Brannon Howse And Co. Mad At US Army

Why you may ask---because they don't believe in the Rapture and Premillennial Dispensationalist heresy:

A U.S. Army Major has written a long report on how Christians that believe in the rapture (a word and concept not found in the bible), the defense of Israel *(Zionist bigotry), absolute truth (neo-Platonic dualism), the infallible account of the words of God (modernism), the dislike for the United Nations, and the opposition to global-governance (conspiracy theories) are having a negative impact on public-policy, the driving the U.S. further from the U.N., undermining the U.N. and will likely push U.S. policy in the wrong direction for years. This report has been posted on the website of the School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College. This report is very troubling on many fronts. It is wrong for the military to use tax-payer money to distribute a report that attacks Christians. It is offensive and dangerous that the military is distributing and teaching this worldview to officers going through this particular military school. This is further proof that the military is increasingly being politicized at the upper leadership level. Please listen to this program and forward it to all your friends.

What blatant defense of Gnostic drivel.

Here is another article about those "evil" servicemen:

EMERGENCY: US Army View of PreMillennialism
Strategic Implications of American Millennialism


Alert b John McTernan

http://johnmcternansinsights.blogspot.com/2009/12/emergency-us-army-view-of.html

Dated: May 22, 2008

By Major Brian L. Stuckert, U.S. Army

School of Advanced Military Studies

United States Army Command and General Staff College

Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027

Name of Responsible Person: Stefan Banach, COL, US Army

Telephone Number: (913) 758-3300

This is the document for your reading: Strategic Implications of American Millennialism



This is an emergency that we all must act on and right now. I was sent this article by a follower of the blog and want to thank him.
This posting is an United States Army report about the literal believers of the Bible and how they affect American foreign policy. It is the most dangerous document to believers that I have ever read in my entire life. (Fundamentalist writings especially arrogant Fundamentalist Calvinist apologetics is more dangerous to believers than anything non-Fundamentalists write).

You must stop what you are doing and read this entire document ASAP. The first two-thirds is historical and for the most part is accurate. It is technical and can be slow reading. As an historian, there are issues to be made but for the most part it is accurate. (How nice of you).

The last third is an interpretation of Bible belief on world events. This report blames all the world evils on believers! World peace would break out if it were not for Bible believers in America. The trouble with Israel is because pre-Millennial believers support Israel. (Imagine that---world peace would be semi-achievable if it weren't for war-mongering Imperialist Christians and Zionist bigots who support some of God's children while outcasting and denying the other).

This report is so outrageous (actually it's more outrageous to believe in a manmade 19th century philosophy---Premillennial Dispensationalism, rapture teaching, etc). that I called and spoke Colonel Stefan Banack who is the Director, School of Advanced Military Studies and responsible for this study (I listed his telephone number above and recommend that you call him.) He acknowledged the study and DEFENDED it! The conversation was extremely heated between us, and he hid behind the freedom of speech to produce it. He refused to let me write an article to refute this attack on Bible believers.

He refused to tell me what this study was used for and who within the military was sent copies. I believe that it represents an official military view of Bible believers as Col Banack said there was no study or article refuting this one. This is directly from a Hard Left reprobate mind set. (Ha laughable---theocrats are the

THIS MUST BE CHALLENGED ON ALL LEVELS. I am contacting all the influential people that I know within our circles to sound the alarm. I am going to contact my elected officials to have this report refuted and stricken.

I am not exaggerating that after reading this report you will see that the next step for us is concentration camps to stop our evil influence on society and the world.

What I did was quote some of the most egregious statements for your immediate reading to see how dangerous this report is. Please forward this to everyone you know and encourage them to act. This is a stronghold of the Hard Left Reprobate in the military that must be challenged and rooted out.

One last thing, I told Col Banack that he would NEVER allow such a report to be written about Islam. He remained silent and never responded.
The quotes follow:

"The U.S. millennial proclivity for an unqualified military defense of Israel will continue to be a potential flashpoint of great import. Both the United States and Israel believe that Iran poses a credible existential to the state of Israel – especially if it is able to develop or procure a nuclear warhead. The Iranian Shahab-III missile system has to range to deliver a warhead to Israel. Ayatollah Khomeini declared the elimination of Israel to be a religious duty and current Iranian president Ahmadinejad cites him frequently when making similar statements. Because of the pre-millennial worldview, the U.S. will continue to adopt an adversarial approach to any country perceived as at odds with Israel. Since these conflicts are seen as deterministic and inevitable, there is little incentive to employ diplomacy or any other instrument of power other than the military in these situations." Page 51



"While many Americans can readily see how pre-millennialism influences U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East, the effect of this philosophy on our dealings throughout the rest of the world may not be as recognizable. Pre-millennialism will drive the U.S. further from the U.N. in the near future since many pre-millennialists have to come to view that body as a platform for the Anti-Christ. The U.N. and Arab countries are not the only millennial enemies. Viewed through the pre-millennialist paradigmatic lens, military interventions in the Middle East, such as the invasion of Iraq, provide strategic depth for the defense of Israel against the 'army from the East,' or China, and Gog and Magog, represented by Russia. American pre-millennialists will also feel increasingly threatened by the E.U. in coming years. Our self-imposed isolation, today referred to as unilateralism, and bold uses of military power are a thoroughly logical operational stance to contribute to the defense of Israel. In the United States Congress, H.Rept. 110-060, dated March 20, 2007, to accompany H.R. 1591 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2007) states, "The fight in Iraq is also critical to the future of Israel." Page 52



"Pre-millennial interpretations of biblical prophecy that predict the emergence of a one-world government led by an anti-Christ causes distrust and even antagonism toward organizations like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the European Union, NAFTA and OPEC. Reflecting on her time as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Madeleine Albright notes that many of her efforts were frustrated because the U.N. was widely perceived as playing the "villain's role" as the architect of world government by many American Christians. Albright goes on to explain that she constantly found herself "on the defensive" and, as a functionary within the U.N., was perceived by many as "quite literally – the devil's advocate." The Christian right constantly works to undermine the U.N. One particularly noteworthy example was a videotape produced by Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum titled Global Governance: The Quiet War Against American Independence, which prominently featured future Attorney General John Ashcroft denouncing the U.N." Page 53



"Due to the influence of pre-millennialism, there is great distrust of Russia on the part of the U.S. The belief in a deterministic view of near-term events that make Russian military aggression inevitable understandably obviates any incentive for cooperation or partnership. This has contributed to a persistent distance and suspicion that permeates the relationship between the two powers. Because of this, it will prove difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. relationship with Russia to evolve into one of constructive cooperation." Page 54



"The U.S. will continue efforts to expand NATO and Partnership for Peace programs, but will pointedly exclude Russia. Pre-millennialism will likely push U.S. defense policy in the wrong direction for years to come ...


Beyond unnecessary defense expenditures, the lack of cooperation and partnership has far-reaching policy implications for the U.S. and the rest of the world. We will miss out on countless opportunities for meaningful cooperation between two major world powers that could contribute greatly to the resolution of problems on a global scale. For the United States, a declining agenda with Russia will sooner or later result in overextension of US resources and global disaster. Much good could result in the area of nuclear proliferation and intelligence sharing." Page 55



"Pessimism and paranoia are two possible results of pre-millennial influence. This can lead to inaccurate assessments on the part of military leaders and planners ...


Based on what we know about the effect millennialism has on our thinking, we may incorporate additional considerations into policy formulation and evaluation to assist ourselves in the identification of defects, diminished objectivity or unwarranted biases. As a result of millenarian influences on our culture, most Americans think as absolutists. A proclivity for clear differentiations between good, evil, right, and wrong do not always serve us well in foreign relations or security policy. Policy makers must strive to honestly confront their own cognitive filters and the prejudices associated with various international organizations and actors vis-à-vis pre-millennialism. We must come to more fully understand the background of our thinking about the U.N., the E.U., the World Trade Organization, Russia, China and Israel. We must ask similar questions about natural events such as earthquakes or disease. An ability to consider these potential influences upon our thinking may greatly enhance objectivity." Page 60



"The inevitability of millennial peace through redemptive violence and an exceptional role for America have been and continue to be powerful themes running throughout the security and foreign policies of the U.S. Official U.S. government policy expresses these themes in a number of ways from the National seal that reads Novus Ordo Seclorum – the New Order for the Ages – or the nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile known as the Peacekeeper. Whether Americans seek to subdue the continent to realize their Manifest Destiny, conquer the Soviet Evil Empire or rid the world of Saddam Hussein, millennialism imparts an unusual degree of certainty and fortitude in the face of difficult situations. Judis points out that, for the same reasons, millennialism is usually "at odds with the empirical method that goes into appraising reality, based on a determination of means and ends." As demonstrated by American history, millennialism has predisposed us toward stark absolutes, overly simplified dichotomies and a preference for revolutionary or cataclysmic change as opposed to gradual processes. In other words, American strategists tend to rely too much on broad generalizations, often incorrectly cast in terms of 'good' and 'evil,' and seek the fastest resolution to any conflict rather than the most thoughtful or patient one. Page 61



My comments on all the outright lies about millennialism.

We did not start one war to advance our beliefs.(Sure you did: all the Protestant wars). We did not start the Civil War or the Spanish-American War. America was dragged into WW l by the Germans. There was NO war cry in America by Bible believers. We did not start WW ll. It was the cowardly Europeans (you mean all those theocratic Romans 13 Calvinists) who failed to stand up to Hitler that allowed the war. Japan attacked America to advance its imperialistic goals. We were not threatening Japan. (Actually we did with all of our Imperialistic advances in the Pacific).

We had nothing to do with the Cold War as it was Communistic Russia and China that wanted world control. We had nothing to do with Nazism (bull---most Nazis were good Romans 13 spouting Bible-Believing Fundamentalist theocratic Calvinists---who were comprised of Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. It was theologically liberal Calvinists and non-Calvinists that denied bible literalism and biblical inerrancy like Barth and Bonnhoeffer that were opposed to Hitler and Nazism) and Communism which resulted in the death of over 100 million people.
Iraq and Iran are the products of Islam (actually, they are the products of various factors). They are the aggressors and not America led by Bible believing Christians. Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and establish an Islamic caliphate from Morocco to India.

Israel is NOT the source of Islamic terrorism. Israel has nothing to do with Islamic Pakistan fighting with India. It has nothing to do with Muslims slaughtering all the people in the Sudan. It has nothing to do with the Muslims killing the Christians in Nigeria and Indonesia. It has nothing to do with all the terror in Somalia. It has nothing to do with the Muslim terrorists in the Philippines. It had nothing to do with Iraq starting the Gulf War.

Islam at its core is a violent religion that is now playing out on the world stage. The Muslim's fighting with Israel fits a pattern throughout the world. (Luka 19:27 But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither and kill them before me.

27 πλὴν τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου τούτους τοὺς μὴ θελήσαντάς με βασιλεῦσαι ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἀγάγετε ὧδε καὶ κατασφάξατε αὐτοὺς ἔμπροσθέν μου. “A new heresy has been discovered,” he said. “We must stamp out this burst of hell-fire before it spreads over the surface of the earth…. Freedom of conscience is a doctrine of the devil…. Better to have a tyrant, however cruel, than permit everyone to do what he pleases.”

—John Calvin.

“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.”

—John Calvin. Yep there certainly isn't any violence from bibliolaters).


Right now the world's big problems are both the Hard Left reprobates who are in charge of all Western nations including the United States and the Muslims who follow Islam. (No all the world's problem is humanity and sin which only a Christ-centered life not a bibliolatrous and theocratic centered life can alleviate). The problem is not Bible believing Christians. We are the solution to this sin cursed world, that will only be cured at the glorious Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

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).