sola Scriptura is not a categorical rejection of Scripture as much; rather, it is a coming to terms with our own limitations and finitude as human beings and adopting a certain humility about our readings. I seriously doubt whether the Bible is infallible since it was written by pre-modern men (yes, they were men). But that doesn’t mean I don’t think the Bible is authoritative or instructional. It merely means that I believe our ability as humans to fully understand the Bible is severely limited. The history of hermeneutics is indicative of this. We can very quickly identify points today where we believe our theological ancestors were absolutely wrong in their interpretation of Scripture (slavery, subjugation of women, etc.). I’m sure 50-100 years from now our grandchildren will say the same about us. We know things today that we didn’t know in the past and we don’t know things now that we will in the future. That deeply affects out readings. We are fallible, broken people. We need to hold our hemeneutical lenses loosely.

And here is a part of John Meunier's response to Huggins from Meunier's Blog:

Is Huggins’ giving us a proper read on what sola Scriptura meant to Luther and the other early reformers here? As I read these paragraphs, it sounds to me like he is describing a position staked out much later. Luther defended scripture as a final authority against which all doctrine and practice would have to be justified, but I do not think he ever argued for such post-Enlightenment ideas as objectivity and cultural neutrality.

Alister McGrath’s very readable history of Protestantism, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, makes the point that as early as 1520 Protestants were struggling with how to handle the theological diversity unleashed by the rejection of Roman Catholic teaching authority in favor of Scripture read by individuals. Even as they rallied behind the cry of sola Scriptura, the Reformers knew all too well that their principle would not produce a single, timeless, and objective reading of Scripture – which is phantom claim that Huggins’ appears to be attacking.

Indeed, the point of the Bible’s authority was not an attempt to establish it as a rival god – as so many critiques of sola Scriptura seem to argue assume the princple tries to do. A McGrath writes:

At its heart, Protestantism represents a constant return to the Bible to revalidate and where necessary restate its beliefs and values, refusing to allow one generation or individual to determine what is definitive of Protestantism as a whole. … While some very conservative Protestants do treat the Bible as if it were the Christian Qu’ran, the majority are clear that the Bible has a special place in the Christian life on account of its witness to Jesus Christ rather than its specific identity as a text. For Martin Luther, the purpose of scripture was to ‘inculcate Christ,’ who is the ‘mathematical point’ of the Bible.

And later:

Over the years, each strand of Protestantism developed its own way of understanding and implementing the sola Scriptura principle. Each accorded primacy to scripture yet recognized a number of additional resources – tradition, reason, and experience – that might serve in connecting scripture with the intellectual and experiential world of every generation.

We Methodists should recognize those additional resources in our much debate Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

In other words, Protestants and even Luther himself hold exactly the position that emergents are saying we need to adopt. It turns out that the “new” thing that excites so many people is just the old thing that we have either forgotten or allowed to be hidden from view.

I tend to agree with Meunier's thoughts as sola scriptura never meant solo scriptura as some tend to think today but is more akin to the idea of prima scriptura as even the bible is not a product of solo scriptura but canonization, church tradition and debates. However that said Blake offers a valid critique of the modern conception of sola scriptura as it is known today by many on the fundamentalist side of Christianity as even Luther didn't accept fully the dogma of sola scriptura as some may think. See TheoPoetic Musings: Luther, The Biblical/Textual Critic for example.

Luther, The Biblical/Textual Critic

Here's some interesting stuff for you---apparently Martin Luther didn't take to heart his moto, sola scriptura, as he had less than kind words to say about James, Jude and Revelation:

Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, "You shall bear witness to me." All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty," though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin. 3

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: "Love covers a multitude of sins," and again, "Humble yourselves under the hand of God;" also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. 4 So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. 5 He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture? 6

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of falth.

Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

I can almost agree with Luther on his views on Revelation---almost that is---as if Revelation had been left out of the canon perhaps then today we wouldn't see so many gloom and doomsday cults based around said text. However that said most of these gloom and doom End Times cults are centered on the man-made invention of belief in the rapture as created in the psychotic and Gnostic babblings of visions by Margaret Macdonald and exploited by Scofield, Darby, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

Anyways, here is what Peter Cameron has to say about Luther's biblical/textual criticism:

...even Luther did not entirely believe in his slogan, scripture alone. His historical sense was too acute, and in practice he made distinctions between the books of the New Testament, describing the letter of James as 'an epistle of straw' which should have no weight beside the letters of Paul. Now when you begin to talk like that, you're admitting a new and overriding criterion. It's no longer scripture alone that counts, it's what you think of scripture. You've opened the door to criticism---logical, historical, and theological criticism.

And in the field of criticism we've come a very long way since the Reformation. It has become possible, and I think advisable, to look at the New Testament no longer as a divinely dictated book which has the last word on any subject to do with man's relationship to God, but as a collection of very human responses to the man Jesus. It records the beginnings of Christianity, but not the end: it is not the last word on the matter, and it should not control us to the extent of muzzling us and preventing us from making our own responses, in our own perhaps very different and indeed even contradictory terms.

There are, after all, very different and even contradictory responses within the New Testament itself. The four gospels for example give quite separate accounts of the life and person of Jesus. In the old days people used to produce so-called harmonies of the gospels, in which all differences were ironed out and the discrepancies removed. But what these harmonies failed to recognise were the totally different atmospheres which the various gospel writers convey.

The Jesus of John's gospel, who makes long and profound speeches about his relationship with the Father, is quite different from the Jesus of Mark's gospel, who rarely utters more than two or three terse sentences at a time. The description which Mark gives of the disciples is quite different from that of Luke: in Mark they are obstinate, obtuse, and unreliable whereas Luke has nothing derogatory to say about them.

But all this does not mean that one version is true and the other untrue. We now recognize that the writers of the gospels were not trying to write factual biographies or histories in our modern sense. In fact such things did not exist then, even in the secular world. Modern historians try to state the facts objectively and then add their interpretations. Ancient historians short-circuited the process: they put across their interpretations. So that Mark, when he describes the dull-wittedness of the disciples, is trying to tell us something about the message of Jesus and the response it elicits---he's not telling us something about the disciples which the other gospel writers did not know.

In this way each gospel is conditioned by the theological reflection of its author, and those authors are all human beings, of the same status as ourselves, so that we are at liberty to make our own equivalent response, and if necessary to reject any particular aspect of their response in favour of a different one---just as Luther felt impelled to reject the response embodied in the epistle of James. (Necessary Heresies: Alternatives to Fundamentalism, pgs. 87-88).

The Apostle And Poimenolatry

One of the last films that we watched over the early Spring session of Wed. nights was The Apostle which unfortunately we did not get to discuss. However, before showing the film for us, Vick offered some similar sentiments to mine about the state of the American church. I believe that The Apostle offers a valid critique of the type of poimenolatry rampant in the church today. Poimenolatry of course is a term I coined from the Greek words ποιμήν and λατρεια which mean "pastor/shepherd" and "worship" respectively so all together poimenolatry means "pastor-worship or pastor-idolatry." Indeed there are cults of celebrity built around pastors of various churches as Vick said. We see this played out in ways such as this:

Luther formulated an anti-poimenolatry/anti-clericalism position by eradicating the distinctions between the clergy and laity, when he established the Protestant doctrine of the Priesthood Of All Believers---in an age when the clergy were considered spiritually superior to the laity by having direct links to God. (Although certain Christians in direct violation of the Protestant doctrines of the Priesthood Of All Believers, religious liberty and freedom are trying to reestablish clerical superiority over the laity by reasserting the clergy’s absolute authority to dictate what and how the laity are to believe---and how they are to act and what they are to do---and also, by deifying fallible clerical opinions pertaining to religious and moral issues as the end of dialogue).

We see this very Luther denying spirit in the core of the SBC as they are more and more becoming less like a Baptist denomination and more like their own version of the Roman Catholic Church complete with their own papacy to some degree at least. Although, younger SBCers are willing to change some things for the better. However, the older SBCers in violation of historic Baptist anti-creedalism are enforcers of creeds such as The Baptist Faith and Message's Role in Baptist life:

In Southern Baptist polity, actions by the Convention are nonbinding on local churches — they are considered autonomous. An individual church may choose to adopt the BF&M or may create their own statement. Despite the fact that the BF&M is not a creed, faculty at SBC-owned seminaries and missionaries who apply to serve through the various SBC missionary agencies must affirm that their practices, doctrine, and preaching are consistent with the BF&M.

This sort of nonsense is all too common in the more reformed fundamentalist churches such as these articles of application for membership to The Hollywood Church:

9. Have you thoroughly read the church Constitution, Statement of Faith, and Doctrinal Statement
as contained in the Articles of Incorporation? ___ Yes ___ No
(A) Do you have any disagreements with these documents? ___ Yes ___ No
(B) Do you agree to abide by and not teach contrary to our positions? ___ Yes ___ No
10. The Bible teaches that all believers have been given spiritual gifts and resources by God for the
edification of the church and that they need to humbly submit to the leadership of the local church as
they minister.
(A) Are you willing to submit and follow the leadership of the Hollywood Church (Hebrews 13:17;
1 Thessalonians 5:12-13)?

Of course to reformed fundamentalist nutcases, leaders were divinely preordained from the foundation of the world to be obeyed without question including Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Suddam Hussein, etc. Speaking of which here is a poignant scene beginning at 5:06 and following from The Apostle:

Kinda reminds one of a Nazi rally:

At least with the Jesus chant comparable to the seig heil chant as well as charismatic idolatry of leaders. However, I can't agree with Vick that Robert Duvall's character was a fundamentalist---a typical bible literalist yes but not so much a fundamentalist as Duvall's character "conveys a positive, ecumenical spirit. In one memorable scene, Sonny watches Roman Catholic priests blessing shrimp boats and says, "You do it your way and I do it mine...together we get it done" and fundamentalists oppose any form of ecumenism. Other themes tackled were:

The major themes of The Apostle include forgiveness and accountability. Duvall sympathetically portrays Sonny as a sincere gospel preacher whose passions get the better of him. After fleeing from Texas, he re-baptizes himself -- symbolizing a fresh start -- and seeks to accomplish as much good as possible before his inevitable capture. Sonny's arrest closes the moral circle of the narrative, showing that evil acts do not go unpunished. Yet, his final sermon motivates the fledgling church to carry on a life of faith and good deeds.

Evangelical Christian viewers applauded this film for its emphasis on personal faith and redemption (two of its characters come to crisis-faith experiences) without letting Sonny off the hook.

In conclusion, most preachers detest cults of personality built around them though some may relish in it. Also, the film The Apostle offers unique insights into one of the three major errors of the modern church---poimenolatry, bibliolatry-worship of the bible/bible literalism/biblical inerrancy and ecclesiolatry (worship/idolatry of the church, the (dead letter of the) bible and (certain) pastors/preachers/ministers and their fallible opinions contrary to the living tradition of the Scriptures, which via their spirit bear witness to and testify of Christ the criterion of interpretation and standard of Christian living (through the Holy Spirit and discernment).