Showing posts with label Calvin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calvin. Show all posts
Saturday, March 15, 2025
Saturday, June 01, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Infant Baptism and 5-Point Calvinism are Limited
(Photo: Dan Delzell)
By Dan Delzell , Special to CP
January 24, 2013|7:55 am
Some spiritual practices and doctrinal positions held by Christians have definite limitations....and must be handled with care, lest people get the wrong idea about what it means to be spiritually reborn....and what it doesn't mean....and what the Bible means when it states that "God is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
There are many mature Christians in the world today who believe that Scripture supports the questionable teachings of infant baptism and/or 5-Point Calvinism. I say "questionable" teachings because millions of their fellow believers (including mature believers) question these doctrines and find no support for them in Scripture.
Let's start with the historic practice of infant baptism. Why should parents who practice infant baptism be careful with this approach? Well....a big reason is because there are so many teenagers and adults who were baptized as infants....but are not spiritually reborn through faith in Christ. Some ministers and parents seem to assume that a baptized person is definitely a Christian. That is not always the case. Quite a few teenagers who were baptized as infants want little to do with Christ. Other teens appear outwardly moral, but not all of them are spiritually alive and connected to Christ through faith.
One should be cautious about allowing infant baptism to give you a false sense of security for your loved one. Christianity is much larger than that particular practice. It involves a relationship with Christ through faith. (see Romans 3:21-24) Also, there is good fruit in the life of a born again person. (see Matthew 7:16,17) Does your loved one in question have saving faith in Christ, and good fruit....or just baptism?
What if Martin Luther had continued to assume that just because he had been baptized as an infant, he was already a Christian? What if Luther never applied the Gospel message personally to his own soul....through faith....by trusting in what Jesus did for him on the cross? Look at all his teen and adult years where Martin Luther was spiritually dead....even after he had been baptized as an infant. Many teens and adults are in the same condition today.
So just be cautious if infant baptism is something your church practices. It doesn't guarantee that your child will grow up knowing the Lord....or will die one day knowing the Lord. Every person who desires to know Christ must repent and believe the good news, whether he was baptized as an infant or not. (see John 3:7) If he does repent and believe, he will then begin to follow Jesus. That's what Christians do.
There will be many people who were baptized as infants who do not make it into heaven. Were you aware of that fact? Even though they were baptized in the Presbyterian church....or Methodist....or Lutheran....or Catholic....or in some other denomination, their infant baptism did not result in securing eternal life for them. Why? Because they lived a life devoid of a relationship with Christ. Without repentance....and applying the Gospel to yourself through faith....there is no forgiveness, and no salvation.
If you assume that everyone who has been baptized is saved, you are as misguided as the person who assumes that everyone who has ever gone forward during an "altar call" is saved. Those spiritual practices have meaning, but "what counts is a new creation." (Galatians 5:16) "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation." (2 Cor. 5:17) If he is not a new creation, then he is not saved....whether he has been baptized or not.
God has used many different people over the centuries who held varying perspectives on infant baptism. For example, untold thousands were brought to Christ during the 18th century through the ministries of these men who practiced infant baptism: John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards. Does that surprise you? Whatever your view on infant baptism, just try to appreciate how God chooses to work mightily through many of His children who don't share your view on that issue.
Infant baptism is not the only Christian practice which requires caution. One must also be careful with the system of theology known as "5-Point Calvinism." The proponents of this view are convinced the Bible supports all 5 points. Many believers beg to differ, at least on one or more of the points. If you are not familiar with the 5 points, it is an easy thing to research as you acquaint yourself with these ideas.
I have the love of Christ in my heart for 5-Point Calvinists....and I am inspired by their zeal for the Word and for genuine discipleship. I wish all Christians loved the Scriptures the way most 5-Point Calvinists do. I am simply expressing the concern many Christians have about certain aspects of their doctrine. Hopefully, some 5-Point Calvinists will be open to reconsidering "limited atonement" and "double predestination." I do not believe these particular doctrines are taught in Scripture....and therefore I do not believe these positions bring glory to the Lord.
Like millions of believers today, I find passages in Scripture that describe Jesus dying for His sheep. (see John 10:15) I find other passages which describe Jesus dying for everyone in the world. (see Hebrews 2:9) And I find still other passages stating Christ died for His sheep, AND for all people in the world. (see 1 John 2:2) But I do not find so much as one passage in God's inerrant Word which says Christ died ONLY for His sheep. This is why "limited atonement" is such a disturbing teaching....because it is not taught in the Bible....and because it claims that Jesus died only for the "elect" who will believe....but not for everyone else....and that everyone else is essentially "ineligible" for salvation from the moment they come into this world.
The doctrine of limited atonement robs Christ of some of His glory because it misrepresents what Christ accomplished on the cross. I understand that some faithful believers hold to the teaching of limited atonement (also known as "particular redemption")....and I am thankful that we will enjoy wonderful fellowship with one another in heaven. Here on earth, however, we would be remiss to pretend that the doctrine of limited atonement is not really all that significant, one way or the other. I believe it is vitally important, and that is has definite implications for evangelism....and prayer....and the purity of the Gospel itself.
I would like to offer 7 prayers which could be prayed by 5-Point Calvinists....and are in accord with their positions. I offer these prayers without an ounce of disrespect for these men of God and brothers in Christ who love the Lord. I do not question the sincerity and the commitment of those men who subscribe to these doctrines. (Aren't most 5-Pointers men?) I simply find myself being compelled, in love, to address these concerns.
If nothing else, perhaps some 5-Pointers will come to recognize that they don't necessarily have a lock on the doctrine of predestination....and that they have overstepped biblical revelation by insisting that God predestined multitudes of people to hell.
So what are these 7 prayers 5-Pointers could pray? Well....here they are....and if you are a 5-Pointer, please receive this in the spirit in which it is given....coming from a brother, who like you, loves the Lord and is passionate about true doctrine and reaching others for Christ.
1. "Lord, save my unbelieving uncle....if he is one of the elect."
2. "Lord, save my unbelieving neighbor....if she is one of the elect you died to save."
3. "Thank you Lord for dying on the cross for those people who belong to the elect."
4. "Help me Lord to be careful when I preach the Gospel that I do not give the impression that Christ died for everyone."
5. "Lord, lead my teenage daughter to have faith in You....if she is predestined to be one of your sheep."
6. "Thank you Lord for determining before a person is born whether You have predestined him to go to heaven....or predestined him to go to hell."
7. "Thank you Lord for making me your child and a 5-Point Calvinist, as compared to the other perspectives of my fellow believers."
It boils down to whether you believe the Bible teaches "single predestination," or "double predestination." One is biblical, and yet seems to be illogical. The other is unbiblical, and yet seems logical to some believers. The biblical doctrine of single predestination is not the only doctrine in the Bible which seems to defy logic. So also does the doctrine of the Trinity. Both doctrines are accepted by believers because the Holy Spirit gives us the discernment to believe them.
In the case of predestination, human logic teaches man that if God predestined believers to heaven….then likewise, He must have predestined the rest of humanity to hell. That is an abhorrent teaching, and it is found nowhere in Scripture. It is found only in the logic of man, including the logic of some Christians.
The doctrine of single predestination in the Bible has been placed there by the Holy Spirit to comfort God's children with the assurance of their salvation. It is addressed to believers....and not unbelievers. Not a word is said in Scripture to support the unholy doctrine of double predestination.
Everyone is commanded to repent. (see Acts 17:30) Anyone can come to Christ. "Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life." (Rev. 22:17) Salvation is available to all because "Christ died for sins once for all." (1 Peter 3:18) The Scriptures make it clear that Christ is "the Savior all men, and especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10) How much clearer could it be?
What if those believers who mistakenly use their logic to come up with double predestination were to also use their logic with the doctrine of the Trinity? Scripture clearly teaches that there is only One God. Human logic does not do well when trying to "fit" Three Persons into One God….and yet, that is what the Bible reveals to us….and it is what the Holy Spirit gives Christians the discernment to believe….even though it appears illogical to say there are Three Persons in One God.
If those who embrace all 5 points of modern Calvinism were to "back off" on their logical deduction of double predestination….and just go with what Scripture says about single predestination….there might be little disagreement among Christians on this issue. As it is, these conflicting views certainly do not keep either "camp" from being spiritually united with one another in the body of Christ. As St. John told us, "If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from all sin." (1 John 1:7)
Dr. Ron Rhodes is a "4-Point Calvinist." He writes, "If Christ died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved?" He is right on target. So if you have bought into 5-Point Calvinism, the message here is...."buyer beware."
In contrast to the "5-Point" prayers, here are 7 prayers which Christians who believe in single predestination and unlimited atonement could sincerely pray:
1. "Lord, save my unbelieving uncle....and I have absolute confidence from your Word that Jesus died for him and wants him in heaven."
2. "Lord, save my unbelieving neighbor....and thank you Jesus for dying on the cross for her sins."
3. "Thank you Lord for giving your life for the sins of everyone in the world, just as your Word says."
4. "Help me Lord to be careful when I preach the Gospel that I make it clear that Christ died "once for all." (1 Peter 3:18)
5. "Lord, bring my teenage daughter to faith in You....because I know you love her and want her in heaven."
6. "Thank you Lord for determining before a person is born that he or she, like all people, is eligible for salvation through repentance and faith in Christ."
7. "Thank you Lord for making me your child and for teaching me the truth about single predestination and unlimited atonement, and thank you for my fellow Christians who have different views than my own on this issue."
One day, we who are in God's family will all be together in heaven. Perhaps the Lord will sit us down and fully explain these issues to us....or perhaps He won't need to do so. "Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Cor. 13:12)
In the meantime, we can thank the Lord for all that He is accomplishing in His kingdom through faithful Christians who hold different views from one another on baptism....and on predestination and limited atonement....and yet, are in complete agreement with one another that only the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. Where we agree with one another in God's family is greater than where we disagree.
At the end of the day, all believers are related to one another through Christ's blood....and we have an eternal connection with each other because of the love of God. "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." (Ephesians 1:7) How cool is that!
And besides....I have never heard of a family where everyone agrees with one another on every issue....have you?
Dan Delzell is the pastor of Wellspring Lutheran Church in Papillion, Neb. He is a regular contributor to The Christian Post.
.
Monday, October 10, 2011
GENEVA OR KING JAMES BIBLE?
Image (Courtesy) http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1665 PREFACE: Before proceeding, I will state that there are KJV Bible-believers who call themselves Calvinists who do not adhere to the exact doctrines of John Calvin, and do not hold Calvin up as a hero. Many such brothers do work to spread and preach the Gospel for the purposes of winning souls, but call themselves Calvinists due to the scripture-based belief that we are called by Jesus. I have not addressed these brothers in this article, nor have I criticized them. I do regret that they feel it necessary to describe their theology using the name of Calvin, but that is another issue.
1 Peter 2:13 & 14 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."
A local brother asked me to respond to an attack against the King James Bible by a gentleman who made the claim that the Geneva Bible is superior due to its allegedly better treatment of the above quoted verse.
Geneva: " 13 & 14 "Submit yourselves unto all manner of ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be unto the King, as unto the superior, Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent of him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well."
Having long been irritated by similar attacks from some fellow members of the patriot community (a name that I will use for the sake of brevity and due to the lack of a better one), I felt compelled to respond.
The essence of the argument is that the following Geneva translation is superior for using the word "superior" instead of "supreme" as the KJV does. He suggested that the KJV is claiming that the king is supreme over all, including God, while the Geneva's choice of the word "superior" does not make such a claim.
This is what happens when someone who considers himself to be the final authority starts looking for excuses to turn from the Final Authority. In their endless pursuit of forcing the Bible to fit what they want it to say, such Bible "correctors" go out of their way to twist facts in order to make themselves appear wise rather than to study to find themselves approved. As is often the case, this critic has failed to understand the passage in the first place. This reference does not state that kings are supreme over God any more than the Geneva Bible's rendering implies that the king is superior to God. This passage refers to the king as supreme or superior to others in respect to their status in relationship to worldly government. This verse must be read in context with the rest of the Bible, which makes it abundantly clear to whom supreme obedience is due.
A few definitions from Webster's 1828 Dictionary are useful here:
SUPRE'ME, a. L. supremus, from supra.1. Highest in authority; holding the highest place in government or power. In the United States, the congress is supreme in regulating commerce and in making war and peace. The parliament of Great Britain is supreme in legislation; but the king is supreme in the administration of the government. In the universe, God only is the supreme ruler and judge. His commands are supreme, and binding on all his creatures.
2. Highest, greatest or most excellent; as supreme love; supreme glory; supreme degree. SUPRE'MELY, adv. With the highest authority. SUPREM'ACY, n. See Supreme. State of being supreme or in the highest station of power; highest authority or power; as the supremacy of the king of Great Britain; or the supremacy of parliament.
SUPE'RIOR, a. Sp.L. from super, above.
1. Higher; upper; more elevated in place; as the superior limb of the sun; the superior part of an image.
2. Higher in rank or office; more exalted in dignity; as a superior officer; a superior degree of nobility.
SUPE'RIOR, n. One who is more advanced in age. Old persons or elders are the superiors of the young.
1. One who is more elevated in rank or office.
2. One who surpasses others in dignity, excellence or qualities of any kind. SUPERIOR'ITY, n. Pre-eminence; the quality of being more advanced or higher, greater or more excellent than another in any respect; as superiority of age, of rank or dignity, of attainments or excellence.
Noah Webster obviously understood the purport of this verse much better than our critic does.
It was suggested to me that we might also consider that we may look upon a head of state as supreme because he is in a position of worldly authority, but that does not make him superior. Bill Clinton was the supreme government official of the United States, but that whoremongering reprobate was not superior to the average skid row bum, and was inferior to most.
It must also be remembered that this is a letter by Peter to foreigners in the region that he is addressing. He is telling them that they are to conduct themselves as good citizens, not as a disruptive rabble. Furthermore, the second clause of the verse does show that the verse refers to governors and kings that are sent by God. The Geneva Bible's rendering of verse 14, on the other hand, seems to suggest that the governors to be obeyed are sent by the king for the punishment of evil. This could be used to demonstrate the opposite point as that of our critic. The Geneva makes a stronger statement about obeying kings and governors than does the KJV.
However, an honest evaluation of both Bible versions on the whole make it clear that neither the KJV nor the Geneva promote placing God below worldly rulers. I will be dealing with this issue in great detail in a future article on Romans 13, but just a quick look through Acts, or any of the books of Prophets alone is enough to make this indisputable. Men and kings are not to be obeyed when they are in opposition to God.
The most absurd aspect of the Geneva Bible promoters is that they make the false or ignorant accusation that King James was responsible for the contents of the Bible that he only commissioned. These Bible "correctors" blow much smoke over the alleged interference by King James by having his attitudes toward kingship was inserted into the text. Contrary to what these unscholarly parrots seem to believe, King James did not translate the Bible nor did he choose the members of the committee. Some members of the committee were even openly opposed to James' view of the divine right of kingship. He was aware of their opposition and did not oppress them for it. In reality, James had no say or part in the actual translating of the texts and he left the worthy members of the translation committee to do their work unhampered. What is particularly absurd about the accusation is that these apostate critics all praise the Geneva Bible for its inclusion of the notes of reformers, most notably those of John Calvin. To whatever level of despotism King James could have been accused of having attained, it cannot, by any standards at all, be compared with the level of tyrannical and cruel despotism of John Calvin.
Calvin was a murderous monster who ruled Geneva as an absolute dictator, both politically and religiously. His opposition was systematically tortured, murdered, and brutalized into submission to his absolute will. His murder of Servetus by burning was an act of the utmost cruelty for no other crime than having opposed Calvin. Calvin's own words concerning Servetus display his great cruelty: "One should not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn them cruelly." The Big Brother government of Orwell and the modern state had a predecessor in the government of Calvin. Christian morals, as interpreted by Calvin, were monitored and enforced through a draconian system of surveillance that recognized no individual rights or privacy. Houses of those suspected of thought crimes were searched by a secret police not unlike the Gestapo, Stasi, KGB, or the emerging Homeland Security of America. Opposition to infant baptism was considered a capital crime the concept of local church authority was attacked by a government in which Calvin had pope-like authority. Condemning the King James Bible for its indirect association with King James when the KJV includes no notes by the king or any other man, while praising a Bible that includes the notes of one of the worst tyrants in the history of Europe, is the height of idiocy, not to mention duplicity.
We might further look at the issue of notes. What business do the notes of man belong in Scripture? I see no problem with personal notes that are placed by the reader in their own Bibles for reminders, details, cross references, and so forth, but man's opinions should not be printed with God's word. Doing so elevates the words of common men to the level of those of prophets, apostles, and God himself. This should apply to the words of sincere Bible-believers as well as to apostates like Scofield or the commentators of the Ryrie and similar tainted Bibles. One of the reasons that the Geneva Bible needed to be replaced is that the notes, whether good or bad, needed to be removed so that God's word would be left pure. It should be added that the notes of the Geneva Bible often undermine the literal interpretation of the Bible in favor of allegorical interpretations. One example is found in Luke in the notes to Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." [KJV]
"(m) He says all this using an allegory, as if he said, "O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived until now in relative peace: but now there is at hand a most severe battle to be fought, and you must therefore lay all other things aside and think about dressing yourselves in armour." And what this armour is, is shown by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden and reproved Peter for striking with the sword."
Incidentally, this note also contradicts the common rhetoric that the Geneva Bible promotes resistance to ungodly laws of men better than the KJV. An allegorical interpretation of this verse removes one of our best biblical defenses for the Second Amendment of the Bill or Rights, and our right to defend ourselves against godless tyranny. Such an interpretation also would have helped keep Calvin safe from those who would have rebelled against his tyranny. It should be noted that Peter was not carrying an allegorical sword in the garden, and Jesus never reproved him for carrying it, only for trying to hamper what God had ordained to be done. We also need to remember that Jesus told his disciples that the two swords that they had were enough. Are these supposed to be two allegorical swords?
As stated above, Calvin was also a promoter of the blasphemous idea that water baptism of infants cleanses of sin: "At whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life" (Institutes, IV). "By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ ... infants are to be baptized ... children of Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism" (Institutes, IV)." As David Cloud points out, this was a clinging to his Catholic upbringing. Cloud further demonstrates that Calvin never really left Catholicism behind, but rather replaced the Pope with himself. He openly praised the heretic Augustine, and placed his words above the authority of the Bible: "If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his" (Institutes, Book III, chap. 22). This is the hero of the Geneva Bible pushers?
It is amazing to witness the hatred that some spew for King James. Some actually act as if they knew him personally and have a personal vendetta against him, while they praise the heretical and murderous tyrant of Geneva. Their real vendetta, of course, is not with King James the I & VI, but with the Bible itself.
God said that he would purify his word seven times.
Psalm 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." The Geneva Bible was the fifth English translation. It was a great Bible, but it was not the perfect word of God in English until those notes were removed and other flaws were ironed out. The culmination of this work was with the seventh translation, the Authorized or King James Version. The Psalm 12 verse that follows is also relevant to this discussion: "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
The Geneva Bible promoters apparently believe that God lied about preserving his words, because the Geneva Bible virtually disappeared from existence along with the Coverdale, Great, Bishops and other worthy predecessors of the King James Bible. It was the KJV that built the church and it is the KJV that is holding together the remnant church during the great falling away in which we currently live. It was the KJV that inspired the great missionary movement of the nineteenth century, and it was the KJV that brought about the Bible translations of that period throughout the world. The Geneva Bible advocates never did anything to spread the Gospel, and neither did the strict followers of John Calvin. This is why William Carey's great efforts to spread the Gospel as commanded by Christ "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" [Mark 16:15] were denounced by some during his time. Their Calvinistic views prevented them from obeying the Great Commission and they have not changed, but rather they have gotten far worse.
These advocates of the Geneva Bible would have us believe that all of this was error while the "true" Bible was unprinted and hidden in a few libraries. This should remind us of the claims of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus advocates, although I am in no way comparing the text of the Geneva Bible with those corrupt texts. The Geneva Bible advocates would have us believe that the only ones that have the "true" Bible are largely of a bunch of baby-sprinkling who have and do not give any witness, and foul-mouthed, cigarette-smoking, beer-guzzling, racist, ignoramuses, common law shysters, money-grubbing parasites on the patriot community and Identity Cult clods with below average IQs that just arose into view in the last couple of decades.
This latter statement is not a reflection of the Geneva Bible, but rather of the bulk of its modern advocates. No one has printed a Geneva Bible that is of an affordable price, and no one distributes them for free. They range between 45 to 100 plus dollars. This is because the dollar sign is their god. Finding very inexpensive KJV Bibles is very easy, and there are many people supplying them for free. There is an entirely different spirit behind KJV printing. I have yet to see anyone trying to distribute Geneva Bibles for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. Are these profiteers the real remnant? I trow not.
My first encounters with Geneva Bible advocates were among Identity Cult members and at common law meetings. The racist and anti-Christian views expressed by these gentleman, along with their use of four letter words sputtered between puffs of cigarette smoke, were enough to make their real goals obvious. These "gentlemen" did not actually understand the Geneva Bible or even read it. Their purpose was the same as those of the Westcott Hort perversion promoters. It was simply to undermine our faith in the Final Authority and to replace it with our own understanding. It was no more than an excuse for rebellion. If the KJV is not enough, and we need the Geneva Bible, the Fenton Bible, or whatever, why not use the ASV, RSV, NIV or whatever other book suits our personal tastes? It is notable that most Geneva advocates use the exact same lame arguments to attack the KJV that the Westcott Hort and atheist crowd uses. They use the same stupid and baseless accusation that King James was a sodomite, and the same invalid accusations of errors. It is hardly surprising that many of these Geneva Bible advocates and their Identity and common law movement bedfellows also do promote and use multiple modern versions, heretic Pete Peters being a prime example.
One of the best examples of the spirit of this crowd was displayed for me at a survival show at which I was lecturing on the topic of wilderness survival. I was wearing a KJV 1611 cap when a man selling common law reprints approached me and commented on it. He was friendly enough, but he told me that he was selling Geneva Bibles -- which were quite expensive I should add -- and that I might consider getting one. He then proceeded to tell me how a *$%oøT¢ preacher from a ^%$#^&£? church argued that the KJV was a better Bible. He went on and on describing this gentleman using virtually every four letter word that I know, including those that blaspheme God, those that refer to sexual activity, and those referring to human excretions. He told me that the man ended up reading the Geneva Bible and apologized to him later. Even though this man had asked him for forgiveness, although he should not have, the salesman described him with the worst of foul language imaginable. His spiritual position was obvious: Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." I walked away shaking my head. I did not argue with him. He was probably the best advocate for the KJV in that building.
A final issue that should not be overlooked concerns the metrical superiority of the KJV. While the overwhelming majority of the Geneva Bibles verses do not conflict with those of the KJV, they do, however lack the metrical flow that greatly facilitates the memorization of the KJV. The King James translators made a conscious effort choose words that flowed easily from the tongue and better enabled the ability of men to retain them in their hearts. The Geneva's style was a heavier and less eloquent presentation of
God's word.
In summary, Geneva Bible promotion is little more than an effort to attack the inerrancy and perfection of the Bible. It has the exact same goal of those of the leftist Westcott Hort promoting crowd, and it uses most of the same blank ammunition. It may stem from a group with very different political objectives, but it ultimately comes from the same desire to place oneself as supreme, rather than placing God's word as supreme.
Endnotes
My thanks to Jerry Bouey, Herb Evans, and Teno Groppi for their thoughts and assistance in researching this article.
John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of KJV equivalent
Bibles in all the languages of the world.
jhinton@post.harvard.edu
Source
1 Peter 2:13 & 14 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."
A local brother asked me to respond to an attack against the King James Bible by a gentleman who made the claim that the Geneva Bible is superior due to its allegedly better treatment of the above quoted verse.
Geneva: " 13 & 14 "Submit yourselves unto all manner of ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be unto the King, as unto the superior, Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent of him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well."
Having long been irritated by similar attacks from some fellow members of the patriot community (a name that I will use for the sake of brevity and due to the lack of a better one), I felt compelled to respond.
The essence of the argument is that the following Geneva translation is superior for using the word "superior" instead of "supreme" as the KJV does. He suggested that the KJV is claiming that the king is supreme over all, including God, while the Geneva's choice of the word "superior" does not make such a claim.
This is what happens when someone who considers himself to be the final authority starts looking for excuses to turn from the Final Authority. In their endless pursuit of forcing the Bible to fit what they want it to say, such Bible "correctors" go out of their way to twist facts in order to make themselves appear wise rather than to study to find themselves approved. As is often the case, this critic has failed to understand the passage in the first place. This reference does not state that kings are supreme over God any more than the Geneva Bible's rendering implies that the king is superior to God. This passage refers to the king as supreme or superior to others in respect to their status in relationship to worldly government. This verse must be read in context with the rest of the Bible, which makes it abundantly clear to whom supreme obedience is due.
A few definitions from Webster's 1828 Dictionary are useful here:
SUPRE'ME, a. L. supremus, from supra.1. Highest in authority; holding the highest place in government or power. In the United States, the congress is supreme in regulating commerce and in making war and peace. The parliament of Great Britain is supreme in legislation; but the king is supreme in the administration of the government. In the universe, God only is the supreme ruler and judge. His commands are supreme, and binding on all his creatures.
2. Highest, greatest or most excellent; as supreme love; supreme glory; supreme degree. SUPRE'MELY, adv. With the highest authority. SUPREM'ACY, n. See Supreme. State of being supreme or in the highest station of power; highest authority or power; as the supremacy of the king of Great Britain; or the supremacy of parliament.
SUPE'RIOR, a. Sp.L. from super, above.
1. Higher; upper; more elevated in place; as the superior limb of the sun; the superior part of an image.
2. Higher in rank or office; more exalted in dignity; as a superior officer; a superior degree of nobility.
SUPE'RIOR, n. One who is more advanced in age. Old persons or elders are the superiors of the young.
1. One who is more elevated in rank or office.
2. One who surpasses others in dignity, excellence or qualities of any kind. SUPERIOR'ITY, n. Pre-eminence; the quality of being more advanced or higher, greater or more excellent than another in any respect; as superiority of age, of rank or dignity, of attainments or excellence.
Noah Webster obviously understood the purport of this verse much better than our critic does.
It was suggested to me that we might also consider that we may look upon a head of state as supreme because he is in a position of worldly authority, but that does not make him superior. Bill Clinton was the supreme government official of the United States, but that whoremongering reprobate was not superior to the average skid row bum, and was inferior to most.
It must also be remembered that this is a letter by Peter to foreigners in the region that he is addressing. He is telling them that they are to conduct themselves as good citizens, not as a disruptive rabble. Furthermore, the second clause of the verse does show that the verse refers to governors and kings that are sent by God. The Geneva Bible's rendering of verse 14, on the other hand, seems to suggest that the governors to be obeyed are sent by the king for the punishment of evil. This could be used to demonstrate the opposite point as that of our critic. The Geneva makes a stronger statement about obeying kings and governors than does the KJV.
However, an honest evaluation of both Bible versions on the whole make it clear that neither the KJV nor the Geneva promote placing God below worldly rulers. I will be dealing with this issue in great detail in a future article on Romans 13, but just a quick look through Acts, or any of the books of Prophets alone is enough to make this indisputable. Men and kings are not to be obeyed when they are in opposition to God.
The most absurd aspect of the Geneva Bible promoters is that they make the false or ignorant accusation that King James was responsible for the contents of the Bible that he only commissioned. These Bible "correctors" blow much smoke over the alleged interference by King James by having his attitudes toward kingship was inserted into the text. Contrary to what these unscholarly parrots seem to believe, King James did not translate the Bible nor did he choose the members of the committee. Some members of the committee were even openly opposed to James' view of the divine right of kingship. He was aware of their opposition and did not oppress them for it. In reality, James had no say or part in the actual translating of the texts and he left the worthy members of the translation committee to do their work unhampered. What is particularly absurd about the accusation is that these apostate critics all praise the Geneva Bible for its inclusion of the notes of reformers, most notably those of John Calvin. To whatever level of despotism King James could have been accused of having attained, it cannot, by any standards at all, be compared with the level of tyrannical and cruel despotism of John Calvin.
Calvin was a murderous monster who ruled Geneva as an absolute dictator, both politically and religiously. His opposition was systematically tortured, murdered, and brutalized into submission to his absolute will. His murder of Servetus by burning was an act of the utmost cruelty for no other crime than having opposed Calvin. Calvin's own words concerning Servetus display his great cruelty: "One should not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn them cruelly." The Big Brother government of Orwell and the modern state had a predecessor in the government of Calvin. Christian morals, as interpreted by Calvin, were monitored and enforced through a draconian system of surveillance that recognized no individual rights or privacy. Houses of those suspected of thought crimes were searched by a secret police not unlike the Gestapo, Stasi, KGB, or the emerging Homeland Security of America. Opposition to infant baptism was considered a capital crime the concept of local church authority was attacked by a government in which Calvin had pope-like authority. Condemning the King James Bible for its indirect association with King James when the KJV includes no notes by the king or any other man, while praising a Bible that includes the notes of one of the worst tyrants in the history of Europe, is the height of idiocy, not to mention duplicity.
We might further look at the issue of notes. What business do the notes of man belong in Scripture? I see no problem with personal notes that are placed by the reader in their own Bibles for reminders, details, cross references, and so forth, but man's opinions should not be printed with God's word. Doing so elevates the words of common men to the level of those of prophets, apostles, and God himself. This should apply to the words of sincere Bible-believers as well as to apostates like Scofield or the commentators of the Ryrie and similar tainted Bibles. One of the reasons that the Geneva Bible needed to be replaced is that the notes, whether good or bad, needed to be removed so that God's word would be left pure. It should be added that the notes of the Geneva Bible often undermine the literal interpretation of the Bible in favor of allegorical interpretations. One example is found in Luke in the notes to Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." [KJV]
"(m) He says all this using an allegory, as if he said, "O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived until now in relative peace: but now there is at hand a most severe battle to be fought, and you must therefore lay all other things aside and think about dressing yourselves in armour." And what this armour is, is shown by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden and reproved Peter for striking with the sword."
Incidentally, this note also contradicts the common rhetoric that the Geneva Bible promotes resistance to ungodly laws of men better than the KJV. An allegorical interpretation of this verse removes one of our best biblical defenses for the Second Amendment of the Bill or Rights, and our right to defend ourselves against godless tyranny. Such an interpretation also would have helped keep Calvin safe from those who would have rebelled against his tyranny. It should be noted that Peter was not carrying an allegorical sword in the garden, and Jesus never reproved him for carrying it, only for trying to hamper what God had ordained to be done. We also need to remember that Jesus told his disciples that the two swords that they had were enough. Are these supposed to be two allegorical swords?
As stated above, Calvin was also a promoter of the blasphemous idea that water baptism of infants cleanses of sin: "At whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life" (Institutes, IV). "By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ ... infants are to be baptized ... children of Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism" (Institutes, IV)." As David Cloud points out, this was a clinging to his Catholic upbringing. Cloud further demonstrates that Calvin never really left Catholicism behind, but rather replaced the Pope with himself. He openly praised the heretic Augustine, and placed his words above the authority of the Bible: "If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his" (Institutes, Book III, chap. 22). This is the hero of the Geneva Bible pushers?
It is amazing to witness the hatred that some spew for King James. Some actually act as if they knew him personally and have a personal vendetta against him, while they praise the heretical and murderous tyrant of Geneva. Their real vendetta, of course, is not with King James the I & VI, but with the Bible itself.
God said that he would purify his word seven times.
Psalm 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." The Geneva Bible was the fifth English translation. It was a great Bible, but it was not the perfect word of God in English until those notes were removed and other flaws were ironed out. The culmination of this work was with the seventh translation, the Authorized or King James Version. The Psalm 12 verse that follows is also relevant to this discussion: "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
The Geneva Bible promoters apparently believe that God lied about preserving his words, because the Geneva Bible virtually disappeared from existence along with the Coverdale, Great, Bishops and other worthy predecessors of the King James Bible. It was the KJV that built the church and it is the KJV that is holding together the remnant church during the great falling away in which we currently live. It was the KJV that inspired the great missionary movement of the nineteenth century, and it was the KJV that brought about the Bible translations of that period throughout the world. The Geneva Bible advocates never did anything to spread the Gospel, and neither did the strict followers of John Calvin. This is why William Carey's great efforts to spread the Gospel as commanded by Christ "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" [Mark 16:15] were denounced by some during his time. Their Calvinistic views prevented them from obeying the Great Commission and they have not changed, but rather they have gotten far worse.
These advocates of the Geneva Bible would have us believe that all of this was error while the "true" Bible was unprinted and hidden in a few libraries. This should remind us of the claims of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus advocates, although I am in no way comparing the text of the Geneva Bible with those corrupt texts. The Geneva Bible advocates would have us believe that the only ones that have the "true" Bible are largely of a bunch of baby-sprinkling who have and do not give any witness, and foul-mouthed, cigarette-smoking, beer-guzzling, racist, ignoramuses, common law shysters, money-grubbing parasites on the patriot community and Identity Cult clods with below average IQs that just arose into view in the last couple of decades.
This latter statement is not a reflection of the Geneva Bible, but rather of the bulk of its modern advocates. No one has printed a Geneva Bible that is of an affordable price, and no one distributes them for free. They range between 45 to 100 plus dollars. This is because the dollar sign is their god. Finding very inexpensive KJV Bibles is very easy, and there are many people supplying them for free. There is an entirely different spirit behind KJV printing. I have yet to see anyone trying to distribute Geneva Bibles for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. Are these profiteers the real remnant? I trow not.
My first encounters with Geneva Bible advocates were among Identity Cult members and at common law meetings. The racist and anti-Christian views expressed by these gentleman, along with their use of four letter words sputtered between puffs of cigarette smoke, were enough to make their real goals obvious. These "gentlemen" did not actually understand the Geneva Bible or even read it. Their purpose was the same as those of the Westcott Hort perversion promoters. It was simply to undermine our faith in the Final Authority and to replace it with our own understanding. It was no more than an excuse for rebellion. If the KJV is not enough, and we need the Geneva Bible, the Fenton Bible, or whatever, why not use the ASV, RSV, NIV or whatever other book suits our personal tastes? It is notable that most Geneva advocates use the exact same lame arguments to attack the KJV that the Westcott Hort and atheist crowd uses. They use the same stupid and baseless accusation that King James was a sodomite, and the same invalid accusations of errors. It is hardly surprising that many of these Geneva Bible advocates and their Identity and common law movement bedfellows also do promote and use multiple modern versions, heretic Pete Peters being a prime example.
One of the best examples of the spirit of this crowd was displayed for me at a survival show at which I was lecturing on the topic of wilderness survival. I was wearing a KJV 1611 cap when a man selling common law reprints approached me and commented on it. He was friendly enough, but he told me that he was selling Geneva Bibles -- which were quite expensive I should add -- and that I might consider getting one. He then proceeded to tell me how a *$%oøT¢ preacher from a ^%$#^&£? church argued that the KJV was a better Bible. He went on and on describing this gentleman using virtually every four letter word that I know, including those that blaspheme God, those that refer to sexual activity, and those referring to human excretions. He told me that the man ended up reading the Geneva Bible and apologized to him later. Even though this man had asked him for forgiveness, although he should not have, the salesman described him with the worst of foul language imaginable. His spiritual position was obvious: Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." I walked away shaking my head. I did not argue with him. He was probably the best advocate for the KJV in that building.
A final issue that should not be overlooked concerns the metrical superiority of the KJV. While the overwhelming majority of the Geneva Bibles verses do not conflict with those of the KJV, they do, however lack the metrical flow that greatly facilitates the memorization of the KJV. The King James translators made a conscious effort choose words that flowed easily from the tongue and better enabled the ability of men to retain them in their hearts. The Geneva's style was a heavier and less eloquent presentation of
God's word.
In summary, Geneva Bible promotion is little more than an effort to attack the inerrancy and perfection of the Bible. It has the exact same goal of those of the leftist Westcott Hort promoting crowd, and it uses most of the same blank ammunition. It may stem from a group with very different political objectives, but it ultimately comes from the same desire to place oneself as supreme, rather than placing God's word as supreme.
Endnotes
My thanks to Jerry Bouey, Herb Evans, and Teno Groppi for their thoughts and assistance in researching this article.
John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of KJV equivalent
Bibles in all the languages of the world.
jhinton@post.harvard.edu
Source
KING JAMES BIBLE VERSUS GENEVA BIBLE
The attack on the King James Bible comes in many forms chiefly with the proliferation of a multitude of modern versions that altered the Holy Bible in thousands of places. Then a more subtle form comes from the resurrection of the older English versions that God has bypassed in church history leaving them on the shelves in the annals of history. Of late, the promotion of the Geneva Bible comes into focus with the aim of replacing the King James Bible. It is the same strategy employed to deceive readers into thinking that going back to the originals is better and in this case, the original English version that the Puritans used. Below is a discussion taken from the Which Version Club to clear the myth that The Geneva Bible is the correct English Bible to be used by English speaking Christians.
<><><><><><><><>
I need to write a short article on this, but for now let me very briefly clear up yet another MYTH...
To wit, the MYTH that the Puritans continued to use the Geneva Bible after the KJB was produced and in fact had to be almost coerced into using the KJB.
This is PURE MYTH.
In fact, it was the PURITANS who REQUESTED the translation of the KJB to begin with. Without the Puritans REQUESTING the KJB, there would never have BEEN a KJB.
Moreover, a great many of the KJB translators were themselves PURITANS, and contrary to our modern day myth-makers from established religious and orthodox seminaries, the Puritans adopted the KJB with virtual IMMEDIACY.
All one must do to confirm this is READ the quotations of such men as John Bunyan (who stated that he believed the Authorised Version to be the EXACT REPLICA of the autographs), John Owen, Richard Baxter, Thomas Boston, Thomas Brooks, Stephen Charnock, Thomas Goodwin, George Swinnock, and MANY others, and it will be discovered that these men ALL lived within a generation of the publication of the KJB, and that these men ALL used the KJB, NOT the Geneva Bible.
As I said, when time allows I'm going to write a short article demonstrating all of this, but for now don't be fooled by the MYTH that the Puritans stuck to the Geneva Bible after the KJB came out, because it just ain't so.
Scott
<><><><><><><><>
Ah, a MYTH it is indeed! Scott is right on when he states that it was the Puritans that requested a new Bible be produced. I've debated this several times in the past and wrote a short article on the Pilgrims and the Geneva Bible. Following is an excerpt from the article. I believe it applies to this current thread.
“As you can see, it appears everyone is adamant that the Bible of the early Pilgrims was the Geneva Bible and “certainly not the King's of England's Bible!”. Perhaps the record should be set straight as to whose Bible this was. It was certainly not the King of England's Bible. For far too long this rhetoric has been spouted. King James had nothing to do with the translation of this Bible nor did he even come up with the idea to produce a new translation. Here are the historical facts of the matter as laid down by Samuel Bagster in the wonderful book, “An Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures” (published - 1841).
Soon after James I ascended the throne on March 24, 1603 a petition in the name of more than 1,000 ministers was brought before the King. The petition, called the “Millenary Petition”, was separated into 4 headings; 1) Things connected with the Church service; 2) Church ministers; 3) Church living and maintenance; and 4) Church discipline. Promptly, a letter was written in answer of these matters and sent to the King by the University of Oxford. Because of this James I decided to bring the matter to a public conference. Delegates representing the Anglicans and those of the petitioners were invited to the palace of Hampton Court the following January. The delegates representing the 1,000 ministers were Dr. John Reynolds, Dr. Thomas Sparke of Oxford, Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Knewstubbs from Cambridge. At the conference Dr. Reynolds took on the role as chief speaker and brought before the King a request “for a New Translation of the Bible” on the second day.
Prior to this day there is no historical record that the King had entertained such a notion as a new Bible translation. Dr. Reynolds' suggestion (which was really the suggestion of the 1,000 petitioners) found favor in the King's eyes and James I heard Reynolds and the others concerning the matter. During the conference, the Anglican delegates, led by Archbishop Bancroft, opposed the idea of a new translation. Despite Bancroft's efforts King James I gave permission to Dr. Reynolds and the delegates with him to proceed with the process of rendering a new translation of the Bible into the English language. “The method proposed by the king was this; that the version should be made by some of the most learned men in both the Universities, that it should then be reviewed by the bishops and other of the most learned ecclesiastics, that it should then be laid before the Privy Council, and last of all be ratified by Royal authority, so that in the whole Anglican establishment this translation so made should be used, and no other (Bagster, “An Historical Account of the English Versions of the Scriptures”, p. 149).”
For long King James I has been blamed for the removal of the notes found in the Geneva Bible. This is not an entirely true statement and the facts have been misrepresented as have most `facts' that are reported by the other side. While the King didn't necessarily agree with some of the notes there is absolutely no indication that he planned to force the translators to remove them. If anyone can produce information to the contrary I would be delighted to have it. Interestingly enough, the idea to have the notes removed entirely came from Archbishop Bancroft and not Dr. Reynolds, King James I or any of the petitioners. So, the next time you hear or read the lie that King James I wanted a new Bible because he didn't like the notes or that he was responsible for their removal you can present the facts. As I stated earlier, James I didn't like some of the notes but it wasn't until after Bancroft suggested that they be withheld from the new translation that James I commented on them.” (taken from Pilgrims and the Geneva Bible by Martin A. Shue)
Side-note: Scott, you may find it laughable but in one certain discussion group I was told that not a single one of the KJB translators was “a Puritan”. I presented him with a list of names as long as my arm and he responded by saying that since I didn't know these men personally I couldn't say “for sure” what their beliefs were. I offered many references of what many men had stated about these translators but he ignored all the evidence and continued to insist that none of the translators were Puritans.
Marty
<><><><><><><><>
Sure. Here is the exact quote by Bunyan --
"As Mr. Bunyan was upon the road near Cambridge, there overtakes him a scholar that had observed him a preacher, and said to him, How dare you preach, seeing you have not the original, being not a scholar?
Then said Mr. Bunyan, Have you the original? Yes, said the scholar. Nay, but, said Mr. Bunyan, have you the very self-same original copies that were written by the penmen of the scriptures, prophets and apostles? No, said the scholar, but we have the true copies of those originals. How do you know that? said Mr. Bunyan. How? said the scholar. Why, we believe what we have is a true copy of the original.
Then, said Mr. Bunyan, SO DO I BELIEVE OUR ENGLISH BIBLE IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL. Then away rid the scholar." The Struggler, Works of John Bunyan
The term "ENGLISH BIBLE" in those day ALWAYS without exception referred to the Authorised Version.
Moreover, it can easily be demonstrated that Bunyan used the AV, for with only a handful of exceptions, he quoted the AV in ALL his writings. In fact, of the handful (or less) times that he quoted from the Geneva, the context usually indicates that he was quoting from memory, as even his editor noted on one or two occasions.
Consider how prolific Bunyan was in his writings, meaning that there were literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of quotations made by him in all his writings, the fact that almost every single one of these quotations came from the AV is enough to prove that Bunyan and the other Puritans of his day employed the AV, not the Geneva.
It also proves that Bunyan was not coerced into using the AV, for the fact that he quoted the Geneva in a few cases demonstrates that he was not in the least bit intimidated about quoting whichever Bible he wanted to quote.
It is significant that John Bunyan, John Owen, et. al., all quoted from the AV.
Scott
<><><><><><><><>
Some notes on Puritan use of the KJB which I have extracted from my book.
1. Various translators of the King James Bible were moderate Puritans, including Thomas Harrison, Laurence Chaderton, Samuel Ward, John Reynolds, Miles Smith and George Abbot. The fact that George Abbot became the next Archbishop of Canterbury shows how much King James favoured moderate Puritanism. Miles Smith wrote the address to the reader in the front of the King James Bible specifically appealing to the Puritan mind.
2. The representatives from England who went to the Synod of Dort, 1620, included Dr Samuel Ward, who praised the KJB.
3. The 1638 Edition of Cambridge was edited by two of the original translators, John Bois and Samuel Ward, and two other learned men, Joseph Mede and J. Goad. Joseph Mede was a Cambridge Puritan and the notable influence on John Milton.
4. Oliver Cromwell went to Samuel Ward's college at Cambridge and when Cromwell ruled England, King James Bibles (not Geneva Versions) were printed by his authority. "When in 1616 Cromwell went up to Cambridge it was to Sidney Sussex, a college ... Its master, the [Puritan] Samuel Ward, was one of the translators of King James's Bible, the book which Cromwell was to turn to so often for ideas, ammunition and arguments to fortify his opinions; and to which the eloquence and forcefulness of his language owed so much." (Young, P., 1975, Oliver Cromwell and His Times, Severn House Publishers, London, Great Britain, page 14). His biographers have pointed out that it was "The `Authorised Version' of James I., from which Cromwell appears always to quote".
5. William Prynne used the KJB.
6. John Milton used the KJB.
7. John Canne was given authority for seven years from 1653 to print Bibles with his notes.
8. Brian Walton believed, "the English translation of the Bible", as John Selden (1584-1654) recorded, "is the best translation in the world and renders the sense of the original best." Thomas Fuller (1608-1661) wrote, "the last translation of the Bible, which no doubt was done by those learned men in the best English, agreeth perfectly with the common speech of our country". And Bulstrode Whitelocke (1605-1675) recorded, "the Bible in English; which was yet agreed to be the best of any translation in the world".
Bible Protector
<><><><><><><><>
The Geneva Version was rejected by King James, who believed it to be corrupt and deficient, and therefore entertained the suggestion that a new translation of the Bible should be made. The King James Bible is similar to the Geneva Version in many respects, which shows how much the translators really did esteem it; nevertheless, there are some differences which must be brought to general attention.
1. The text of the Geneva, while close to the King James Bible, shows some variations in selection from Textus Receptus material.
2. The translation of the Geneva, while close to King James Bible, shows some differences in rendering of ideas.
3. That unlike the King James Bible, the helps, marginal material and other matters were biased toward a particular interpretation, because it was accomplished in the predominantly Calvinist republic of Geneva.
This is not to say that the Geneva Version was badly done, or unusable; merely, that revision was necessary, as the King James Bible translators themselves admitted. In 1911, Hoare, author of "Our English Bible", wrote, "England might have remained up to this day distracted by the conflicting claims of rival versions of the Scripture, and we might even now be calling out, in the spirit of the Corinthian converts of St Paul, `I am of Tyndale,' `I am of Coverdale,' `I am of Geneva.'"
But the moderate Puritans saw the value of the King James Bible, and though some support persisted for the Geneva Version (e.g. by certain English Presbyterians), the decade of the 1650s saw the death of the Geneva Version, under the very rule of the Puritans. The Cambridge Printers in 1656, for example, were printing the King James Bible by the conferred privilege of Oliver Cromwell.
Those modern detractors make out as if the Puritans were altogether about to dethrone the King James Bible, and reinstate the Geneva, when in fact we find that the Puritans made deliberate decisions (in the Providence of God) to uphold the King James Bible.
Bible Protector
<><><><><><><><>
For more information on the deficiencies of the Geneva Bible, please read Brother Will Kinney's article on this topic.
The Deficiencies of The Geneva Bible
<><><><><><><><>
For more information on the Geneva Bible issue, please also read Dr. Hinton's article below:
Geneva or King James Bible
Source
Saturday, January 23, 2010
How the Reformation Changed the World
How the Reformation Changed the World
Martin Luther, the German Reformer, is generally remembered as the theological professor, the Bible translator, the writer, even as the composer of hymns. However, Martin Luther was also a husband and a father of six children. He provided the church its first and most prominent example of a pastoral family.
While still a celibate priest, Luther wrote extensively on marriage. He saw marriage as an institution in as much crisis as the church - and no less in need of reform.
Martin Luther was a leading defender of the dignity of women and the foundational importance of marriage. Luther placed the home "at the centre of the universe." His teaching on marriage and the family (and his personal example) were so radical and so long-lasting that it profoundly and permanently altered the home. If his innovations don't seem so radical to us, it is because of his success in establishing these principles as Christian ideals.
For a thousand years, the single, celibate life had been upheld as the Christian ideal. Sex, though grudgingly permitted inside marriage, was not to be enjoyed. As the Church father, Jerome, declared in the 4th century: "Anyone who is too passionate a lover with his own wife is himself an adulterer."Augustine advocated sexual relations within marriage to be without emotion and primarily for procreation. A catechism of the Catholic Church written in 1494, applies the third deadly sin (impurity) to married people enjoying sex within marriage.
.
Martin Luther, however, declared war on Greek philosopher Aristotle's depiction on women as "botched males". Luther also criticised Jerome, Cyprian, Augustine, Gregory and other Church fathers for "never having written anything good about marriage."
Luther and the first generation of Protestant Reformers rejected this tradition of over a thousand years, of ascetic sexuality - in both their theology and their lives. The Reformers rejection of the celibate ideal of the Middle Ages was as great a revolution in the home as their teachings were in the Church. Luther literally transferred the praises and esteem that Christians had traditionally heaped upon the celibate monks and nuns, to marriage and the home.
Luther described marriage as the only institution where a chaste life could be maintained. He insisted that "one cannot be unmarried without sin."
"Marriage pervades the whole of nature". Luther taught that nothing was more natural and necessary than marriage, "for all creatures are divided into male and female."
Luther actively encouraged fathers to remove their daughters from convents. Protestant towns and territories dissolved the cloisters and nunneries and freed women from the sexual repression, cultural depravity, dominance by male clergy and Catholic practices. Wherever the Reformation succeeded monks and nuns who wished to marry received automatic permission to do so.
Luther had a high regard for the ability of women to shape society by moulding its youth and civilising its men through the institution of marriage.
"A companionable woman brings joy to life" Luther wrote. "Women tend to and rear their young, administer the household and are inclined to compassion. God has made them compassionate by nature, so that by their example men may be moved to compassion also."
Luther also wrote: "People who do not like children are swine, dunces and blockheads, not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessings of God, the Creator and Author of marriage."
"Love begins when we wish to serve others." There is no better school for humility and for loving sacrificial service than marriage and parenthood.
Luther wrote that his entrance into the monastery was "a cowardly act". He saw marriage and fatherhood as an essential requirement for effective pastors. Luther had six children (Hans, Elizabeth, Magdalene, Martin, Paul and Margaretha).
Luther urged parents to always discipline their children with forethought and caution, taking into account the unique personality of each. He taught that: "no power on earth is so noble and so great as that of parents."
Luther also wrote: " There is no bond on earth so sweet nor any separation so bitter as that which occurs in a good marriage."
"A wife is easily taken, but to have abiding love, that is the challenge. One who finds it in his marriage, should thank the Lord God for it. Therefore, approach marriage earnestly and ask God to give you a good, pious girl, with whom you spend your life in mutual love. For sex alone establishes nothing in this regard; there must also be agreement in values and character."
Because of the importance attached to companionship in marriage the Reformers endorsed, for the first time in the Western Christendom, genuine divorce and remarriage. Although they viewed marriage as a spiritual bond transcending all other human relationships, a marriage could definitely end this side of eternity and a new one begin for separated spouses. "Christ permits divorce for adultery and compels none to remain unmarried thereafter; and St. Paul would rather have us remarry than burn now with lust and later in hell."
The Protestants, in contrast to the Catholics, generally permitted divorce and remarriage on five grounds: adultery, willful abandonment, chronic impotence, life-threatening hostility and willful deceit. The Strasbourg Reformer, Martin Bucer, declared that no proper marriage exists where affection is not regularly shared and where all conversation has ceased.
Protestant marriage courts did not permit divorce and remarriage to occur without first making every effort to re-unite the estranged couple and to revive the dead marriage. However, the Reformers held that the community formed by husband and wife was so fundamental to society, that when all conversation, affection and respect between a husband and wife had irretrievably broken down, it could not be allowed to continue. The marriage bond was so important that one had to fight to save it, and failing success in genuine restoration, the marriage should be recognised to have come to an end.
Never before had women been empowered to divorce abusive husbands. Women from all over Europe fled to Protestant areas, particularly Geneva, to find protection and freedom from abuse.
Luther wrote: "Women have narrow shoulders and wide hips. Therefore they ought to be domestic. Their very physique is a sign from the Creator that He intended them for the home." Luther also wrote: "In domestic affairs, I defer to Katie, otherwise I'm led by the Holy Spirit!"
Luther's wife, Katherine, was smuggled out of a cloister, hidden in an empty herring barrel. She became a model housewife and an accomplished businesswoman. Luther dubbed her: "the morning star of Wittenberg" as her day began at 4:00am. Even in his last will and testament, Luther revolutionised the home by ignoring the prevalent practice of appointing a male trustee to administer the estate. Luther directly designated his wife Katherine "heir to everything."
Luther wrote: "It is impossible to keep peace between man and woman in family life if they do not condone and overlook each other's faults, but watch everything to the smallest point. For who does not at times offend?"
Luther's home was described as "half home, half hotel". The Luthers housed up to 30 people in their home at a time - students, orphans, the sick and former monks and nuns. Even on his wedding night, Luther couldn't refuse a person in need. At 11:00pm, after all the guests had left, the radical Reformer and critic of Luther, Andreas Karlstadt, knocked at the door. Karlstadt was fleeing the Peasants' War and needed shelter. Luther took him in.
Luther not only made the Bible part of the daily routine in the home, but he also made the singing of hymns central. He played the flute and the lute, and led his children in singing hymns of praise.
He also introduced the Catechism to explain the faith to children, incorporating Scripture memorisation in the daily routine.
Martin Luther, however, declared war on Greek philosopher Aristotle's depiction on women as "botched males". Luther also criticised Jerome, Cyprian, Augustine, Gregory and other Church fathers for "never having written anything good about marriage."
Luther and the first generation of Protestant Reformers rejected this tradition of over a thousand years, of ascetic sexuality - in both their theology and their lives. The Reformers rejection of the celibate ideal of the Middle Ages was as great a revolution in the home as their teachings were in the Church. Luther literally transferred the praises and esteem that Christians had traditionally heaped upon the celibate monks and nuns, to marriage and the home.
Luther described marriage as the only institution where a chaste life could be maintained. He insisted that "one cannot be unmarried without sin."
"Marriage pervades the whole of nature". Luther taught that nothing was more natural and necessary than marriage, "for all creatures are divided into male and female."
Luther actively encouraged fathers to remove their daughters from convents. Protestant towns and territories dissolved the cloisters and nunneries and freed women from the sexual repression, cultural depravity, dominance by male clergy and Catholic practices. Wherever the Reformation succeeded monks and nuns who wished to marry received automatic permission to do so.
Luther had a high regard for the ability of women to shape society by moulding its youth and civilising its men through the institution of marriage.
"A companionable woman brings joy to life" Luther wrote. "Women tend to and rear their young, administer the household and are inclined to compassion. God has made them compassionate by nature, so that by their example men may be moved to compassion also."
Luther also wrote: "People who do not like children are swine, dunces and blockheads, not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessings of God, the Creator and Author of marriage."
"Love begins when we wish to serve others." There is no better school for humility and for loving sacrificial service than marriage and parenthood.
Luther wrote that his entrance into the monastery was "a cowardly act". He saw marriage and fatherhood as an essential requirement for effective pastors. Luther had six children (Hans, Elizabeth, Magdalene, Martin, Paul and Margaretha).
Luther urged parents to always discipline their children with forethought and caution, taking into account the unique personality of each. He taught that: "no power on earth is so noble and so great as that of parents."
Luther also wrote: " There is no bond on earth so sweet nor any separation so bitter as that which occurs in a good marriage."
"A wife is easily taken, but to have abiding love, that is the challenge. One who finds it in his marriage, should thank the Lord God for it. Therefore, approach marriage earnestly and ask God to give you a good, pious girl, with whom you spend your life in mutual love. For sex alone establishes nothing in this regard; there must also be agreement in values and character."
Because of the importance attached to companionship in marriage the Reformers endorsed, for the first time in the Western Christendom, genuine divorce and remarriage. Although they viewed marriage as a spiritual bond transcending all other human relationships, a marriage could definitely end this side of eternity and a new one begin for separated spouses. "Christ permits divorce for adultery and compels none to remain unmarried thereafter; and St. Paul would rather have us remarry than burn now with lust and later in hell."
The Protestants, in contrast to the Catholics, generally permitted divorce and remarriage on five grounds: adultery, willful abandonment, chronic impotence, life-threatening hostility and willful deceit. The Strasbourg Reformer, Martin Bucer, declared that no proper marriage exists where affection is not regularly shared and where all conversation has ceased.
Protestant marriage courts did not permit divorce and remarriage to occur without first making every effort to re-unite the estranged couple and to revive the dead marriage. However, the Reformers held that the community formed by husband and wife was so fundamental to society, that when all conversation, affection and respect between a husband and wife had irretrievably broken down, it could not be allowed to continue. The marriage bond was so important that one had to fight to save it, and failing success in genuine restoration, the marriage should be recognised to have come to an end.
Never before had women been empowered to divorce abusive husbands. Women from all over Europe fled to Protestant areas, particularly Geneva, to find protection and freedom from abuse.
Luther wrote: "Women have narrow shoulders and wide hips. Therefore they ought to be domestic. Their very physique is a sign from the Creator that He intended them for the home." Luther also wrote: "In domestic affairs, I defer to Katie, otherwise I'm led by the Holy Spirit!"
Luther's wife, Katherine, was smuggled out of a cloister, hidden in an empty herring barrel. She became a model housewife and an accomplished businesswoman. Luther dubbed her: "the morning star of Wittenberg" as her day began at 4:00am. Even in his last will and testament, Luther revolutionised the home by ignoring the prevalent practice of appointing a male trustee to administer the estate. Luther directly designated his wife Katherine "heir to everything."
Luther wrote: "It is impossible to keep peace between man and woman in family life if they do not condone and overlook each other's faults, but watch everything to the smallest point. For who does not at times offend?"
Luther's home was described as "half home, half hotel". The Luthers housed up to 30 people in their home at a time - students, orphans, the sick and former monks and nuns. Even on his wedding night, Luther couldn't refuse a person in need. At 11:00pm, after all the guests had left, the radical Reformer and critic of Luther, Andreas Karlstadt, knocked at the door. Karlstadt was fleeing the Peasants' War and needed shelter. Luther took him in.
Luther not only made the Bible part of the daily routine in the home, but he also made the singing of hymns central. He played the flute and the lute, and led his children in singing hymns of praise.
He also introduced the Catechism to explain the faith to children, incorporating Scripture memorisation in the daily routine.
.
Perhaps it is time for us to recognise Martin Luther as the true and original founder of Focus on the Family.
Reforming Worship
Congregational singing remains one of Martin Luther's most enduring legacies.
"Next to the Word of God, music deserves the highest praise," wrote Luther. "I am not of the opinion that all arts are to be cast down and destroyed on account of the Gospel, as some fanatics suggest. On the other hand, I would gladly see all arts, especially music, in the service of Him Who has given and created them."
Luther himself was a well-trained musician with a fine voice. He played the lute, composed intricate hymns and was well acquainted with the work of the leading composers of his day.
"I always love music; who so has skill in this art, is of a good temperament, fitted for all things. We must teach music in schools; a schoolmaster ought to have skill in music, or I would not regard him. Neither should we ordain young men as preachers, unless they have been well exercised in music."
Luther insisted that we are to "praise God with both word and music." "God has preached the Gospel through music." The common people need to hear and sing the Word of God in their own language, so that they might be edified. (Before the Reformation such singing as had been done in Churches was in Latin and sung by choirs).
Perhaps it is time for us to recognise Martin Luther as the true and original founder of Focus on the Family.
Reforming Worship
Congregational singing remains one of Martin Luther's most enduring legacies.
"Next to the Word of God, music deserves the highest praise," wrote Luther. "I am not of the opinion that all arts are to be cast down and destroyed on account of the Gospel, as some fanatics suggest. On the other hand, I would gladly see all arts, especially music, in the service of Him Who has given and created them."
Luther himself was a well-trained musician with a fine voice. He played the lute, composed intricate hymns and was well acquainted with the work of the leading composers of his day.
"I always love music; who so has skill in this art, is of a good temperament, fitted for all things. We must teach music in schools; a schoolmaster ought to have skill in music, or I would not regard him. Neither should we ordain young men as preachers, unless they have been well exercised in music."
Luther insisted that we are to "praise God with both word and music." "God has preached the Gospel through music." The common people need to hear and sing the Word of God in their own language, so that they might be edified. (Before the Reformation such singing as had been done in Churches was in Latin and sung by choirs).
.
"Let everything be done so that the Word of God may have free course." Luther loved to cite examples like Moses who praised God in song following the crossing of the Red Sea, and David who composed many of the Psalms. "Music is a vehicle for proclaiming the Word of God" declared Luther.
Urging pastors to write German hymns based on the Psalms, Luther advised "use the simplest and most common words, preserve the pure teaching of God's Word, and keep the meaning as close to the Psalm as possible."
Luther wrote a variety of hymns, intended for Church services and for devotions at home. To teach the Catechism, he wrote two hymns on the Ten Commandments, a hymn for the Apostles' Creed, one for the Lord's Prayer and others for baptism and the Lord's Supper. Through these hymns, Luther demonstrated his on-going desire to teach the Faith, especially to children.
In 1527, during one of the most trying times of Luther's life, (he suffered severe illness for 8 months of that year) with his entire body in pain, the plague had erupted in Wittenberg and he watched many friends die. Then his own son became ill. Even though his wife was pregnant, Luther's house was transformed into a hospital. During that horrific year, surrounded by sickness and death, Luther took time to remember the 10th anniversary of his publication against indulgences. A Mighty Fortress is our God, based on Psalm 46, was composed during this time of severe trial. It has endured as one of the most popular and most translated hymns in history: "And though this world with devils filled, should threatened to undo us, we will not fear for God has willed, His truth to triumph through us. The prince of darkness grim? We tremble not for him. His rage we can endure, for lo his doom is sure, one little Word shall fell him."
Luther made singing a central part of Protestant worship. He dispensed with the choir and assigned all singing to the congregation. Luther would often call the whole congregation into the church during the week for congregational rehearsals so that the people could learn new hymns.
"Let everything that has breath praise the Lord." Psalm 150:6
The Reformation and Science
Modern Science as a discipline is a fruit of the Reformation. As Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, once put it: "There are two books laid before us to study; to prevent us falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."
Historian Robert G. Frank points out: "The predominant forms of scientific activity can be shown to be a direct outgrowth of a Puritan ideology."
The great astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630), the founder of Celestial Mechanics declared: "My wish is that I may perceive the God whom I find everywhere in the external world in like manner within me." Kepler was a "brilliant mathematician and astronomer, he contributed to the scientific revolution with his work on the planetary orbits, laws of motion and the scientific method. Kepler's accomplishments formed the foundation of modern theoretical astronomy."
Kepler saw astronomy as a glimpse of God's glory. Kepler argued: "Truth in religion is based on the Word of God in Scripture, while truth in natural science is based on evidence and reason." Kepler viewed all of science as man attempting to "think God's thoughts after Him." Kepler was the father of the modern satellite, and of modern space travel.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the father of calculus and dynamics, was a scientific genius and a dedicated Christian. Newton formulated the theory of gravitation and the laws of motion. He discovered that white light is composed of the colours of the spectrum. He made vital contributions to mathematics, astronomy and physics. Newton maintained that there were two key sources of knowledge - one revealed in the Bible and the other revealed in nature. Newton believed that in order to "truly know the Creator, one must study the natural order of things." Newton dedicated his life to know the Word of God (the Bible) and to know the works of God (creation).
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) made vital contributions to mathematics and technology that helped with the development of the computer. Pascal invented the first adding machine. In his honour, a computer language is named after Pascal.
Charles Babbage (1792-1871), the father of modern day computer science, described the world as a great computer, and God as the programmer. Babbage was essentially a mathematician and regarded mathematics as the best preliminary preparation for all other branches of human knowledge. He believed that the study of the works of nature, with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation for the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of the Divine Author.
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872) was the man responsible for the development of the modern telegraph and the Morse Code. This was one of the greatest innovations in the world of communication. Samuel deeply absorbed his family's Calvinism, which he eventually translated and applied to all his scientific work. In 1844, he astonished the US Congress, gathered in the Supreme Court chamber, by sending words from Numbers 23:23: "What hath God wrought?" The first inter-city telegraph line in the world communicated these Words of Scripture to inaugurate this great invention. Morse, as an inventor, saw his work as a service to the Lord. He laid the foundations for the development of modern communications.
In the realm of physics, Sir Michael Faraday is acknowledged as one of the greatest scientists of all times. He discovered electro-magnetic induction, without which we could have no motors or engines. He invented the generator. Faraday was a devout Christian who declared: "The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances. Faith in the Divinity and work of Christ is the gift of God and the evidence of this faith is obedience to the commandments of Christ."
Lord Kelvin, one of the greatest scientists of all times, formulated the metric temperature scale. He formulated the science of thermodynamics, giving us the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was the first scientist who used the concept of energy. He declared: "With regard to the origin of life, science positively affirms Creative power."
Joseph Lister, the English surgeon who developed antiseptic surgery and the use of chemical disinfectants, stated: "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity."
Karl von Linnaeus (1707-1778) was the pioneer of modern botany. He laid the foundation of natural history by devising a system of classification whereby any plant or animal could be identified and related to an overall plan. He introduced the method of naming each type of living being with universal terms that could be recognised in any language. He used the Bible to provide the framework for scientific classification of plants and animals.
James Simpson (1811-1870), the founder of gynaecology and anaesthetics, was inspired by the Scriptural passage that God had made Adam fall into a deep sleep before taking the rib from him, to develop chloroform, and pioneer the beginnings of modern surgical anaesthetics. Before this, operations were conducted on conscious patients.
Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873), the father of modern oceanography and hydrology, derived many of his ideas from the Bible. He was the first person to chart shipping routes throughout the world, pioneered the establishment of sea-lanes and made possible the laying of electric cables across the ocean floor. Maury was inspired by a verse from the Bible (Psalm 8:8, which speaks of the fish that passed through "the paths of the seas"). Maury declared that: "The Bible is true and science is true … the Bible is authority for everything it touches … God is the Great Architect Who planned it all."
It has been pointed out that science could not have developed amongst those who worship Allah, because of Islam's fatalism. Nor could science have been birthed from Hinduism or Buddhism, because of their belief that the world is an illusion. Neither could modern science have risen in our modern humanistic culture, because of the humanist's belief that life is irrational and illogical. By rejecting the notion of absolutes, humanists reject the very foundation of science. If there are no absolutes in nature, then results in experimentation can only be relative. If everything is relative, then engineering, and other branches of science, becomes impossible.
A proper, philosophical base for investigating the universe was needed, and only the Christian doctrine of Creation has provided that base. The Creator established Laws for people and Laws for the natural world. A created universe was expected to have design, order and purpose. Man using his created, rational mind, could study this ordered universe in a rational way and seek to discover its laws. Modern science is based upon this assumption of scientific law. In addition, the moral laws given by the Creator established the ethical basis for science. Scientists must be honest and truthful. If this universe were not created, if it is merely the product of chance, then no intelligence would be involved. There could be no reason to expect such a universe to operate in a rational or consistent way. Man's mind would also be the product of chance and would not be capable of reason or logic. Hence, a materialistic philosophy could not provide any foundation for science. Many ardent atheists dominate science today, but they are working off the foundations and pre-suppositions of Christianity.
.
The irrefutable fact is that Christianity gave birth to modern science. The scientific revolution began in the Protestant Reformation and the Bible played a vital part in the development of scientific discovery. Every major branch of science was developed by a Bible-believing Christian. The Bible essentially created science.
When we get into a car, start the engine, turn on the lights, drive to hospital, receive an anaesthetic before an operation, and have an effective operation done in a germ-free environment, we need to remember that we owe it to the Reformation. As Isaac Watts declared in his great Christmas carol: "Joy to the World", Jesus makes His blessings flow "far as the curse is found."
"No more let sins and sorrows grow, nor thorns infest the ground; He comes to make His blessings flow, far as the curse is found, far as the curse is found, far as, far as, the curse is found."
The Reformation and Education
The phenomenon of education for the masses has its roots in Christianity. Christianity is a teaching religion. The greatest universities worldwide were started by Christians in fulfilment of the Great Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The roots of education for the common person goes back to the Reformation, and, especially, to John Calvin.
"The modern idea of popular education - that is, education for everyone - first arose in Europe during the Protestant Reformation." (Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld - Is Public Education necessary?)
American educator, Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld, came to Christ through reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian religion. As Blumenfeld did his research on education, he found that, when it came to the concept of education for the common man, all roads led to Calvin. It was as he read the primary documents, that he came to place his faith in Christ.
"Wherever Calvinism has gone, it has carried the school with it and has given a powerful impulse to popular education. It is a system which demands intellectual manhood. In fact, we say that its very existence is tied up with education of the people." (Dr. Loraine Boettner - The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination).
Calvin's Academy at Geneva was the model for many of the early colleges and universities established by the Puritans and their successors in America.
Calvin advocated that the purpose of education is for people to know God and to glorify Him as God - that in our vocation and in our life we might know "the knowledge of God, the Creator and Redeemer." The content of education must begin with the Scriptures, and continue into God's Creation.
In Geneva, Calvin promoted education for everyone, which has become the pattern for our day. When John Knox fled from Scotland and sought freedom from persecution in Geneva, he declared that Geneva had become the greatest school of Christ since the time of the Apostles.
Calvin emphasised the importance of education having moral relevance. Calvin also was insistent that it was the parents' responsibility to educate their children. Therefore the control of education should remain with the parents.
Of America's first 126 universities, 123 were Christian. This included Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.
The Reformation also produced some of the greatest works of literature. William Shakespeare (1564-1616) was one of the world's greatest writers. Scriptural quotes and Biblical images from the Geneva Bible permeate Shakespeare's writings.
Similarly, John Bunyan (1628-1688) gave the world one of the greatest novels ever written - Pilgrim's Progress. This parable of the Christian life is one of the all-time most published and widely read books in the history of the world.
John Milton (1608-1674) author of Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained was the secretary to Oliver Cromwell, and also a Puritan.
"Let everything be done so that the Word of God may have free course." Luther loved to cite examples like Moses who praised God in song following the crossing of the Red Sea, and David who composed many of the Psalms. "Music is a vehicle for proclaiming the Word of God" declared Luther.
Urging pastors to write German hymns based on the Psalms, Luther advised "use the simplest and most common words, preserve the pure teaching of God's Word, and keep the meaning as close to the Psalm as possible."
Luther wrote a variety of hymns, intended for Church services and for devotions at home. To teach the Catechism, he wrote two hymns on the Ten Commandments, a hymn for the Apostles' Creed, one for the Lord's Prayer and others for baptism and the Lord's Supper. Through these hymns, Luther demonstrated his on-going desire to teach the Faith, especially to children.
In 1527, during one of the most trying times of Luther's life, (he suffered severe illness for 8 months of that year) with his entire body in pain, the plague had erupted in Wittenberg and he watched many friends die. Then his own son became ill. Even though his wife was pregnant, Luther's house was transformed into a hospital. During that horrific year, surrounded by sickness and death, Luther took time to remember the 10th anniversary of his publication against indulgences. A Mighty Fortress is our God, based on Psalm 46, was composed during this time of severe trial. It has endured as one of the most popular and most translated hymns in history: "And though this world with devils filled, should threatened to undo us, we will not fear for God has willed, His truth to triumph through us. The prince of darkness grim? We tremble not for him. His rage we can endure, for lo his doom is sure, one little Word shall fell him."
Luther made singing a central part of Protestant worship. He dispensed with the choir and assigned all singing to the congregation. Luther would often call the whole congregation into the church during the week for congregational rehearsals so that the people could learn new hymns.
"Let everything that has breath praise the Lord." Psalm 150:6
The Reformation and Science
Modern Science as a discipline is a fruit of the Reformation. As Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, once put it: "There are two books laid before us to study; to prevent us falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."
Historian Robert G. Frank points out: "The predominant forms of scientific activity can be shown to be a direct outgrowth of a Puritan ideology."
The great astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630), the founder of Celestial Mechanics declared: "My wish is that I may perceive the God whom I find everywhere in the external world in like manner within me." Kepler was a "brilliant mathematician and astronomer, he contributed to the scientific revolution with his work on the planetary orbits, laws of motion and the scientific method. Kepler's accomplishments formed the foundation of modern theoretical astronomy."
Kepler saw astronomy as a glimpse of God's glory. Kepler argued: "Truth in religion is based on the Word of God in Scripture, while truth in natural science is based on evidence and reason." Kepler viewed all of science as man attempting to "think God's thoughts after Him." Kepler was the father of the modern satellite, and of modern space travel.
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the father of calculus and dynamics, was a scientific genius and a dedicated Christian. Newton formulated the theory of gravitation and the laws of motion. He discovered that white light is composed of the colours of the spectrum. He made vital contributions to mathematics, astronomy and physics. Newton maintained that there were two key sources of knowledge - one revealed in the Bible and the other revealed in nature. Newton believed that in order to "truly know the Creator, one must study the natural order of things." Newton dedicated his life to know the Word of God (the Bible) and to know the works of God (creation).
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) made vital contributions to mathematics and technology that helped with the development of the computer. Pascal invented the first adding machine. In his honour, a computer language is named after Pascal.
Charles Babbage (1792-1871), the father of modern day computer science, described the world as a great computer, and God as the programmer. Babbage was essentially a mathematician and regarded mathematics as the best preliminary preparation for all other branches of human knowledge. He believed that the study of the works of nature, with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation for the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of the Divine Author.
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872) was the man responsible for the development of the modern telegraph and the Morse Code. This was one of the greatest innovations in the world of communication. Samuel deeply absorbed his family's Calvinism, which he eventually translated and applied to all his scientific work. In 1844, he astonished the US Congress, gathered in the Supreme Court chamber, by sending words from Numbers 23:23: "What hath God wrought?" The first inter-city telegraph line in the world communicated these Words of Scripture to inaugurate this great invention. Morse, as an inventor, saw his work as a service to the Lord. He laid the foundations for the development of modern communications.
In the realm of physics, Sir Michael Faraday is acknowledged as one of the greatest scientists of all times. He discovered electro-magnetic induction, without which we could have no motors or engines. He invented the generator. Faraday was a devout Christian who declared: "The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances. Faith in the Divinity and work of Christ is the gift of God and the evidence of this faith is obedience to the commandments of Christ."
Lord Kelvin, one of the greatest scientists of all times, formulated the metric temperature scale. He formulated the science of thermodynamics, giving us the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was the first scientist who used the concept of energy. He declared: "With regard to the origin of life, science positively affirms Creative power."
Joseph Lister, the English surgeon who developed antiseptic surgery and the use of chemical disinfectants, stated: "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity."
Karl von Linnaeus (1707-1778) was the pioneer of modern botany. He laid the foundation of natural history by devising a system of classification whereby any plant or animal could be identified and related to an overall plan. He introduced the method of naming each type of living being with universal terms that could be recognised in any language. He used the Bible to provide the framework for scientific classification of plants and animals.
James Simpson (1811-1870), the founder of gynaecology and anaesthetics, was inspired by the Scriptural passage that God had made Adam fall into a deep sleep before taking the rib from him, to develop chloroform, and pioneer the beginnings of modern surgical anaesthetics. Before this, operations were conducted on conscious patients.
Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873), the father of modern oceanography and hydrology, derived many of his ideas from the Bible. He was the first person to chart shipping routes throughout the world, pioneered the establishment of sea-lanes and made possible the laying of electric cables across the ocean floor. Maury was inspired by a verse from the Bible (Psalm 8:8, which speaks of the fish that passed through "the paths of the seas"). Maury declared that: "The Bible is true and science is true … the Bible is authority for everything it touches … God is the Great Architect Who planned it all."
It has been pointed out that science could not have developed amongst those who worship Allah, because of Islam's fatalism. Nor could science have been birthed from Hinduism or Buddhism, because of their belief that the world is an illusion. Neither could modern science have risen in our modern humanistic culture, because of the humanist's belief that life is irrational and illogical. By rejecting the notion of absolutes, humanists reject the very foundation of science. If there are no absolutes in nature, then results in experimentation can only be relative. If everything is relative, then engineering, and other branches of science, becomes impossible.
A proper, philosophical base for investigating the universe was needed, and only the Christian doctrine of Creation has provided that base. The Creator established Laws for people and Laws for the natural world. A created universe was expected to have design, order and purpose. Man using his created, rational mind, could study this ordered universe in a rational way and seek to discover its laws. Modern science is based upon this assumption of scientific law. In addition, the moral laws given by the Creator established the ethical basis for science. Scientists must be honest and truthful. If this universe were not created, if it is merely the product of chance, then no intelligence would be involved. There could be no reason to expect such a universe to operate in a rational or consistent way. Man's mind would also be the product of chance and would not be capable of reason or logic. Hence, a materialistic philosophy could not provide any foundation for science. Many ardent atheists dominate science today, but they are working off the foundations and pre-suppositions of Christianity.
.
The irrefutable fact is that Christianity gave birth to modern science. The scientific revolution began in the Protestant Reformation and the Bible played a vital part in the development of scientific discovery. Every major branch of science was developed by a Bible-believing Christian. The Bible essentially created science.
When we get into a car, start the engine, turn on the lights, drive to hospital, receive an anaesthetic before an operation, and have an effective operation done in a germ-free environment, we need to remember that we owe it to the Reformation. As Isaac Watts declared in his great Christmas carol: "Joy to the World", Jesus makes His blessings flow "far as the curse is found."
"No more let sins and sorrows grow, nor thorns infest the ground; He comes to make His blessings flow, far as the curse is found, far as the curse is found, far as, far as, the curse is found."
The Reformation and Education
The phenomenon of education for the masses has its roots in Christianity. Christianity is a teaching religion. The greatest universities worldwide were started by Christians in fulfilment of the Great Commission of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The roots of education for the common person goes back to the Reformation, and, especially, to John Calvin.
"The modern idea of popular education - that is, education for everyone - first arose in Europe during the Protestant Reformation." (Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld - Is Public Education necessary?)
American educator, Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld, came to Christ through reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian religion. As Blumenfeld did his research on education, he found that, when it came to the concept of education for the common man, all roads led to Calvin. It was as he read the primary documents, that he came to place his faith in Christ.
"Wherever Calvinism has gone, it has carried the school with it and has given a powerful impulse to popular education. It is a system which demands intellectual manhood. In fact, we say that its very existence is tied up with education of the people." (Dr. Loraine Boettner - The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination).
Calvin's Academy at Geneva was the model for many of the early colleges and universities established by the Puritans and their successors in America.
Calvin advocated that the purpose of education is for people to know God and to glorify Him as God - that in our vocation and in our life we might know "the knowledge of God, the Creator and Redeemer." The content of education must begin with the Scriptures, and continue into God's Creation.
In Geneva, Calvin promoted education for everyone, which has become the pattern for our day. When John Knox fled from Scotland and sought freedom from persecution in Geneva, he declared that Geneva had become the greatest school of Christ since the time of the Apostles.
Calvin emphasised the importance of education having moral relevance. Calvin also was insistent that it was the parents' responsibility to educate their children. Therefore the control of education should remain with the parents.
Of America's first 126 universities, 123 were Christian. This included Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.
The Reformation also produced some of the greatest works of literature. William Shakespeare (1564-1616) was one of the world's greatest writers. Scriptural quotes and Biblical images from the Geneva Bible permeate Shakespeare's writings.
Similarly, John Bunyan (1628-1688) gave the world one of the greatest novels ever written - Pilgrim's Progress. This parable of the Christian life is one of the all-time most published and widely read books in the history of the world.
John Milton (1608-1674) author of Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained was the secretary to Oliver Cromwell, and also a Puritan.
.
Many music critics declare that Bach was the greatest musician that ever lived. J.S. Bach was an unsurpassed genius, and is acknowledged as the father of modern music. He left no musical form as he found it, says one critic. On the other hand, with every form he touched, he seemed to have said the last word. Bach's teaching notebooks and violin books have been the basis for music theory and practice ever since. Johan Sebastian Bach was a Protestant Christian, a Lutheran. Most of his library consisted of Protestant writings, including all of Luther's writings. Bach taught his pupils that music is an act of worship and all musicians need to commit their talents to the Lord Jesus Christ.
As one critic said: "Bach is to music what Shakespeare is to literature. They are both the greatest." And they were both Protestant Christians.
Free Enterprise and the Work Ethic
Along with some of the greatest art and literature, the Reformation brought about the greatest industrial advances and prosperity ever experienced in history.
The Protestant work ethic, which helped to bring about great prosperity in Western Europe and North America, arose mostly through the Protestant Reformers - particularly John Calvin. "The most dynamic businessmen were to be found in Protestant Holland and the most vigorous industrial growth in Protestant England, both states heavily tinctured with Calvinism." (Historian Richard Dunn).
Max Webber, in his famous book: "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1905), attributed the Capitalist Revolution to Calvinism, its worldly asceticism and Protestant work ethic.
Calvin upheld the right of private ownership of property, taught the Biblical concept of stewardship, promoted free enterprise and freed money from the bondage to which it had been held for centuries by the forbidding of interest being charged. By allowing interest and promoting the work ethic, Calvin unleashed all the powers that capitalism has produced. As a result, the free enterprise system has generated the highest standards of living, the longest life expectancy and the greatest advances in industry and medicine ever experienced in history.
For these and so many other reasons, the Reformation in Europe during the 16th century has to be seen as one of the most important epochs in the history of the world. The Reformation gave us the Bible - now freely available in our own languages. The Reformation also pioneered the now-almost universally acknowledged principles of religious freedom, liberty of conscience, the rule of law, separation of powers and constitutionally limited Republics. All of these foundational principles were unthinkable before the Reformation. The Reformers emphasis on God's sovereignty, that Scripture alone is the final authority, that Christ alone is the head of the Church, that justification is by God's grace, on the basis of the finished work of Christ, received by grace alone. Their teachings on the depravity of man, the Covenant and Church government has influenced law and liberty throughout the Western world and beyond. All of us are beneficiaries of this tremendous movement for Faith and Freedom. It is time that we re-examined the history and the principles of the Reformation.
"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God, except precisely that point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, then I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." Martin Luther
Dr. Peter Hammond
.
Source:http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/howreformation_changedworld.htm
.
Many music critics declare that Bach was the greatest musician that ever lived. J.S. Bach was an unsurpassed genius, and is acknowledged as the father of modern music. He left no musical form as he found it, says one critic. On the other hand, with every form he touched, he seemed to have said the last word. Bach's teaching notebooks and violin books have been the basis for music theory and practice ever since. Johan Sebastian Bach was a Protestant Christian, a Lutheran. Most of his library consisted of Protestant writings, including all of Luther's writings. Bach taught his pupils that music is an act of worship and all musicians need to commit their talents to the Lord Jesus Christ.
As one critic said: "Bach is to music what Shakespeare is to literature. They are both the greatest." And they were both Protestant Christians.
Free Enterprise and the Work Ethic
Along with some of the greatest art and literature, the Reformation brought about the greatest industrial advances and prosperity ever experienced in history.
The Protestant work ethic, which helped to bring about great prosperity in Western Europe and North America, arose mostly through the Protestant Reformers - particularly John Calvin. "The most dynamic businessmen were to be found in Protestant Holland and the most vigorous industrial growth in Protestant England, both states heavily tinctured with Calvinism." (Historian Richard Dunn).
Max Webber, in his famous book: "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1905), attributed the Capitalist Revolution to Calvinism, its worldly asceticism and Protestant work ethic.
Calvin upheld the right of private ownership of property, taught the Biblical concept of stewardship, promoted free enterprise and freed money from the bondage to which it had been held for centuries by the forbidding of interest being charged. By allowing interest and promoting the work ethic, Calvin unleashed all the powers that capitalism has produced. As a result, the free enterprise system has generated the highest standards of living, the longest life expectancy and the greatest advances in industry and medicine ever experienced in history.
For these and so many other reasons, the Reformation in Europe during the 16th century has to be seen as one of the most important epochs in the history of the world. The Reformation gave us the Bible - now freely available in our own languages. The Reformation also pioneered the now-almost universally acknowledged principles of religious freedom, liberty of conscience, the rule of law, separation of powers and constitutionally limited Republics. All of these foundational principles were unthinkable before the Reformation. The Reformers emphasis on God's sovereignty, that Scripture alone is the final authority, that Christ alone is the head of the Church, that justification is by God's grace, on the basis of the finished work of Christ, received by grace alone. Their teachings on the depravity of man, the Covenant and Church government has influenced law and liberty throughout the Western world and beyond. All of us are beneficiaries of this tremendous movement for Faith and Freedom. It is time that we re-examined the history and the principles of the Reformation.
"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God, except precisely that point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, then I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." Martin Luther
Dr. Peter Hammond
.
Source:http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/howreformation_changedworld.htm
.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
The “Pulpit Initiative” and other Dominionist Machinations
Written by Mel Seesholtz
Wednesday, 06 August 2008 16:51
Wednesday, 06 August 2008 16:51
by Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.
The legal minions of Christian Dominionism have been busy for some time finding ways pastors can use the pulpit for political purposes. The Alliance Defense Fund, a group of lawyers dedicated to realizing the dominionist goal of marrying church and state, has taken another step in that direction:
.
The Pulpit Initiative Reclaiming pastors’ constitutional right to speak Truth from the pulpit
The Pulpit Initiative Reclaiming pastors’ constitutional right to speak Truth from the pulpit
.
On Sunday, September 28, 2008, we are seeking pastors who will preach from the pulpit a sermon that addresses the candidates for government office in light of the truth of Scripture. The sermon is intended to challenge the Internal Revenue Code’s restrictions by specifically opposing candidates for office that do not align themselves and their positions with the Scriptural truth. By standing together and speaking with one voice, it is our hope to recapture the rightful place of pastors and churches in American life. [italics added]
.
Do those “Scriptural truths” include the passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that sanction selling one’s daughter into slavery, stoning to death non-virgin brides, people who work on the Sabbath, and those who wear clothes made of two different threads? How about Paul’s scriptural edict in First Timothy: “suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”?
.
No doubt the ADF’s pocketed pastors will cite Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26–27 as proof positive of their bible-based socio-political position. They will, of course, forget to tell the flock that Romans was penned by the same St. Paul who had those “enlightened” thoughts about women’s divinely ordained place in the scheme of things.
.
“Scriptural truths” one and all, are they not? Or does one get to pick and choose which biblical passages are true and which aren’t? If so, what are the criteria for such judgments?
On July 11, 2008, the propaganda organ of Don Wildmon’s American Family Association ran an article titled “Wildmon: Prop. 8 vote crucial in culture battle”:
.
The Arlington Group, a coalition of about 60 pro-family groups and ministries, will stress the importance of the November 4 vote in California on Proposition 8, a proposed constitutional amendment that would protect traditional marriage. To do that, pastors will be encouraged to use one Sunday in September to focus on the sanctity of marriage. Churches also will be encouraged to take up a special offering which will go toward the fight for marriage in California.
The Arlington Group, a coalition of about 60 pro-family groups and ministries, will stress the importance of the November 4 vote in California on Proposition 8, a proposed constitutional amendment that would protect traditional marriage. To do that, pastors will be encouraged to use one Sunday in September to focus on the sanctity of marriage. Churches also will be encouraged to take up a special offering which will go toward the fight for marriage in California.
[italics added]
.
The article reeks with the desecration of language at which dominionists are so adept. Chris Hedges discussed “logocide” in his 2006 book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America:
.
Dominionists and their wealthy, right-wing sponsors speak in terms and phrases that are familiar and comforting to most Americans, but they no longer use words to mean what they meant in the past. They engage in a slow process of “logocide,” the killing of words. The old definition of words are replaced by new ones. Code words of the old belief system are deconstructed and assigned diametrically opposed meanings.
Dominionists and their wealthy, right-wing sponsors speak in terms and phrases that are familiar and comforting to most Americans, but they no longer use words to mean what they meant in the past. They engage in a slow process of “logocide,” the killing of words. The old definition of words are replaced by new ones. Code words of the old belief system are deconstructed and assigned diametrically opposed meanings.
.
“Protect traditional marriage.” What does “protect” mean? If gay and lesbian couples marry, will heterosexual couples stop? If that were the case, then prohibiting same-sex marriage would “protect” heterosexual marriage. But that is not the case. Heterosexual couples still marry in Massachusetts and California. In fact, heterosexual marriage in those states has been totally unaffected by marriage equality. So one has to conclude that by “protect” dominionists mean reserve a civil right to a civil institution for some people and deny it to others: the definition of discrimination.
.
“Traditional marriage.” In biblical times a “traditional marriage” was arranged, and often involved more than one “wife” and several concubines. David’s eight wives, except for Mikal, are listed in 1 Chronicles 3:1-5, and his ten concubines are referred to in 2 Samuel 15:16. Thanks to those good old biblical times, for most of the next two millennia “wives” were deemed little more than the property of their husbands. Are those the biblical “traditions” dominionists want to preserve and protect?
.
The “sanctity of marriage.” What does “sanctity” mean, and to whom? In September 2004 – during the height of dominionists’ pre-election campaign to “save traditional marriage” – the Barna Group, a Christian marketing-research organization, issued a report titled “Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians.” It documented that “among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.” Barna also documented that “nearly one-quarter of the married ‘born agains’ (23%) get divorced two or more times.” The struggle of gay and lesbians Americans to secure the right to a legal, civil marriage clearly demonstrates their belief in the “sanctity” of the institution as well as their respect for it. Can the same be said for those twice-divorced born-againers, many if not most of whom support the dominionist campaign to “protect” the “sanctity” of marriage.
.
A “special offering.” Not only do the members of the Arlington Group want the pulpit politicized, they want the worship service turned into a fund-raising event for a political cause: a clear expression of the dominionist goal of marrying church and state, with the state as the “traditional” subservient wife who adheres to St. Paul’s edict in First Timothy.
.
The “fight for marriage”? It is the gay and lesbian couples who are fighting “for marriage.” Dominionists, on the other hand, are fighting against marriage and to weaken the institution by excluding people who want to support it. The gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to marry are also fighting for the institution by expressing their faith in it. Dominionists, on the other hand, are using it as a political toy and, thereby, demeaning and trivializing it.
.
In keeping with dominionist logocide, Wildmon went on in the One News Now article to claim that the institutions of marriage and the family as well as society itself would collapse if civil equality won the day in California on November 4. In that, he echoed James Dobson – another self-appointed spokesman for God – who, in his 2004 book Marriage Under Fire stated that if gay and lesbian Americans were allowed to marriage, the world would end “as it was in the days of Noah.”
.
There’s good reason the two men share the same rhetoric. They’re both members of the Arlington Group, an organization dedicated to Christian dominionism. People for the American Way offers some insights:
.
The Arlington Group (AG) is the newest coalition of the leaders of Religious Right groups brought together by right-wing strategist Paul Weyrich and Don Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, to coordinate activities. The group is widely credited with being the driving force behind the effort to put marriage protection amendments on the ballot in 11 states in the 2004 election. …
The Arlington Group (AG) is the newest coalition of the leaders of Religious Right groups brought together by right-wing strategist Paul Weyrich and Don Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, to coordinate activities. The group is widely credited with being the driving force behind the effort to put marriage protection amendments on the ballot in 11 states in the 2004 election. …
.
Membership: Members include the heads of 75 (as of September 2006) Religious Right groups such as Paul Weyrich, Don Wildmon, James Dobson, and Gary Bauer. …
.
The Arlington Group describes itself as a “powerful coalition of leaders from the pro-family community, [that] develops and executes national and grassroots strategies to: protect the traditional institution of marriage, increase respect for every human life, limit judicial activism, and act on other moral issues of concern.” …
.
In 2005, the Group threatened to withhold support for the President’s proposed Social Security reforms if Bush did not actively work to pass a federal marriage amendment banning same-sex marriage. … [links added]
.
Theocracy Watch – “a partner project of the
CRESP Center for Transformative Action at Cornell University” – has much more to say, especially about Paul Weyrich. In 1977, Weyrich co-founded Christian Voice. Two years later founded – with Jerry Falwell – the Moral Majority. Weyrich coined the phrase “Moral Majority” which was neither “moral” or a “majority.”
.
Among Weyrich’s other organizations is the Free Congress Foundation. According to Theocracy Watch (and the Anti-Defamation League), Weyrich and his FCF advocate the dominionist agenda. That agenda can be summed up in a few words: Biblical edicts the dominionists decide are literal and valid combined with their concocted version of Christian dogma should have supremacy – dominion – over all secular laws, including the United States Constitution. From Chris Hedges’ American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America:
.
Dominionism is a theocratic sect with its roots in a radical Calvinism. … It teaches that American Christians have been mandated by God to make America a Christian state. … America bcomes, in this militant Biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan.
Dominionism is a theocratic sect with its roots in a radical Calvinism. … It teaches that American Christians have been mandated by God to make America a Christian state. … America bcomes, in this militant Biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan.
.
Under Christian dominionism, America will no longer be a sinful and fallen nation but one in which the 10 Commandments form the basis of our legal system, and the media and the government proclaim the Good News to one and all. Labor unions, civil-rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the workforce to stay at home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship. …
.
The death penalty is to be imposed not only for offenses such as rape, kidnapping and murder, but also for adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, astrology, incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, “unchastity before marriage.” …
.
The moral calculus no longer revolves around the concept of universal human rights, now its center is the well-being, protection and promotion of “Bible believing Christians.” For dominionists, all other religions and any political view other than theirs are Satanic. Weyrich made that clear when he launched a “Christian boycott” of the military because Wicca was recognized as a legitimate religion. From Weyrich’s “‘Satanic’ Army Unworthy of Representing United States,” Free Congress Foundation press release, June 9, 1999:
.
Until the Army withdraws all official support and approval from witchcraft, no Christian should enlist or re-enlist in the Army, and Christian parents should not allow their children to join the Army…
.
An Army that sponsors satanic rituals is unworthy of representing the United States of America … The official approval of satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American soldiers have fought and died for...
.
If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks. It’s time for the Christians in this country to put a stop to this kind of nonsense. A Christian recruiting strike will compel the Army to think seriously about what it is doing.
.
Obviously Mr. Weyrich has no idea what Wicca is or what it isn’t, nor does he understand what “freedom of religion” means. Does he really believe the Army “sponsors satanic rituals”? Weyrich’s assertions are grotesque exaggerations and flamingly flatulent: characteristics the rhetoric of Christian dominionists share. That could be because it’s commonly scripted behind closed doors?
.
Weyrich, Wildmon and Dobson are members of the Council for National Policy: the star-chamber in which Christian dominionists and their wealthy right-wing sponsors plot and plan how to take over of the United States and make it their own theofascist domain.
.
Never heard of the Council for National Policy? That’s not surprising. It’s a highly secretive organization. Subversive organizations usually are. Members never talk about what goes on behind closed doors. Some of what is known is available here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Do the words “shadow government” come to mind?
.
The CNP uses secrecy. Dominionists use fear. Their rhetoric is filled with ominous predictions of impending doom and divinely ordained punishments if the movement’s ideas are not blindly accepted and acted upon. The “enemies of God” are identified and demonized – gay and lesbian Americans head that list – and the faithful are called upon to engage in a holy war to save “Christian America.” As Wildmon wailed, “‘If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I’m afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost … If the homosexuals are able to defeat the marriage amendment … then the culture war is over and we’ve lost – and gradually, secularism will replace Christianity as the foundation of our society.
.
”Wildom and the rest of the dominionist leaders see only black and white. It’s either their way, or utter doom. They prey on people’s fears and exploit their weaknesses. They claim they and they alone know “God’s” will and what’s right and wrong for everyone, and offer simplistic, bumper-sticker answers to complex questions. They play the victim while relentlessly victimizing others. They are the worst humanity, religion and politics have to offer. As Chris Hedges noted, “radical Christian dominionists have no religious legitimacy. They are manipulating Christianity, and millions of sincere believers, to build a frightening political mass movement with many similarities with other mass movements, from fascism … to the ethnic nationalist parties in the former Yugoslavia.”
.
The Alliance Defense Fund’s “Pulpit initiative” – which implies only their pastors can speak “Truth” – and the Arlington Group’s blatant call to use their pastors’ pulpits and collection plates for political purposes attest to the dominionist agenda. They also suggest… desperation.
.
Most of the leaders of Christian dominionism are … old and out of touch. Reading their propaganda one would think America’s youth are embracing evangelical doctrine, fundamentalist ideology and dominionist ideas. They’re not. In fact, America’s youth is moving in exactly the opposite direction and have been for some time. An October 2006 New York Times article reported the exodus:
.
Evangelicals Fear the Loss of Their Teenagers Despite their packed megachurches, their political clout and their increasing visibility on the national stage, evangelical Christian leaders are warning one another that their teenagers are abandoning the faith in droves. …
Evangelicals Fear the Loss of Their Teenagers Despite their packed megachurches, their political clout and their increasing visibility on the national stage, evangelical Christian leaders are warning one another that their teenagers are abandoning the faith in droves. …
.
Their alarm has been stoked by a highly suspect claim that if current trends continue, only 4 percent of teenagers will be “Bible-believing Christians” as adults. That would be a sharp decline compared with 35 percent of the current generation of baby boomers, and before that, 65 percent of the World War II generation. …
.
The board of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group representing 60 denominations and dozens of ministries, passed a resolution this year deploring “the epidemic of young people leaving the evangelical church.”
.
So what did the evangelical and dominionist elders blame for teens’ mass exodus?
Certainly not themselves or their message of intolerance, hate and bigotry:
.
I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.
– Randall Terry
I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.
– Randall Terry
.
Certainly not their hysterical preaching that everyone who disagrees with their extremist agenda is innately evil and the cause of all the world’s evils: The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. – Pat Robertson Certainly not the preposterous anti-knowledge, pro-ignorance claims made by prominent leaders of the dominionist movement:
.
The Bible is the inerrant...word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc. [italics added]
– Jerry Falwell
The Bible is the inerrant...word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc. [italics added]
– Jerry Falwell
.
Nope. They blamed popular culture and, of course, played victim once again citing “a pervasive culture of cynicism about religion.”
.
Cynicism? One of the keynote speakers at the gathering reported on by the Times was the then president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard. He’d been an outspoken critic of gay and lesbian Americans – and especially their desire to marry – until his extra-marital, drug-fueled homosexual trysts with a male prostitute were made public. (Click here. It seem Rev. Haggard was talking about himself and was quite serious about sending him that $1000.)
.
And who could be cynical about the holier-than-thou who advocate amending the U.S. Constitution to make gay and lesbian Americans permanent second-class citizens? Such an effort is backed by pillars of morality and honesty such as the two senators who “named themselves as co-sponsors of” the Marriage Protection Amendment:
.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal, is co-sponsoring the amendment along with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal, is co-sponsoring the amendment along with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
.
Craig, who entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, was detained and charged for attempting to engage in sexual activity with a male undercover police officer. His arrest and plea became public two months later. At that time, Craig attempted to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea of not guilty. To date, his efforts have been denied by the courts.
In July of 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, commonly known as The DC Madam.
.
Every poll shows America’s youth – ages 18-30 – overwhelmingly support equality for gay and lesbian Americans, including the civil right to a civil marriage. In November 2008, Californians will vote on Proposition 8 which, if passed, would amend the state’s constitution and ban the same-sex marriages that are now legal in California. A statewide Field Poll conduced the week of July 15, 2008 found that “if the election were being held now, more voters say they would vote No (51%) on Prop. 8 than would vote Yes (42%). … By age, opposition to Prop. 8 is greatest among younger voters under age 30, as well as among ‘baby boomers’ in the 50 – 64 age bracket.”
.
Today’s youth are media savvy. They can see through frauds and charlatans, and they’ve had enough of the hate, irrationality and what can only be called the blind (and blinding) arrogance so ubiquitous in dominionist rhetoric.
.
To be sure, dominionists will not go extinct. They will change their name and, like a virulent pathogen, lay low until they sense an opportunity to break out and infest the body politic again. Those who have used religion to feed their megalomania and further their own hate-based political and social agenda have always existed. Their names are among history’s most infamous, then and more recently.
.
During the Bush administration, dominionists and the Council for National Policy have had carte blanche. In many ways they have steered the ship of state. That administration is coming to an end. It’s time for religion to again become one of many passengers on the ship, not its captain.
.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)