Zach Uram's Blog

  • Babylon the Harlot

    Here is a free verse poem I’ve written based on Revelation 17. It identifies a great nation Babylon the Harlot who will be utterly destroyed by God. It is my assertion that in fact America is this same Babylon prophesied in Holy Scripture. Below is my poem. ALL IS DESTROYED AND LOST IN THE NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST!

    America has fallen
    How I weep for you
    You used to be
    A shining city
    Upon a hill
    But the seed for your destruction
    Was written in the Constitution
    A multi-cultural, pluralistic
    Multi-religious society
    Is destined for dysfunction
    We should have been
    A strict Christian theocracy
    With no separation
    Between church and state
    50 million aborted babies
    Has sealed our doom
    American will not repent
    A nuclear holocaust awaits
    May God’s holy wrath
    Come swiftly
    And crush America
    Totally and completely

    by Zachary Uram
    (c) 2023

    , , , , , ,
    , , , , , , ,

  • Imputation & Atonement

    Our wicked sins were imputed to Christ on the Cross, and when we are regenerated by God we receive Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to us. This righteousness is utterly alien to ourselves! It is external. We can do NOTHING to merit this perfect righteousness. This is known as double imputation which is part of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. This is the only biblical model of atonement. Anyone who preaches against this double imputation, or who preaches a different model of atonement must be marked out as a false teacher, they should be publicly rebuked, and all Christians should avoid them and their followers!

    It should be noted that this process of imputation, which makes us righteous in our standing before God, that it is not merely nominalistic. God in a real ontological sense makes us righteous as we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. When God declares something with His Word it is absolutely true and real.

    Question 60 of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) asks, “How are you righteous before God?” It then responds: “Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. Even though my conscience accuses me of having grievously sinned against all God’s commandments, of never having kept any of them and of still being inclined toward all evil, nevertheless, without any merit of my own, out of sheer grace, God grants and credits to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner, and as if I had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for me. All I need to do is accept this gift with a believing heart.”

    , , , , , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • The Reformers Didn’t Go Far Enough

    The magisterial Reformers of the Protestant Reformation, men like Calvin, Luther, and Knox, were used mightily by God to restore the preeminence of Scripture and to declare every precept and doctrine taken directly from the Word of God which itself stands as the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith, morality, and praxis.

    But many don’t realize, particularly today’s Reformed, that the Reformers, as important as they were, had a fatal flaw whose effects have carried down through the centuries to the present day.

    That fatal flaw is that they didn’t fully heed their own motto of Semper Reformanda (Always Reforming). Specifically they failed to reform three areas of theology which they inherited from the Apostate Roman church. The Reformers should have rejected every last doctrine associated with Rome which could not be derived purely from studying the Scriptures!

    Tragically, the Reformers erred in 3 main ways:

    1. They kept infant baptism which they inherited from Rome. Infant baptism has sent more souls to Hell than any other tool of Satan! It is truly a Satanic and diabolical man made doctrine. There is absolutely ZERO support for infant baptism in Scripture. The biblical position on baptism is credobaptism (believer’s baptism).
    2. Eschatology. The Reformers adopted and carried on with the amillennial and postmillennial eschatological positions. Rather than the biblical position which dominated the Early Church era – premillennialism.
    3. Covenant Theology – This was developed in the late 16th century. It was based largely on Roman Catholic theology. There is no covenant theology taught in Scripture. The Church Fathers didn’t affirm it either. I think it makes some good points, but I believe dispensationalism does a better job of weaving one cohesive narrative from Scripture. Looking at Scripture from a position of meta-analysis the favored hermeneutic of mine of contextual literalism (a historical grammatical hermeneutic that interprets Scripture in the real and literal sense, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise) produces a system of interpretation which divides the events of Scripture into 7 main dispensations. This works far better than covenant theology, which I find too limited, and which employs things like New Testament priority that are clearly ad hoc additions of man and not derived natively from Scripture. The promises to Israel in the OT have not been cancelled or overridden and replaced by the Church. God made unconditional covenant with Israel and He will fulfill every single promise which He made. Sadly also one can connect the deplorable rise in antisemitism with covenant theology and particularly amillennial eschatology. Dispensationalism doesn’t have those problems. By the way dispensationalism (in its full fledged modern form) is less than 100 years younger than Reformed covenant theology. But you can find many of the dispensational doctrinal distinctives present in the Early Church. So dispensationalism is actually much older than covenant theology.

    We must remember that the Reformers were not perfect. They did not leave us an infallible magisterium, there is no such thing as an infallible confession of faith. The confessions such as the Westminster and the Second London Baptist were very useful documents. I applaud them for containing and defending much theological truth. But if one locks onto them and turns off their mind, and believes every jot and tittle of their preferred confession is the apotheosis and summit of purified theology then they err greatly.

    Some Reformed will latch onto the teachings of the Puritans as their gold standard. The Puritans wrote much that is edifying, but it’s unhealthy to only view theology through Puritan colored glasses! Much has developed since the time of the Puritans. To reject it all summarily because it doesn’t conform to Puritan theology is a fatal mistake.

    I’ve named 3 main areas where the Reformed confessions simply did not reflect biblical truth. That doesn’t mean we should discard the entire confession. But it does mean we should always be Bereans, searching, studying, and ever reforming and comparing a given doctrine with Scripture with Sola Scriptura as our guide.

    Sadly, in my nearly 50 years of life experience (40 years of that being a born again Christian), I’ve noticed most Christians, the Reformed included, are not very good at critical thinking. They do not possess the capacity for originality of thought. They want to be spoon feed theology. And once they master the Reformed confession of choice, they are locked into that one static set of doctrinal positions for the rest of their entire lives! It’s shocking and truly sad. This is not what Christ wants from His children. We are commanded to be Bereans. Interestingly I notice the similarity with the vast majority of Reformed and Roman Catholics. Catholics have locked onto the combined opinions of the Early Church Fathers and don’t deviate or change doctrine. And most Reformed lock into the Reformers’ beliefs and one of the Reformed confessions, and they don’t deviate or change doctrine in their lifetimes! This is very sad and unacceptable. God wants us to use our minds and think for ourselves for His glory! Scripture exhorts us to “study to show thyself approved”! Study is an active and ongoing lifelong process.

    I’ve also noticed in numerous discussions and debates with most Reformed: I will make a logical, reasoned argument fully rooted in Scripture and their counter-argument will invariably be, “Well that’s not what the Reformers taught.” or “That’s not what the Westminster confession states.” I feel like facepalming when this happens. I actually don’t believe it’s even dawned on most Reformed that the Reformers could have gotten an area of theology wrong, and that God might have risen up people who give us even better theology. I also think this applies to Reformed confessions. Most Reformed view their confessions in a very unhealthy and unbiblical way as if it was the last and final word, the penultimate gospel truth! This is shocking and it’s actually a cult-like behavior. And no, I’m not saying most of my fellow Reformed are in cults! But it’s very apparent and very disturbing.

    I have also noticed that many Reformed will get angry and extremely aggressive, hostile, and their tone will become acerbic and confrontational, if you challenge even one single area of theology that the Reformers held to, or that the Reformed confessions contain. It’s apparent, from a psychological analysis, their identity has become so wrapped up with the confessions they cannot imagine how any Reformed could think differently. In other words, they are highly emotionally invested in their confessions. This behavior is unhealthy and unbiblical.

    Another thing I’ve noticed and experienced first hand numerous times is that if you challenge one single point of theology in a confession (in my case it would be the 1689 Second London Baptist confession of faith) they will denigrate you and assert you are not a true Reformed Baptist. Even if the point of doctrine in contention has nothing to do with baptism, they still feel confident in making such obnoxious and false assertions.

    I urge my fellow Reformed to keep reforming and reject these 3 erroneous theological positions inherited from Rome! SEMPER REFORMANDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Belly Smacking Forever

    I smack my belly at night

    It is such a delight

    I smack it during the day

    As I yell hip-hip-hooray

    Smacking my belly is the way to go

    I smack it fast and I smack it slow

    Smacking my belly will never go out of style

    I’ll smack it the extra mile

    Smacking my belly fills me with glee

    It makes me truly happy

    I smack my belly during all types of weather

    I smack it hard and I smack it light as a feather

    I’ll smack my belly in Heaven for all eternity

    Won’t you come and smack your belly with me

    by Zachary Uram

    (c) 2023

    ,
    , , , ,

  • The Supreme & Critical Importance of Sola Scriptura

    The more I carefully and closely examine Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies, the more problems and outright error I find. These theologies were 100% man made. Reformed theology alone is derived directly and solely from Scripture. The Roman Catholics and Orthodox are the blind leading the blind, tossing and drifting alone on the sea by every wave of error. They have nothing to anchor them. Thank God for Sola Scriptura!

    We can learn a great lesson by examining the sad cases of Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologies. They have elevated man made philosophies, doctrines, and so-called traditions to the same level of authority as Scripture. This is a diabolical and fatal error. Scripture alone is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. It alone carries the supreme gravitas and authority. It has the authority structure which is preeminent. It is not only the highest of all possible authorities, but it’s also the final authority. If tradition, even what Roman Catholics and Orthodox call so-called Sacred Tradition, is in conflict with Scripture, the former must be jettisoned and quickly abandoned. But that is not what these sacramental and institutional churches do. They love their man made doctrines and traditions which they will defend more robustly than even Scripture! This is sickening. As an adherent of Sola Scriptura it pains me greatly to see this Satanic deception at work. Sola Scriptura (and the other 4 Solas) alone acts as a protective mechanism; a bulwark against error creeping into out doctrine. Once that firm anchor is abandoned any type of blasphemous and heretical doctrine can be accepted.

    You may be wondering about magisteriums of the various churches. A magisterium is the teaching authority of the church. The Roman Catholic magisterium is comprised of the various pronouncements of the popes, the results of councils, and the teaching of the bishops. In Roman Catholic theology their magisterium is both infallible as well as equal in authority with Scripture. Clearly it is wrong on both these points. There is no such thing as an infallible magisterium. It is simply a man made figment of the imagination. The arrogance to put a fallible magisterium made up of the opinions of man on equal authority with Scripture is a great blasphemy. The Orthodox church’s magisterium is comprised of the various writings of their saints, the results of ecumenical councils, and the traditions which they believe have been passed down from the Apostles. The Reformed church, which I belong to, also has a magisterium. It consists of doctrine which comes directly from Scripture, the teachings of various learned Reformed theologians, the results of the first 6 ecumenical councils, and the various creeds and confessions. However it should be noted that, unlike the Roman Catholic and Orthodox magisteriums, our Reformed magisterium is strictly guided by the principle of Sola Scriptura. We would never elevate the opinion of a magisterium to the same level of authority of Scripture.

    Let’s look at the Arian controversy. In the early 4th century, a terrible debate ensued between which Christological model was correct. Was Jesus 100% divine, or was He merely human. This controversy raged for decades. The debate began between two learned men: Arius (who asserted Christ was not divine) and a great scholar and holy man Athanasius of Alexandria. At the time Alexandria was the foremost center of learning and housed the Great Library which was later sadly destroyed. Athanasius boldly and eloquently defended Christ’s divinity. It was said that at one point over 90% of the Church’s bishops were Arian and Athanasius was fighting against the general consensus of the whole Christian world. Why didn’t he give up? How was he so sure Christ was really divine as well as human? It was the anchor of Sola Scriptura which allowed Athanasius to boldly defend Christ’s divinity!! He knew that God’s Word was 100% true and infallible and that it alone had supreme authority, not Arius’ opinion. With indefatigable assurance Arius defended Christ’s divinity. Finally, in 325 AD, the Council of Nicaea was convened to settle the controversy. The council condemned Arius as a heretic and issued a creed to safeguard orthodox Christian belief. This was a great victory for Sola Scriptura!

    By the way, a few days ago, I made a post on my timeline on Facebook saying that basically the more I study Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, the more I find it to be erroneous. This should not have come as a shocking statement, nor did it warrant the level of anger I saw in the comments. It’s perfectly natural for a Protestant to find Orthodox and Catholic doctrine to be false. And it’s likewise perfectly natural for a Catholic or Orthodox to find Protestant doctrine to be erroneous. I see it day in day out in this group very strong criticisms of the Protestant faith, and numerous assertions as to the erroneous nature of Protestant theology. Some group members accused me of being cold hearted and a bigot for simply stating my position on doctrine. I did not state my position in a nasty or hateful way, nor was it obnoxious as one lady asserted. I just stated it in a matter of fact way. Once again, sadly, I see the double standard at work which I’ve written about before. Catholics and Orthodox cry foul when you mirror their criticism of the Protestant faith back at them. Really this is quite shameful. Some people need to examine their own hearts and repent for so viciously and callously condemning me and insulting me personally.

    My treatment is no great matter. Christ suffered infinitely more for my wicked and heinous sins. So if I have to suffer for defending the authority of Scripture and the truth it is a small price to pay.

    This latest incident only adds support and confirms my earlier suspicions that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox actually have very thin skin. In other words, they can dish it out (the continual criticisms and attacks upon Reformed theology), but they can’t take it. When criticism and critical examination occurs on their theologies they became instantly hyper-defensive, reactionary, react in a uncharitable way by screaming personal insults, hurling ad hominems, and failing to deal with the criticisms. They will respond to strawmen which they erect and then tear down. In all my years of debating and discussing theology online I’ve only seen 3 Catholic gentlemen who didn’t respond with rancor or anger to challenges to Catholic theology.

    Such is the supreme and critical importance of the principle of Sola Scriptura in the life of a church, that I can confidently assert that any church which is without this foundational principle is defective and dysfunctional.

    All of this only confirms in my mind the absolute truth which I follow thanks to the Holy Spirit leading me, excellent Reformed theologians and teachers who I’ve learned so much from, committed Reformed pastors and elders who have fed me good manna, and the anchor of Sola Scriptura and the other 5 Solas! May you open my detractors eyes and hearts Lord, grant them repentance and sincere belief in the Gospel. Let them experience the New Birth and be born again to eternal life in Christ! Amen!

    For your edification here is an outstanding video by the late and dearly missed Dr. R.C. Sproul (founder of Ligonier Ministries) explaining Reformed theology. In this video he discusses Sola Scriptura.

    , , , , , , , , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Ecumenism: Common Ground or Compromise of Doctrine?

    It’s no secret that the Christian visible church is fractured (the institutional Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches), yet in another sense we have unity in the true Church which is the invisible Body of Christ. It’s made up of the regenerate (God’s Elect) in all the various institutional churches and denominations.

    Can we achieve common ground? Can we work together? Do our significant differences preclude cooperation? Is there any overlap in our theologies?

    First let’s consider what the 3 major churches (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant) share in common:

    1. The belief in a Triune God who Has revealed Himself both in man’s history as well as in His recorded Word which is Holy Scripture.
    2. The belief that Jesus is the Messiah.
    3. The belief that Jesus is the God-Man Who has 2 natures perfectly in balance, a divine nature (100% divine) and a human nature (100% human).
    4. The belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
    5. The belief that Scripture is a major authority. Orthodox and Catholics believe there are other authorities on the same level as Scripture. Whereas we Protestants believe Scripture is the highest and final authority in matters of faith and praxis.
    6. We all believe in Jesus’ teachings and commandments, to feed the poor, clothe the naked, pray for our enemies, to turn the other cheek if we are offended, to love God with our whole heart, mind and soul, to love our neighbor as ourselves, etc.
    7. The belief that we should spread the Gospel to the entire earth.
    8. We all meet on the Lord’s Day – the first day of the week, Sunday.
    9. We all hear God’s Word, praise and worship God each week.
    10. We worship God with music, some with instruments and some without.
    11. We hear a message/sermon/homily each week.
    12. All of our churches has various outreaches and social ministries to help people.
    13. All of our churches have time set aside for Bible study.
    14. We all practice communion, though we differ on its significance and meaning.
    15. We all believe marriage is a God designed institution between a biological man and a biological woman, and that they make a solemn covenant before God.
    16. The importance of prayer in a believer’s life.
    17. The importance of reading and meditating upon Scripture.
    18. We all place value on the teachings and lives of Christians who have gone before us.

    Now let’s examine some areas where our 3 main churches differ:

    1. Eschatology (End Times events)
    2. Covenant theology or dispensationalism
    3. The meaning of baptism.
    4. How one enters the new covenant.
    5. Whether one can have assurance of salvation or not.
    6. Whether one can lose their salvation and go from a saved to an unsaved state.
    7. How we are justified. Whether it is on the basis of faith alone or faith plus works.
    8. Whether salvation is strictly monergistic (God acting alone), or synergistic (Man cooperating with God).
    9. Ecclesiology and church governance
    10. Whether one has Reformed or non-Reformed soteriology (how we are saved).
    11. Whether one is a Calvinist, Arminian, or Molinist in their soteriology.
    12. Whether or not baptismal regeneration is salvific or not.
    13. Whether infants can possess faith.
    14. The various Marian doctrines – whether one accepts some, all, or none of them.
    15. Whether one believes the extraordinary gifts such as prophesy, words of knowledge, speaking in tongues, etc. are valid or not.
    16. Whether charismatic theology is valid or not.
    17. Whether Hell is eternal conscious torment, recapitulation (souls can be released from Hell after a certain period of time), or annihilation (souls cease to exist).
    18. Whether the visible (sheep and goats), or the invisible church (Elect sheep only) is the true Body of Christ.

    I’ve given two equal lists of 18 items per list of both things our 3 churches share in common, as well as differences. I think it’s fair to say we have a good deal in common, yet real differences (non trivial ones) exist.

    I believe true and effective ecumenism is not compromising on our many theological differences, yet finding ways to work together, and to attempt to gain greater understanding of each other on the basis of our shared brotherhood and sisterhood in Christ. That is my goal.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • A Critical Examination of Sacramental Theology: Another Gospel?

    The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches both have 7 sacraments, they are roughly the same.

    The 7 Sacraments celebrated in the Catholic Church are Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance and Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

    Contemporary Orthodox catechisms and textbooks all affirm that the church recognizes seven mystēria (“sacraments”): baptism, chrismation, Communion, holy orders, penance, anointing of the sick, and marriage.

    The word sacrament comes from the Latin word sacrare, meaning “hallow” or “consecrate.” In its most literal sense, sacrament means “holy obligation.” In practice, a sacrament is an act or ritual that is believed to grant or bestow God’s grace. According to the Roman Catholic Church, “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us, the visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1131).

    Sacramentalism is the teaching that the sacraments are efficacious in and of themselves and necessary for salvation. The doctrine is common to both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which teach that participation in the rites confers God’s grace upon the participants.

    Is sacramentalism correct? Is salvation attained by the keeping of the sacraments? The answer is a resounding no, for, as the apostle Paul wrote, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9, ESV). Salvation is a gift that cannot be earned. The very meaning of grace is “undeserved favor.” To insist eternal life can be gained through ritualism frustrates the grace of God and negates Jesus’ finished work on the cross.

    Let us consider these other passages:

    • “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28, ESV).
    • “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1, ESV).
    • “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:6, ESV).
    • “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith’” (Galatians 3:11, ESV).Sacramentalism has its roots in Judaism; in ancient Israel, the rituals of circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, and bathing for purification were common practices. The sect of the Pharisees placed great emphasis on handwashing, not so much for sanitary purposes, but as a ritual against personal defilement. The practice of ritualistic handwashing was seen as a restorative measure against defilement, but were the Pharisees truly honoring God by the keeping of their traditions? In the following passage, we see the manner in which our Lord Jesus responded to their religious customs:

    “Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?’ And he said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

    “This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
    in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

    You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men’” (Mark 7:1–8, ESV).

    Outwardly, the performing of elaborate rituals gave the Pharisees the appearance of piety, but Jesus, knowing the hardness of their hearts, condemned these hypocrites for “making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do” (Mark 7:13, ESV).

    Sacramentalism is unbiblical, for, if the performance of rites and rituals is necessary for salvation, the gospel’s message of grace is made void and Christianity becomes just another works-based religion. As believers in Christ Jesus, we joyfully partake in the ordinances of baptism and communion, but we do so because we are saved and not in order to be saved.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/sacramentalism.html

    This sacramental system of theology developed over time. Some of these are found in Scripture, but most are foreign to it.

    We Reformed actually have sacraments ourselves. In the Reformed tradition, there are two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper, also known as communion. These sacraments, instituted by Christ, are a means of grace within the covenant community.

    We recognize these 2 sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as channels of God’s grace. But, unlike the sacramentalism of the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, we don’t view this grace we receive through the sacraments as being saving grace. It is not salvific.

    The Catechisms of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both teach that these sacraments are not only needed for salvation for an individual. But further, they believe it is impossible to be saved in the normal course without them. They still believe God is free to act and save individuals, but it would be extraordinary and very risky to the given soul. Sacramentalism is the tracks that keep their train running smoothly.

    Now, let’s examine each of the 7 sacraments of the two sacramental churches I mentioned:

    1. Baptism – This is valid Scripturally, however, it is not valid in the form observed by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. They believe baptism is salvific (baptismal regeneration). We Reformed believe baptism is a means of grace, but that is all.
    2. Confirmation – This is not biblical. In the New Testament there is no doctrine of confirmation.
    3. Communion – This is biblical. However there is wide divergence on how our respective churches view it. Orthodox and Catholics affirm that the bread and wine are the true mystical Body and Blood of Christ. This is known as the Real Presence. Catholics believe in the process of transubstantiation (developed in the Medieval church) to describe the mechanics of what is taking place once the priest consecrates the bread and wine. The Orthodox have various theories, but most Orthodox leave it as an unexplained and unknowable mystery. The Reformed church believes that Christ is present in a real way, but spiritually, not physically.
    4. Penance and Reconciliation – Scripture certainly encourages us to make peace with people who we’ve wronged or vice versa. But it doesn’t need to be made a sacrament. It’s just part of a normative Christian life. Penance is unbiblical. Christ paid the price for every single sin we would ever commit – past, present, and future. There is nothing in Scripture which says we must atone for our personal sin via penance. Many people the Catholic and Orthodox churches recognize as saints believed in harsh physical penance which they inflicted upon their bodies through self-flagellation, jumping into ice cold water, and other ways. This is not biblical at all.
    5. Anointing of the Sick – There is nothing in the New Testament which instructs Christians to anoint the sick. We are exhorted to pray for the sick and minister to them as best we can physically. In the Old Testament prophets were anointed, but that practice didn’t carry over into the New Testament Church.
    6. Holy Orders – There is absolutely no precedent in Scripture for this. No where in Scripture do we find men becoming monks or women becoming nuns, and taking on certain vows such as poverty, chastity and obedience. On the contrary the normative experience for Christian men and women is marriage and to produce offspring. God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. Some monks and nuns lived on just bread and water for years, or subjected themselves to cruel physical deprivations or harsh living environments. These things have no intrinsic value, and one doesn’t become holier than a normal Christian by doing these things. A normal Christian has the very perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to them, so varying degrees of holiness is simply an illusion. I am just as holy as any person that the Orthodox or Catholic church deems as saints. I should also mention that the goal of these sacramental systems is sainthood for Catholics, and theosis (a process where we become divinized) for Orthodox. We are already saints, and Scripture refers to all Christians as saints so the Catholic position is wrong. And theosis is deeply blasphemous. Even when we receive our glorified bodies someday we still won’t be as little gods or divinized. There is nothing in Scripture which says we should have the goal of theosis for ourselves as believers. This is a spurious doctrine of man, it’s not from God and should be rejected categorically.
    7. Matrimony – Certainly marriage is biblical, and it’s both honorable and encouraged. God instituted marriage. However it need not be a sacrament. A marriage is a covenant before God between a man and woman. It does not confer grace.

    As you can see from my analysis above, the rigid structure of sacramentalism cannot save, and is actually antithetical to the Gospel. Sacramental theology is man made and is not rooted in Scripture. It is a great deceit and falsehood, developed by Satan, to lure people away from the saving Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone. People in sacramental churches may hear the Gospel, but it’s taught almost as an addendum or afterthought.

    People in the Catholic and Orthodox churches are taught from a young age that the life of the Church and the normative way of living for Christ is through the sacramental system. This is a lie from Hell! In these churches one is not taught that true salvation is monergistic and only possible through the God-given gifts of true repentance and believe in the authentic Gospel. They are not taught that they must be born again.

    Sacramental churches teach that the rites and rituals of sacramental theology are absolutely essential to salvation. What you end up with is a works-based system (works righteousness) which is totally false and against the true path to salvation. I’ve talked with literally thousands of people who were raised in sacramental churches and left, or who are actively still in those churches. And one thing I noticed is that, over time, they came to rely on the rigid strictures and formalism of the sacramental system as their hope for salvation. Priests will even tell you if you don’t participate in sacramentalism you are outside the Church! This is a false gospel from Satan.

    This discourse should have demonstrated to you how vitally important the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation are. If these sacramental churches had been guided by Sola Scriptura at a foundational level from the very beginning, this awful system of sacramental theology would never have developed. Another illustrative case of what can happen when a church abandon’s God’s Word as the primary and final authority!

    Sadly, I must conclude that churches which practice and teach sacramental theology are actually teaching “another gospel” which Scripture warned us of, a false gospel that has no power to save men’s souls. I exhort Catholics and Orthodox to flee this wicked man made system and embrace Reformed theology!

    , , , , , , , , , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Union With Christ: On the Errors of Infant Baptism & Baptismal Regeneration

    Baptism Deconstructed

    I think many Christians, who fall prey to the theological errors of infant baptism (paedobaptism), and the concept of so-called covenant children, are confused about what the covenant is for believers, and how one enters it. The covenant sign of the new covenant is spiritual circumcision of the heart (as opposed to the physical circumcision of the old covenant). Baptism by water is NOT the covenant sign. Unlike the old, the new covenant is wholly different and better Scripture tells us. The covenant sign as I said is spiritual circumcision when God grants repentance and saving faith to an individual. It is a strictly monergistic act. Water baptism is a synergistic work of man. And no, faith is not a work of man. Unlike the old covenant, the new covenant membership is made up of only the regenerate (the Elect sheep)!! So infant baptism can’t possibly be the covenant sign since millions of babies baptized as infants grow up to be reprobates (unregenerate). We Reformed believe one who is truly Elect cannot lose their status as being saved. Unlike the Roman Catholics who will vacillate between saved and unsaved thousands of times throughout their life! I call that Yo-Yo soteriology!

    Baptismal Regeneration

    It’s no secret that the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church both practice infant baptism, specifically they believe in baptismal regeneration.

    Proponents of baptismal regeneration sometimes will say that water baptism is God’s proscribed method of saving souls. This is terribly false! If we say that you recite a certain phrase and baptism with water and the child is now miraculously regenerate that degrades Christianity to a type of witchcraft where one says the spell or incantation, does the ordained act, and gets a supernatural effect. No that is absolutely not how salvation works!

    Baptismal regeneration goes against the whole counsel of Scripture and is absolutely demonic and Satanic! It has been Satan’s most effective tool. Infant baptism has sent literally billions of souls to Hell because they trusted in their baptism and figured they were “already saved” so they never learned of biblical repentance and the gift of saving faith which God grants His Elect sheep vis a vis the hearing of the Gospel!

    Credobaptism Is Biblical

    Scripture is clear that believer’s baptism (credobaptism) is the only biblical model of baptism. There is not in the New Testament a single case of explicit and unambiguous infant baptism (and no, examples of household baptism doesn’t imply infants were present, let alone baptized), nor baptismal regeneration. So both positions, of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, are arguing from silence which is the weakest of all forms of argumentation.

    The only way to make a case for infant baptism or baptismal regeneration is to cherry pick certain so-called proof texts which are then interpreted via eisegesis not proper exegesis. Also such proponents also employ faulty unbiblical hermeneutics in their analysis of Scripture.

    Born of water and Spirit?

    In John 3:5, Jesus tells Nicodemus, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.” This statement emphasizes the crucial role of spiritual rebirth in one’s relationship with God. In the excellent article below we’ll examine John 3 which is the seminal text on baptism since it’s Jesus Himself who is teaching us! Pay careful attention.

    In John 3, Jesus uses the phrase “born of water” in answer to Nicodemus’s question about how to enter the kingdom of heaven. He told Nicodemus that he “must be born again” (John 3:3). Nicodemus questioned how such a thing could happen when he was a grown man. Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5).

    Being “born of the Spirit” is easily interpreted—salvation involves a new life that only the Holy Spirit can produce (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6). But there are a couple different schools of thought on what Jesus meant when He said, “born of water.” One perspective is that “born of water” refers to physical birth. Unborn babies float in fluid in the amniotic sac for nine months. When the time for birth arrives, the amniotic sac bursts, and the baby is born in a rush of “water,” entering the world as a new creature. This birth parallels being “born of the Spirit,” as a similar new birth occurs within our hearts (2 Corinthians 5:17). A person once-born has physical life; a person twice-born has eternal life (John 3:15–18, 36; 17:3; 1 Peter 1:23). Just as a baby contributes no effort to the birth process—the work is done by the mother—so it is with spiritual birth. We are merely the recipients of God’s grace as He gives us new birth through His Spirit (Ephesians 2:8–9). According to this view, Jesus was using a teaching technique He often employed by comparing a spiritual truth with a physical reality. Nicodemus did not understand spiritual birth, but he could understand physical birth so that was where Jesus took him.

    The other perspective is that “born of water” refers to spiritual cleansing and that Nicodemus would have naturally understood it that way. According to this view, “born of water” and “born of the Spirit” are different ways of saying the same thing, once metaphorically and once literally. Jesus’ words “born of water and the Spirit” describe different aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be “born again.” So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must “be born of water,” He was referring to his need for spiritual cleansing. Throughout the Old Testament, water is used figuratively of spiritual cleansing. For example, Ezekiel 36:25 says, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities” (see also Numbers 19:17–19; and Psalm 51:2, 7). Nicodemus, a teacher of the law, would surely have been familiar with the concept of physical water representing spiritual purification.

    The New Testament, too, uses water as a figure of the new birth. Regeneration is called a “washing” brought about by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (Titus 3:5; cf. Ephesians 5:26; John 13:10). Christians are “washed . . . sanctified . . . justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). The “washing” Paul speaks of here is a spiritual one.

    Whichever perspective is correct, one thing is certain: Jesus was not teaching that one must be baptized in water in order to be saved. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in the context, nor did Jesus ever imply that we must do anything to inherit eternal life but trust in Him in faith (John 3:16). The emphasis of Jesus’ words is on repentance and spiritual renewal—we need the “living water” Jesus later promised the woman at the well (John 4:10). Water baptism is an outward sign that we have given our lives to Jesus, but not a requirement for salvation (Luke 23:40–43).

    https://www.gotquestions.org/born-of-water.html

    I personally favor the interpretation where water refers to the physical birth waters that occur when a baby is born. But we have Christian liberty since Scripture is not adamant on any of the various interpretations mentioned in the article. This doesn’t mean that one can hold to the baptismal regeneration position and be biblically consistent.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • The Lost Generations: Christians in America to Become a Minority by 2070

    The Problem

    I’ve noticed recently some polling showing that young people aged 18-25 are leaving the faith they were raised in record droves! These young apostates are the Millennials and Gen-Z’ers.

    Some Context

    Let’s be frank, the real issue here is not that these churches (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant) didn’t have a good enough youth pastor, the senior pastor didn’t capture their attention and keep them entertained, they didn’t have the trendiest worship music, or any other superficial metric is to blame. The truth is that these people left the Church because they were never converted! In other words as Scripture says, “they were never of us.”

    Also I think a good number of the pastors and elders were also unconverted. In many churches in America you can attend numerous times without once hearing the authentic Gospel preached.

    What To Do?

    We need to drop the seeker sensitive garbage, put away all forms of entertainment – whether it be in preaching or in praise and worship, and preach the pure Gospel and let the Holy Spirit do His work to raise up a new generation of believers.

    Parents have a huge impact on their children. I think it is a very good thing when the whole family worships together: I mean participating in the Church or public services, in addition to having an active and constant prayer life at home. Such a foundation is extremely important for the future adult, especially if they are separated later on, during the teen years and early adulthood.

    Some Sobering Statistics

    The religious landscape of the United States continues to change at a rapid clip. In Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019, 65% of American adults describe themselves as Christians when asked about their religion, down 12 percentage points over the past decade. Meanwhile, the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” now stands at 26%, up from 17% in 2009.

    Both Protestantism and Catholicism are experiencing losses of population share. Currently, 43% of U.S. adults identify with Protestantism, down from 51% in 2009. And one-in-five adults (20%) are Catholic, down from 23% in 2009. Meanwhile, all subsets of the religiously unaffiliated population – a group also known as religious “nones” – have seen their numbers swell. Self-described atheists now account for 4% of U.S. adults, up modestly but significantly from 2% in 2009; agnostics make up 5% of U.S. adults, up from 3% a decade ago; and 17% of Americans now describe their religion as “nothing in particular,” up from 12% in 2009. Members of non-Christian religions also have grown modestly as a share of the adult population.

    The data shows that just like rates of religious affiliation, rates of religious attendance are declining.3 Over the last decade, the share of Americans who say they attend religious services at least once or twice a month dropped by 7 percentage points, while the share who say they attend religious services less often (if at all) has risen by the same degree. In 2009, regular worship attenders (those who attend religious services at least once or twice a month) outnumbered those who attend services only occasionally or not at all by a 52%-to-47% margin. Today those figures are reversed; more Americans now say they attend religious services a few times a year or less (54%) than say they attend at least monthly (45%).

    Broad-based declines in share of Americans who say they are Christian

    The changes underway in the American religious landscape are broad-based. The Christian share of the population is down and religious “nones” have grown across multiple demographic groups: white people, black people and Hispanics; men and women; in all regions of the country; and among college graduates and those with lower levels of educational attainment. Religious “nones” are growing faster among Democrats than Republicans, though their ranks are swelling in both partisan coalitions. And although the religiously unaffiliated are on the rise among younger people and most groups of older adults, their growth is most pronounced among young adults.

    Furthermore, the data shows a wide gap between older Americans (Baby Boomers and members of the Silent Generation) and Millennials in their levels of religious affiliation and attendance. More than eight-in-ten members of the Silent Generation (those born between 1928 and 1945) describe themselves as Christians (84%), as do three-quarters of Baby Boomers (76%). In stark contrast, only half of Millennials (49%) describe themselves as Christians; four-in-ten are religious “nones,” and one-in-ten Millennials identify with non-Christian faiths.

    Only about one-in-three Millennials say they attend religious services at least once or twice a month. Roughly two-thirds of Millennials (64%) attend worship services a few times a year or less often, including about four-in-ten who say they seldom or never go. Indeed, there are as many Millennials who say they “never” attend religious services (22%) as there are who say they go at least once a week (22%).

    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

    Analysis of the Data

    Sadly, this data shows:

    • Fewer Americans identify as Christian.
    • Of the Christians who do identify as Christian, fewer are attending church.
    • The number of Millennials who identify as Christians has shrunk considerably in a decade.
    • Fewer Millennial Christians are attending church.
    • The number of “nones” (those without a religious affiliation such as atheists and agnostics) has skyrocketed in a decade.

    Since the 1990s, large numbers of Americans have left Christianity to join the growing ranks of U.S. adults who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” This accelerating trend is reshaping the U.S. religious landscape, leading many people to wonder what the future of religion in America might look like.

    What if Christians keep leaving religion at the same rate observed in recent years? What if the pace of religious switching continues to accelerate? What if switching were to stop, but other demographic trends – such as migration, births and deaths – were to continue at current rates? To help answer such questions, Pew Research Center has modeled several hypothetical scenarios describing how the U.S. religious landscape might change over the next half century.

    The Center estimates that in 2020, about 64% of Americans, including children, were Christian. People who are religiously unaffiliated, sometimes called religious “nones,” accounted for 30% of the U.S. population. Adherents of all other religions – including Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists – totaled about 6%.1

    Depending on whether religious switching continues at recent rates, speeds up or stops entirely, the projections show Christians of all ages shrinking from 64% to between a little more than half (54%) and just above one-third (35%) of all Americans by 2070. Over that same period, “nones” would rise from the current 30% to somewhere between 34% and 52% of the U.S. population.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/modeling-the-future-of-religion-in-america/
    Chart shows U.S. Christians projected to fall below 50% of population if recent trends continue

    Chart shows U.S. ‘nones’ will approach majority by 2070 if recent switching trends continue

    As you can see, by 2070 Christians would fall into a minority position and so-called nones (atheists, agnostics, etc.) would be in a majority position. I don’t want to live in America ruled by atheism! This is not the nation my grandparents fought for, this is not the nation I want to live in. I can only imagine the horrific laws the atheists/agnostics will enact once they control virtually every American institution! Thank God I will be in Heaven by then!!! I WEEP FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN SAINTS!

    Parental & Church Influence

    The number one developmental factor in children’s lives are their parents. Second is their churches. Sadly many parents no longer attend church; so thus, their children also don’t attend. And they never hear the Gospel (faith comes by hearing), and thus they are never given the gifts of repentance and faith through sovereign election. Sadly, even for the children who do regularly attend church, many are never exposed to the true saving Gospel. And the hard truth is that for many who are raised the so-called “right” way by godly parents, they will never be regenerate because they are not a member of God’s Elect. You can have 10 Doctor of Theology degrees worth of head knowledge, but that doesn’t count for a single iota in terms of salvation. Many a learned soul has been damned to Hell.

    Infant Baptism & Covenant Children

    I am strongly against infant baptism and the whole concept of so-called “covenant children” that is popular with many Presbyterian Reformed believers. You can be exposed to the Gospel and godly influences your entire life, from baptism to old age. But, unless you are one of the Elect, chosen by God without any consideration of or basis in any qualities or merits of yourself, then you will die as a reprobate and go to Hell. The only truly covenant child is a child who at age 7 (the age of reason), or older, is granted repentance and saving faith after hearing the Gospel. Baptism does absolutely nothing to change our spiritual state. And raising our children to love and fear God, teaching them doctrine, teaching them how to read and study the Bible, these are all noble things. But don’t kid yourself and think your child has a greater chance at being regenerate than some kid in China raised under atheistic communism. How many millions upon millions have been baptized as infants who go on to prove by their lives that they were never Christ’s. And consider all the millions of souls raised in godly Christian homes, who turned out to be reprobates.

    , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Economic Slavery: The Tyranny of the Credit Scoring System

    There was a time when a man’s word was good enough to get credit, but those days are long gone sadly.

    Before 1989 there was no such thing in America as a FICO credit score. Before then if you went to a local bank and applied for a mortgage, they’d take into account how long you’d been a customer, your salary, and your monthly expenses. The same thing for buying a new car. One didn’t need a “credit score” to make use of credit.

    It wasn’t until credit reporting became computerized in the 1960s that the industry would become consolidated. 

    In the 1960s, there were more than 2,000 credit bureaus across the U.S.. Over the course of the next 20 years, that number would shrink to five and, eventually, to the three major credit bureaus that exist today, Lauer explains.

    “Before [the 1960s], all the files were in filing cabinets, on papers and cards,” says Lauer. “So we have these bureaus that have lots of money. They come into a town and buy up all the local credit bureaus with all [of] their information and then computerize it.”

    It would take longer for credit scoring to gain widespread popularity in the U.S., however, as lenders were hesitant to give up their use of character assessments in the evaluation of someone’s creditworthiness. 

    Today, FICO scores are considered to be the most widely used type of credit score.

    According to Sally Taylor, vice president and general manager of FICO Scores, the company was founded in 1956 and would initially work with business clients to develop credit scoring models that were specific to that company.

    A company would hire FICO and then use the its customer files to produce an individualized model, which would then be used to calculate the credit risk level of its customers, explains Lauer. 

    In 1989, FICO worked with the national credit bureaus to create a credit scoring model that could be used to evaluate all consumers — this is when the first generalizable credit score was born.

    “The idea that there’s a generic model means that lots of different companies can use a credit score for the first time and this makes credit scoring much more accessible and popular among lenders,” says Lauer.

    FICO scores were then cemented as a crucial part of the financial decision-making process when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started requiring mortgage applicants to submit them in the mid-1990s.

    https://www.cnbc.com/select/when-did-credit-scores-start/

    Ever since the credit score was introduced it’s been increasingly used by credit card companies, car dealerships, and banks to block and marginalize low income workers and workers on fixed incomes (like me who is disabled), and bar them from getting the car loan, mortgage, or credit card they desperately need. And the galling thing is that while this is happening, the people who have the least need for credit (the wealthy) have the best credit scores and get the lowest interest rates.

    Those who what are deemed poor or average credit scores are forced to take out secured cards with ridiculously high rates (18% to 32%) – loan shark rates if you wanna get real.

    The existing credit score system routinely discriminates against, and thus disenfranchises, millions of low income workers and people on fixed incomes. It is a system rooted in bigotry!

    Criticism of credit scoring systems in the United States

    Credit scoring systems in the United States have garnered considerable criticism from various media outlets, consumer law organizations,[1] government officials,[2] debtors unions,[3][4] and academics. Racial bias,[5] discrimination against prospective employees,[6] discrimination against medical and student debt holders,[7] poor risk predictability, manipulation of credit scoring algorithms,[8] inaccurate reports,[9] and overall immorality are some of the concerns raised regarding the system. Danielle Citron and Frank Pasquale list three major flaws in the current credit-scoring system:[10]

    1. Disparate impacts: The algorithms systematize biases that have been measured externally and are known to impact disadvantaged groups such as racial minorities and women. Because the algorithms are proprietary, they cannot be tested for built-in human bias.
    2. Arbitrary: Research shows that there is substantial variation in scoring based on audits. Responsible financial behavior can be penalized.
    3. Opacity: credit score technology is not transparent so consumers are unable to know why their credit scores are affected.

    The scoring system has also been critiqued as a form of classification to shape an individual’s life-chances—a form of economic inequality.[11] Since the 1980s, neoliberal economic policy has created an inverse correlation between the expansion of credit and a decline in social welfare—deregulation incentivizes financing for the consumption of goods and services that the welfare state would alternatively provide.[12] Credit scoring systems are seen as scheme to classify individuals creditworthiness necessitated by the loss of these collective social services.[11][13] The credit scoring system in the United States has been compared to, and was the inspiration for, the Social Credit System in China.[14][15]

    The use of credit information in connection with applying for various types of insurance or in landlord background checks (for rental applications) has drawn similar amounts of scrutiny and criticism, because obtaining and maintaining employment, housing, transport, and insurance are among the basic functions of meaningful participation in modern society,[16] and in some cases (such as auto insurance) are mandated by law.[17]

    Discriminatory effects

    Credit scores are widely used as the basis for decisions to allow or deny individuals the opportunity to do things such as taking out loans, buy houses and cars, and open credit cards and other kinds of accounts. [18] This has been criticized as a practice having discriminatory effects.[19] Credit companies purport to measure creditworthiness by looking at information like: the number of accounts held, the age of associated credit accounts, consumer payment history of borrowed money, and the punctuality and consistency of payments.

    As credit scores have become necessary to maintain credit and purchasing power, this system has been criticized as a wall between favored and disfavored classes of people.[11] The expansion of accessible credit can come with a downside of exclusion as people with poor credit (those that are considered high risk by credit scoring systems) become dependent on short-term alternatives such as licensed money lenders (the home credit industry), pawn brokers, payday lenders, and even loan sharks.[20] Credit scores can function as a form of social hierarchy that creates opportunities to exploit poor Americans. This can also prevent people from ever escaping their poverty or a poor financial past.[21]

    Credit scoring systems also act as a way to treat individuals as objects that are subject to a particular set of quantifiable attributes.[22] In addition, they have a degrading potential that celebrates calculability over human needs.[23] Discriminatory responses to poor credit create a self-fulfilling prophecy as it raises costs for future financing which increases the likelihood of being unemployed or insolvent.[10] Since credit scores aim to classify people, other markets have expanded its applicability for use as a screening or assessment tool.[11] Credit is no longer used just for financial products such as mortgage loans, but is increasingly being applied cross-institutionally for other services such as:

    • car insurance [17]
    • health insurance[16]
    • starting utilities (electricity, natural gas, water, etc.)[24][21]
    • employment[5][25]
    • rental housing[16]
    • small purchase financing (e.g. cell phones, appliances, etc.)

    Alternative credit scoring systems can use data such as rental payments, utility payments, subprime credit, and cell phone bills.[26] Other sources are social media activities, internet browsing history, employment history, student history, past loan application dates and locations, or the method one uses when purchasing gasoline.[27] Scores have also used for bespoke purposes such as dating.[28] Prior to the formation of the Fair, Isaac and Company (FICO) or the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970), early credit scoring systems such as the Retail Credit Company (now Equifax) in Atlanta, Georgia gathered information on individuals’ sexual lives, disabilities, their political ideologies, and social behaviors.[21] Today, some scoring systems such as those developed by Versium Analytics are moving far beyond scores for financial products to measure probabilities that a consumer will commit fraud, cancel a subscription, be at risk of identity theft, buy environmentally friendly goods, donate to charity, among others.[16][29]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_credit_scoring_systems_in_the_United_States

    As you can see from this Wikipedia quote the current credit scoring systems in America are inherently unfair and broken. I’ve personally felt the negative effects of these systems. My sister and I were denied several apartment rentals because our credit scores were deemed too low. Also we are unable to obtain credit cards with sane and non-discriminatory interest rates!

    It’s unnecessary 

    There’s no question that a computer can point out a person’s potential for future trouble. But so can a human who reviews a credit report. It should not take software to see if someone has the potential to go bad. Lenders are relying too heavily on scoring factors alone. 


    It’s unfair 

    Computers don’t care about special circumstances. Everything is either black or white. There is no consideration of a person’s basic character or allowance for the fact that people can change their lives and their behaviors. A computer looks at data and assigns a number. Negatives stay on your credit report for seven years or longer. Murderers have been known to walk out of prison on appeal or probation in less time than it takes to clear one’s credit history. 


    It’s a conflict of interest 

    Fair Isaac sells its products and services to companies that issue personal lines of credit. On its Web site it boasts that it influences more than 13 billion credit decisions each year and has sold more than 10 billion FICO scores since 1985. To achieve a high credit score, Fair Isaac has programmed its scoring model to require multiple open lines of credit. It creates the problem for consumers (not enough credit), charges them a fee to diagnose it (credit score), and then prescribes a remedy (get more credit), which sends that consumer to the very industry that creates Fair Isaac’s income stream.


    It’s punitive 

    Jeffrey Strain of http://www.TheStreet.com says that a low credit score could cost individual consumers $1 million in their lifetimes. 

    Mortgage. According to http://www.MyFico.com, someone with a good credit score between 760 and 850 can get a mortgage at 6.346 percent APR. But a person with a low score between 500 and 579 will pay 10.152 percent APR. Over the 30 years of the loan, the difference would be $288,000. 

    Auto loans. Good credit score? You can expect to pay around 7.2 percent APR at this time. But if you have a low score, expect that amount to be nearly double at 14.9 percent APR. 

    Credit cards. A poor credit score can translate to a credit-card interest rate close to 20 percent, or more.

    Insurance. Now that insurance companies have jumped onto the credit score bandwagon, they have adopted their own similar type of scoring based on a person’s credit report. Low score? Expect to get socked with higher premiums —much higher.

    Housing. Even landlords are now requiring credit checks as part of the application process for renting an apartment or other real estate. A low score can result in a hefty increase in the deposits required. 

    https://www2.cbn.com/article/not-selected/credit-scoring-flawed-system

    So we’ve seen that the current credit scoring system is broken, flawed, and highly biased! Here is an excellent article by a scholar from the CATO Institute discussing the issues and possible solutions.

    Conclusion

    The credit scoring system, which has its roots in a Chinese Communist social credit scoring system, ballooned into a systematic tool of discrimination which marginalizes and stigmatizes tens of millions of Americans every single day. We need to demand better. Change must come!

    It’s like they are chaining people to their credit score!

    Violet Uram
    , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,