-
The New Mission Field
For generations (some 45-50 years): Gen-X, Millennials, and finally Gen-Z, there has been this popular idea among Christian parents that they could use their children to retake pagan society for Christ. So they were in effect active missionaries when they went to government (public) K-12 schools and universities.
This idea has had devastating effects. Instead of transforming their pagan friends and the culture, more often than not, their pagan friends and the anti-Christian culture transformed them into backslidden, lukewarm apostates.
Lifeway Research conducted a survey in 2017 of young adults to gather statistics on youth leaving the church by asking about their experience. In 2017, 66% of those surveyed said they stopped attending church.
New research from LifeWay has revealed the challenge churches face in keeping young people in the pews as they head off to college.
A new study from the research group found that two-thirds of young adults who attended a Protestant church regularly for at least a year as a teenager said they stopped going for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22.
The study found that the likelihood of leaving church increased with age, with the proportion saying they regularly attended church falling from 69 per cent at the age of 17 to 58 per cent when they were 18, and 40 per cent by the time they were 19.
Once the participants were into their twenties, only one in three said they were still attending church regularly.
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/most-young-christians-drop-out-of-church-in-college-years/131490.htmWe talk a lot about young people walking away from the church, abandoning their Christian beliefs. The research is scary – studies show that as many as 70% of Christian students leave the church during college. Here are the top five reasons we believe (from talking with hundreds of parents, pastors, and youth workers) most students give up their Christian identity in college.
- No Grounding — At best, many young believers don’t know why they believe what they believe. Often, those who think they do have never had their foundation of faith seriously challenged. Worst, many 18- to 25-year-olds have no hold on what Christianity actually teaches at all. In fact, The Barna Group’s research on the matter concludes that “less than one-half of one percent of adults in the Mosaic generation — i.e., those aged 18 to 23 — have a biblical worldview.”
- Sexualization of the University — Here, the statistics are just as disheartening. The stories of broken lives that come from casual sexual encounters discourage even the most optimistic of us. Derek Rishmawy writes at Patheos about the issue saying, “The Bible unsurprisingly starts to become a lot more ‘doubtful’ for some [Millennials] once they’d had sex.”
- Anti-Christian Bias at the University — Public high schools are no breeding ground for discipleship but they are often far better than what is found at most secular universities. University of North Texas sociology professor George Yancey authored Christianophobia and spoke pointedly about the anti-Christian bias in the academy on Summit’s podcast. It should be no surprise that ungrounded, untested Christian students are bolting from a commitment to Christian ideas. They’re simply believing what they are being taught in class.
- Christianity Was Made Irrelevant — Many students who grew up in the church have either hurtful experiences with their church or no truly relevant experiences with their church at all. The once-a-week, every Wednesday night attendance didn’t translate into commitment. An hour or two each week wasn’t enough to overcome the thousands of other attractive but counterfeit opportunities that fulfilled students’ deep needs and created feelings of belonging, worth, and identity.
- No Community — For those that have made it through the gauntlet of the first four pitfalls, they get to campus and find no support. My colleagues working in the Summit Alumni Network and friends at InterVarsity, Navigators, and Young Life would counter that this is their own fault — and who could argue? For whatever reason a student chooses not to engage in Christian community on campus, that student is like the lone gazelle on the African plains: an easy target.
Clearly, sending our children to go to school to be missionaries usually results in them abandoning their faith.
Some of the reasons why I think these children and young adults are not being properly prepared:
- Pastor does not do expository preaching whereby he goes through the Bible verse-by-verse carefully exegeting.
- Children did not attend church services with their parents.
- So-called youth ministry with youth pastors did nothing to build up their faith.
- Children weren’t required to read great works of theology.
- Too much time spent on sports and other extra-curricular activities.
- Poisoning effect of bad wordly friends who corrupt them.
- Attendance at government (public) schools.
- Attendance at non-Christian liberal, atheistic, and secular humanist universities.
- Lack of family devotional time reading Scripture together, the father explaining Scripture and answering questions from children, singing psalms and hymns in worship as a family.
- Lack of adequate prayer life.
- Baptized as an infant. They rested on this work and assumed they were saved, when in fact they never were.
- Being raised in daycare by strangers during their most formative years.
- Both parents working.
- Too many so-called Christian mothers who are committed feminists and insist on placing a full time career above the needs of her family.
- Decisional salvation where one answers an altar call.
- Succumbing to pressure from degenerate and hedonistic popular culture.
- Listening to wordly music that doesn’t honor God.
- Influence of worldly friends.
- Parents not spending enough time with their children.
- Consuming worldly televsion shows and movies.
- Reading worldly books and magazines.
I believe that the lion’s share of the responsibility for these kids lies with the parents. Parents need to evangelize their kids and treat them as unbelievers until they make a credible profession of faith and exhibit fruits of the Spirit. Treating them as ‘covenant children’ only inoculates them against the Gospel. Our children and grandchildren are the new mission field. It’s sad it has come to this, but such is the Great Apostasy.
America, apologetics, Bible, Christian theology, Christianity, degeneracy, education, entertainment, evolution, feminism, film, popular culture, Protestant, Reformed, sanctification, television, The West, theology, TVanti-Christian, apostates, backslidden, children, Christian, Christianity, churches, colleges, Gen-X, Gen-Z, government schools, Great Apostasy, kids, LifeWay, lukewarm, Millennials, missionaries, new mission field, parents, popular culture, public school, public schools, secular humanism, society, statistics, studies, universities, Voddie Baucham, young adults -
Protoevangelium of James
This work is spurious, it is a total forgery, and was not written by the Apostle James. It dates to at the earliest the mid-2nd century, that is 150 years after the last Apostle John died! It is a pseudepigraphical work that purports to give information on Jesus’ early life and Mary His mother’s life that was not written in the Bible.
The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James) is a second-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, her upbringing and marriage to Joseph, the journey of the couple to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and events immediately following. It is the earliest surviving assertion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, meaning her virginity not just prior to the birth of Jesus, but during and afterwards, and despite being condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500, became a widely influential source for Mariology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_JamesThis work became enormously important in Marian studies. Although the Magisterium of the Catholic church rejects it as trustworthy it is to this day still used widely by Catholic theologians, clergy, apologists, and regular laity. It is usually the go-to text, the first thing brought up, when one challenges the notion of Mary being an ever-virgin.
The Protoevangelium of James presents Joseph as a man much older than Mary. It explains the occurrences of Jesus’ brothers and sisters in Scripture by saying they were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (he’s a widower). This narrative is a wicked affront to the truth of Scripture. Joseph was not an elderly man! Catholics envision an elderly man having sex with a 13 or 14-year-old Mary to shock and horrify our modern sensibilities, although in biblical times men were quite often much older than their wives. The linguistics of Scripture is crystal clear, as I demonstrated in a recent blog post you can read below, that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were physical blood relatives, not stepchildren.
To further reinforce the notion of Mary’s alleged ever-virgin status, this work has Mary consecrating herself to God at a young age to be a “temple virgin”. This entire concept is utterly alien to Scripture. Not once in Scripture does such a scenario occur.
By the way, the belief that Mary was an ever-virgin is not a belief held by the Early Church despite what Catholic apologists assert. The scholarly consensus of all available data shows that the belief in Mary as an ever-virgin first appeared in the 4th century – a staggering 300 years after the time of the New Testament Church.
The earliest evidence for the teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin occurs in the writings of the early church father Jerome who was born in A.D. 347 and died about A.D. 419. Prior to Jerome there is no evidence that the early church taught anything other than the scriptural record – that Jesus had siblings.
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/when-did-the-belief-in-marys-perpetual-virginity-start/It’s sad to see what low regard many Catholics hold sacred Scripture. They obviously do not believe in its sufficiency or inerrancy. We see how historically, and in modern times, they are so eager to latch onto any narrative presented by any work which bolsters Magisterium’s claims. Clearly, they hold the Magisterium in higher regard than Scripture.
Another dogma of the Catholic church that this false infancy gospel supports is the notion of Mary’s immaculate status. The so-called Immaculate Conception is the idea she was born without the stain of original sin and remained without sin her entire life. This idea is utterly blasphemous and contradicts Scripture which says that Christ alone was without sin. Allegedly Mary’s parents, Joachim and his wife Anna (or Anne), never had sexual intercourse to conceive her. Just as the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary producing an ovum without male sperm, so too was Mary conceived in the same way. This is beyond blasphemous! It attributes one of the greatest miracles of Scripture as applying equally to Mary as well. This just feeds into the blasphemous and unbalanced cultus of Mary which views her as quasi-divine. She is ever-virgin, she is immaculate. These are divine attributes!
It’s sad to see how spiritually blind and deceived some people are. Both Orthodox and Catholics support the blasphemous doctrine of Mary being an ever-virgin. We must continue to stand on Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) and give it its rightful place of preeminence and the only infallible authority for Christians.
apologetics, Bible, books, Catholic church, Catholicism, Christian theology, Christianity, Orthodox church, Protestant, pseudepigraphical, theologyAnna, Anne, Bible, Christ, Early Church, ever-virgin, forgery, Gospel of James, immaculate, Immaculate Conception, infancy, infancy gospel, James the Apostle, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Joachim, Joseph, Marian studies, Mariolatry, Mariology, Mary, narrative, New Testament Church, Perpetual Virginity, Pope Innocent I, Protoevangelium of James, pseudepigraphical, Scripture, second-century, spurious, temple virgin, virginity -
Mary and Joseph had sex
Joseph and Mary had sex after Jesus was born. Scripture says so. There is no biblical evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is an ad hoc Catholic and Orthodox dogma alien to Scripture. The Bible mentions Jesus’ brothers and sisters!
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 1:24-25“Knowing” someone is a euphemism that means having conjugal relations (sex) with them.
All three Synoptic Gospels mention Jesus’ mother with His brothers.
While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.
Matthew 12:46Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.
Mark 3:31Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.
Luke 8:19In Matthew 13, the Bible reveals the names of four of Christ’s physical blood brothers. It also reveals he had more than one sister. This information is revealed to us in the comments made by those in Nazareth, who knew Jesus and his family for many years, in response to his profound and unique teachings at a local synagogue.
From where did this Man (Jesus) receive this wisdom and these works of power? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joses and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?
Matthew 13:55-56We find additional evidence that Jesus did have brothers in the book of Acts. His remaining eleven disciples he personally taught (Judas had committed suicide), after witnessing his ascension to the Father (Acts 1:4 – 9), went back to Jerusalem. While they waited in the city for the promised Holy Spirit (verses 4 – 5), they gathered to pray together with the following people.
All these were steadfastly continuing with one accord in prayer and supplications, together with the women, including Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers,
Acts 1:14Mary, being a healthy and normal Jewish wife was obedient to God and obeyed the creation mandate, by the time her firstborn son’s ministry started, had given birth through Joseph to at least four other boys and at least two girls for a family composed of at least seven children!
The primary objection to the notion of Mary having other kids with Joseph is the extra-biblical dogma that Mary was a lifelong consecrated virgin. There is absolutely zero support in Scripture for such an idea. It goes against everything we’re told about Mary and Joseph and what we know from linguistic, historical, and cultural studies. We can clearly see how the notion of an ever-virgin Mary is alien to Scripture and is an ad hoc dogma being imposed upon Scripture. Oh, Catholics and Orthodox will make complex cases citing Scripture to support this dogma, but their gymnastics are apparent and go against the plain meaning of Scripture.
I’ve even had Catholics and Orthodox tell me the idea of Mary and Joseph having sex is “revolting” to them. They say that Joseph would never “defile” Mary in that way. What does Scripture say about sexual relations between a man and his wife?
Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
Hebrews 13:4So we see that sex between a husband and wife is not a defilement. It is proper and good. Scripture even says that husband and wife are one flesh and it says that they should not deprive each other of their conjugal rights!
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24This is quoted verbatim in Ephesians 5:31.
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5I think another reason for this kneejerk reaction to the idea of Mary and Joseph having sex is the unbiblical cultus of Mary that has developed over the centuries (it’s found nowhere in Scripture). Many Catholics and Orthodox have an unhealthy and unbiblical view of Mary, and have a fixation on her as this perfectly pure and holy goddess-like being that never sinned (blasphemy since Christ alone was without sin), and was ever-virgin. They also pray to Mary as if she is a deity. I noticed anecdotally speaking that if you challenge such people on these unbiblical dogmas about Mary they will become very upset. The Catholic church even goes so far as to make the Marian dogmas de fide – articles of faith. Meaning one must believe in them to be saved. So their salvation is tied to unbiblical Marian beliefs.
The Catholic/Orthodox argument that Jesus had no blood siblings is extremely weak! The common and primary usage of the Greek term is biological brother, not cousin! There is a Greek word for cousin and it wasn’t used.
The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.
Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.
A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?
There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.htmlHere is the Greek word for brother: adelphos
Here is the Greek word for cousin: anepsiosThe usual word in the Greek language for “brother” is adelphos. It possesses the same latitude of application that the English word possesses. Hence, it can refer to a person who shares the same religion (a spiritual brother). It can refer to a person who shares the same citizenship—a fellow countryman. It can refer to an intimate friend or neighbor. All of these uses are self-evident, and do not encroach upon the literal use of the term.
By far the most prominent use of the term is the literal sense—a blood brother or half-brother, the physical son of one’s mother or father. With reference to the physical brothers of Jesus (i.e., the sons of Joseph and Mary conceived after the birth of Christ), the literal sense is clearly in view in the following passages: Matthew 12:46-48 (the parallel in Mark 3:31-32); Matthew 13:55-56 (the parallel in Mark 6:3; in both passages, “sister” also is used in the literal sense); John 2:12; John 7:3,5,10; Acts 1:14; and Galatians 1:19. Even a casual reading of these verses demonstrates that Jesus had literal, physical brothers. The only reason the face-value import of these verses would be questioned is to lend credence to the post facto Catholic Church doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
At least two assertions have been advanced by those who wish to discount the existence of Jesus’ brothers, and thereby defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. One attempt seeks to broaden the meaning of the Greek word for “brother” to mean “cousin.” According to this view, the “brothers” of Jesus were actually His cousins—the children of Mary’s sister. The assertion that “brother” has this enlarged meaning is made largely on the basis of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). The Septuagint translators sometimes used the Greek word for brother (adelphos) in Old Testament passages in which a near relative or kinsman, who was not technically a physical brother, was under consideration. This claim is true. The Hebrew term for brother (‘ach) occasionally was used to refer to a more remote descendant from a common father who was not technically a brother (Gesenius, 1979, p. 27; Harris, et al., 1980, 1:31; Botterweck, 1974, 1:190). For example, Laban, Jacob’s uncle, was referred to as Jacob’s “brother” (Genesis 29:12,15). Likewise, Abram’s nephew Lot was said to be Abram’s “brother” (Genesis 14:14,16).
However, it must be noted that the decision of the Septuagint translators to adjust to the nuances of the Hebrew term does not prove that the Greek term adelphos had the meaning of “cousin” in the passages referring to Jesus’ kinsmen. After listing a few Old Testament verses where a broader meaning than strictly “brother” is in view, Bauer noted that such passages “do not establish the meaning ‘cousin’ for adelphos; they only show that in rendering the Hebrew ‘ach, adelphos is used loosely in isolated cases to designate masculine relatives of various degrees” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 15, emp. added). In other words, no linguistic justification exists to support the notion that adelphoi could refer to the “cousins” of Jesus. The Septuagint translators employed adelphos for ‘ach in those passages where additional contextual evidence clarified the intended meaning. No such contextual evidence exists in the allusions to Jesus’ brothers in the New Testament, and is therefore an irrelevant comparison.
When we come to the New Testament, where the reference to the brothers of Jesus occurs, Von Soden correctly listed only two possible meanings for adelphos, namely, “either ‘physical brotherhood’ in the strict sense or more generally the ‘spiritual brotherhood’ of Israelites or Christians” (Kittel, 1964, 1:144). A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament. As Walther Gunther clarified: “In no case in the New Testament can adelphos be interpreted with certainty in this sense” (Brown, 1975, 1:256). That’s putting it mildly. McClintock and Strong explained: “[W]hen the word is used in any but its proper sense, the context prevents the possibility of confusion…. If, then, the word ‘brethren’…really means ‘cousins’ or ‘kinsmen,’ it will be the only instance of such an application in which no data are given to correct the laxity of meaning” (1968, 895, emp. in orig.). Lewis stated even more decisively: “ ‘Brothers’ (adelphoi) never means ‘cousins’ in New Testament Greek” (1976, 1:181, emp. added). Indeed, the Greek language had a separate and distinct word for “cousins”—anepsioi (e.g., Colossians 4:10). When a nephew was meant, the relationship was clearly specified (e.g., Acts 23:16). To summarize: “There is therefore no adequate warrant in the language alone to take ‘brethren’ as meaning ‘relatives,’ and therefore the a priori presumption is in favor of a literal acceptation of the term” (McClintock and Strong, 1:895).
Further, when referring to Jesus’ brothers, the expression “his brothers” occurs nine times in the Gospel accounts and once in Acts. In every instance (except in John 7:3,5,10), the brothers are mentioned in immediate connection with His mother, Mary. No linguistic indication whatsoever is present in the text for inferring that “His brothers” is to be understood in any less literal sense than “His mother” (see Alford, 1980, pp. 152-154). Likewise, the contemporaneous Jews would have construed the terms “brothers” and “sisters” in their ordinary sense—like our English words—unless some extenuating circumstance indicated otherwise. No such circumstantial indication is present.
Additionally, if the phrase “brothers and sisters” means “cousins” in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3, then these “cousins” were the nephews and nieces of Mary. But why would the townspeople of Nazareth connect nephews and nieces of Mary with Joseph? Why would the townspeople mention nephews and nieces at all while omitting other extended family relatives? The setting assumes that the townspeople were alluding to the immediate family of Jesus. Barnes noted that to recognize these brothers and sisters as the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary is the “fair interpretation,” and added, “the people in the neighbourhood [sic] thought so, and spoke of them as such” (1977, 1:150). As Matthews commented, “Joseph, Mary, and their children were recognized as a typical family of Nazareth, and when Jesus began his unusual career, they merely asked if He was not a member of this family mentioning their names. If these children were nephews and nieces of Mary, why are they always associated with her and not with their mother?” (1952, pp. 112-113, emp. added).
A second assertion maintains that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Of course, this alleged prior marriage is without any biblical support whatsoever. The New Testament is completely silent on the matter. To postulate its occurrence, at best, is to introduce a question regarding Joseph’s own marital eligibility in his relationship with Mary.
In addition to the verses that allude to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, a corroborative verse is seen in Matthew 1:25. When Joseph awoke from a dream, wherein an angel of the Lord explained the circumstances of his wife’s pregnant condition, Matthew wrote that Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son.” Use of the word “knew,” a common euphemism for sexual intercourse, means that Joseph and Mary abstained from sexual relations prior to the birth of Jesus. While it is true that the Greek construction heos hou (until) does not necessarily imply that they engaged in sexual relations after the birth of Jesus, the rest of the New Testament bears out the fact that where this phrase followed by a negative occurs, it “always implies that the negated action did take place later” (Lewis, 1976, 1:42, emp. added). Bruce observed: “Subsequent intercourse was the natural, if not the necessary, course of things. If the evangelist had felt as the Catholics do, he would have taken pains to prevent misunderstanding” (Nicoll, n.d., 1:69). Alford agreed: “On the whole it seems to me, that no one would ever have thought of interpreting the verse any otherwise than in its prima facie meaning, except to force it into accordance with a preconceived notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary” (1980, 1:9).
The insistence that Mary remained a virgin her entire life is undoubtedly rooted in the unscriptural conception that celibacy is spiritually superior to marriage and child bearing. In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible speaks of marriage as an honorable institution that was intended by God to be the norm for humanity from the very beginning of the Creation (Genesis 2:24; Proverbs 5:18-19; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4). Mary’s marriage to Joseph, and their subsequent production of offspring after the birth of Jesus, had the approval and blessing of heaven. To engage in hermeneutical gymnastics in an effort to protect a doctrine conceived from a misassessment of the sacred and divine nature of marriage and family is the epitome of misplaced religious ardor.
M’Clintock and Strong well summarized the evidence which supports the conclusion that Jesus had literal, uterine brothers: “[S]uch a supposition is more in agreement with the spirit and letter of the context than any other, and as the force of the allusion to the brothers and sisters of Jesus would be much weakened if more distant relatives are to be understood” (1968, 1:895). It is reassuring to know that Jesus experienced familial and fraternal ties. He had four brothers and at least two sisters (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). He experienced what it was like to have His own brothers reject God’s truth (Matthew 12:46-50; John 7:5). Fortunately, those brothers, especially James, later embraced the truth and became active members of the church of Christ (Acts 1:14; 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Corinthians 9:5). “We do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses” (Hebrews 4:15). “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same” (Hebrews 2:14).
REFERENCESAlford, Henry (1980 reprint), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Barnes, Albert (1977 reprint), Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren (1974), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Brown, Colin, ed. (1975), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gesenius, William (1979 reprint), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Kittel, Gerhard, ed. (1964), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lewis, Jack P. (1976), The Gospel According to Matthew (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co.).
Matthews, Paul (1952), Basic Errors of Catholicism (Rosemead, CA: Old Paths Book Club).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1968 reprint), Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Nicoll, W. Robertson (n.d.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
https://apologeticspress.org/did-jesus-have-fleshly-half-brothers-1271/It’s very sad to see millions of Catholics and Orthodox obfuscate the truth on this topic. They have been brainwashed by their churches to ignore the plain and literal meaning of Scripture. They’ve accumulated many unbiblical doctrines as it pertains to Mary and Joseph. The best thing to do is to pray for them and keep sharing the truths of Scripture.
apologetics, Bible, Catholic church, Catholicism, Christian theology, Christianity, Koine Greek, language, marriage, Orthodox church, Reformed, theologyad hoc, beliefs, Bible, brainwashing, brothers, Catholic, children, Christ, Christianity, Church, conjugal relations, conjugal rights, cousins, cultus, de fide, dogma, Eastern Orthodox, gospels, Jerusalem, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Joseph, kids, knew her, Marian Dogmas, Mariolatry, Mariology, Mary, Nazareth, Orthodox, RCC, Roman Catholic, Scripture, sex, sisters, synoptic gospels, unbiblical -
Sovereign Grace
As a Reformed Christian I believe we, as sinners, are saved by God’s sovereign grace. But what exactly does this term mean?
God is all-knowing and all-powerful. He is the uncaused causer. God has always existed. He has no beginning and no end. Everything that happens in our vast universe is either caused by Him or allowed by Him for His own intentions and purposes. This happens in perfect accordance with His will, which is perfect, and it happens precisely when He so wishes it. (Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6). Our triune God is the sole omnipotent ruler of this universe and every other place in existence. He has absolute power and authority. We exist solely due to His will and are sustained according to His good pleasure.
God is sovereign in creation: He created our vast universe, He created our planet Earth, and He created us, humans.
God is sovereign in divine providence (everything happens for a reason and in fulfillment of a purpose that is known only by God).
God is sovereign in our redemption as sinners. Reformed theology teaches that God is in control of our salvation. We believe it is God acting alone Who has chosen people for redemption (before the foundation of our world), it is God who quickens a soul and regenerates them, and it is God who enables man to believe the Gospel. These acts are strictly monergistic (God acting alone) and do involve man’s cooperation (synergism).
He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Ephesians 1:5–6We Reformed believe that God’s sovereign grace is irresistible. When God decides to save a person and call them to Christ, in an instant in time, there is nothing they can do to resist. It’s like a dead person in the ER being shocked back to life by a defibrillator. The deceased person cannot resist. We are spiritually dead and unable to choose God in our natural sinful fallen state.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God
Ephesians 2:8I should mention that God’s grace is wholly and totally unmerited. There is no achievement, quality, or other types of markers that make us deserving of grace. As sinners, we deserve an eternity in Hell. There is nothing a person can do to earn or merit God’s saving grace. Our good works are like filthy rags Scripture tells us.
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
Isaiah 64:6The law condemns us (no human can keep it perfectly except Christ), yet grace offers us salvation. Because of God’s sovereign grace, we have imputed Christ’s perfect righteousness (which is required to be saved and escape our just condemnation) while our sins are imputed to Him.
Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more
Romans 5:20
We are justified by God’s grace. It is the thing that allows us to have a right standing before a perfect, holy, and righteous God.
The 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP) which define Reformed soteriology (how we are saved) are known as the Doctrines of Grace!
and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
Romans 3:24Here is a good article expounding on the Doctrines of Grace:
The Reformed theology of grace, as articulated in the Canons of Dort, informed and influenced the spirituality of the Puritans. These Canons of Dort, also called the Five Articles against the Remonstrants, consist of doctrinal statements adopted by the Synod of Dort in 1618–19 against the Five Articles of the Remonstrants:
- Conditional election based on foreseen faith
- Universal atonement
- Partial depravity of man
- Resistible grace
- The possibility of lapsing from grace
The Synod’s response to these five articles came to be known as “The Five Points of Calvinism” or “Doctrines of Grace”:
- Unconditional election
- Limited atonement
- Total depravity
- Irresistible grace
- Perseverance of the saints
These doctrines highlight the sovereign and gracious work of God in salvation (see The Doctrines of Grace by Boice and Ryken). For the Reformed, grace is a favor that God sovereignly and freely bestows on those who do not deserve it; in fact, they deserve the exact opposite. Grace rests on God’s eternal election without foreseen faith, its ground is the person and finished work of Christ, and its efficient cause is the Holy Spirit. With this grace, man is given the ability to repent and believe. And as a recipient of God’s unwavering favor, man will persevere until the end. There is significant diversity among the Puritan heirs of this Reformed view of grace; there were strong Calvinists like Thomas Goodwin, moderate Calvinists like Richard Baxter, and even Arminian Calvinists like John Goodwin. Nevertheless, these five points of doctrine are the broad lines of the Puritan understanding of grace, which impacted their spirituality in various ways.
What follows are five effects that the Reformed theology of grace had on Puritan spirituality in general.
1. Puritan spirituality flowed from God’s work, not mere human effort.
The Puritans recognized that we do not merit God’s favor, and in fact merit his condemnation. Their view on depravity and grace is clear in the Westminster Confession, in which the Puritan divines maintain that man by his fall has totally lost his ability to choose any spiritual good for his salvation. Their emphasis on total depravity underlined the necessity of God’s sovereign grace in salvation. Hence, as Gleason and Kapic have noted, the spirituality of the Puritans was “predominantly Augustinian” in its emphasis on human depravity and sovereign grace (see their The Devoted Life). Yet this Reformed emphasis on election, depravity, and grace did not stop the Puritans from freely and sincerely offering the gospel to all sinners. In their preaching and writing they called sinners to repentance and faith (see, for instance, John Bunyan’s Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ).
2. Puritan spirituality was grounded in Christ.
Because Christ is the basis of grace, union and communion with him is often foregrounded, and meditating on Christ is one way this manifests in spirituality. Thus, the Puritans wrote lengthy meditations on Christ. Take, for example, Samuel Rutherford’s collection of letters in The Loveliness of Christ and Thomas Goodwin’s The Heart of Christ in Heaven toward Sinners on Earth. Likewise, with this view of grace, the Puritans avoided exalting excessively the physical humanity of the Savior, as seen in certain strains of Roman Catholicism with its emphasis on the Eucharist. Instead the Puritans recognized it was Christ himself who worked salvation and thus whom the heart must love and adore.
3. Puritan spirituality saw the Spirit’s work in the soul as the effectual cause of grace.
Despite our deadness in sin, the Spirit regenerated us, planting the seed out of which a life of grace would bloom. Indeed, the need for regeneration by the Spirit became a dominant theme in Puritan spirituality. To illustrate this, Thomas Goodwin, author of The Work of the Holy Spirit in Our Salvation, once said that at regeneration the Spirit quickened, enabled, and inclined the soul so as to believe and repent. The Puritans believed that all spirituality resulted from the Spirit’s prior work in the soul. It is immediately upon regeneration that man becomes a cooperator with the Spirit, yet this is always in response to the Spirit’s work. Thus, the Puritans stressed the Spirit’s role not only in conversion but also in sanctification. To give an example, they emphasized the role of the Spirit in prayer, realizing that apart from the Spirit we cannot pray in such a way pleasing to God (see Bunyan’s I Will Pray with the Spirit).
4. Puritan spirituality emphasized the Trinity’s work in election, redemption, and sanctification.
This trinitarian emphasis is clearly seen in John Owen’s Communion with God, a work that is not really about prayer but about the doctrine of the Trinity. Owen teaches the Christian that a life of spirituality is about communing with each one of the members of the Trinity in the proper way, each one being the object of our adoration, affection, and prayer. As Rutherford expressed it, “I do not know which person of the trinity I love the most, but this I know, I love each of them and I need them all.”
5. Puritan spirituality treasured God’s preserving grace.
The Puritans spent a lot of time on assurance of faith, on its objective grounds and its subjective marks. They attempted to balance a firm trust in what God has done and is doing, without becoming presumptuous, while also identifying the subjective marks without causing those subjective feelings in the soul to simply become the reason for assurance of faith. For instance, according to Joel Beeke in his book Living for God’s Glory, the delegates at the Synod of Dort recognized that Arminian theology threatened the believer’s eternal security and assurance in God’s sovereign grace. Why? Because according to the Remonstrants you can lose your salvation. By understanding the Reformed theology of grace, the Puritans could enjoy assurance of faith because they knew that God would preserve them for eternity.
Sadly, some historians such as David Bebbington think that the Puritans held the position that assurance is rare. This, Bebbington argues, is in contrast to the evangelical belief which maintains that assurance is normal (see his Evangelicalism in Modern Britain). Scholars such as Beeke and Michael Haykin have challenged Bebbington’s view and convincingly argue that the Puritans practiced and taught assurance of faith (see Beeke’s Quest for Full Assurance and Haykin’s coedited book The Advent of Evangelicalism). That the Puritans preached and taught assurance of salvation is clear. For example, Baxter exhorted his congregation not to sit down without assurance, meaning they should not rest until they were assured of God’s saving grace in their lives. “To all who love Christ sincerely,” said William Pinke, “God presently gives an everlasting assurance of salvation.”
Thomas Brooks expressed his assurance of faith this way: “I am wholly His . . . I am eternally His.”
https://www.reformation21.org/blog/doctrines-of-grace-and-puritan-spiritualityChrist told us how we can do nothing until God the Father calls/draws us:
- “The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him” (John 4:23).“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44).“No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:65).“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all” (John 10:27–29).“I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people [Jew and Gentile alike] to myself” (John 12:32).
“Grace” is more than mercy and love, it superadds to them. it denotes, not simply love, but the love of a sovereign, transcendly superior, one that may do what he will, that may wholly choose whether he will love or no. There may be love between equals, and an inferior may love a superior; but love in a superior, and so superior as he may do what he will, in such a one love is called grace: and therefore grace is attributed to princes; they are said to be gracious to their subjects, whereas subjects cannot be gracious to princes. Now God, who is an infinite Sovereign, who might have chosen whether ever He would love us or no, for Him to love us, this is grace.
Thomas GoodwinThe Kingdom of grace is nothing but…. the beginning of the Kingdom of glory; the Kingdom of grace is glory in the seed, and the Kingdom of glory is grace in the flower; the Kingdom of grace is glory in the daybreak, and the Kingdom of glory is grace in the full meridian; the Kingdom of grace is glory militant, and the Kingdom of glory is grace triumphant…. the Kingdom of grace leads to the Kingdom of glory.
Thomas WatsonGrace and glory differ very little; the one is the seed, the other is the flower; grace is glory militant, glory is grace triumphant.
Thomas BrooksAs rivers, the nearer they come to the ocean whither they tend, the more they increase their waters, and speed their streams; so will grace flow more fully and freely in its near approaches to the ocean of glory.
John Owen
5 Pillars of Reformed Theology, 5 points of Calvinism, Bible, effectual calling, grace, irresitible grace, John Newton, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, justification, law, omipotent, omiscient, predestination, Puritans, Reformed, Reformed theology, Scripture, soteriology, sovereign grace, sovereignty, spiritually dead, Synod of Dort, theology, Thomas Brooks, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Watson, TULIP, unmerited -
How should we worship God? RPW vs NPW
Background
The RPW (regulative principle of worship) is deeply flawed and problematic. It holds that everything which is not explicitly commanded or practiced in Scripture is forbidden. I believe it is overly restrictive, and the way many employ it is legalistic. I favor the NPW (normative principle of worship) over the RPW. Anything which is neither sinful nor explicitly forbidden by God’s Word is permissible.
A great illustration of the problem with RPW is how we choose to make music pleasing to the Lord. Most RPW churches only allow exclusive psalmody (the psalms are sung acapella – no musical instruments are used for accompaniment). However, God has in the past (Old Testament) commanded us to use musical instruments to worship Him. And He never rescinded that command in the NT. Further, as we’ll see below God is worshipped with musical instruments in both the Old and New Testaments.
David danced in worship before the Lord in the temple. And he wasn’t wearing much! Instruments were used in worship in the temple. So we have explicit examples of methods of worshiping God from the OT which are never called into doubt or forbidden in the NT. Yet, just because God doesn’t command them in the NT the RPW rejects them! This is madness and not the way to do theology.
RPW adherents will use crazy examples to try and discredit the NPW, but these are easily refuted. The RPW seems to downplay the newfound liberty we have in Christ. That doesn’t mean anything goes, but it does mean that if we choose to worship God with instruments we aren’t dishonoring God, nor is it Strange Fire!
RPW adherents are inconsistent, and at times hypocritical, because they use things in church for worship that is not explicitly commanded by God such as carrying Bibles, sound systems, and acapella psalm-singing as the only allowed form of corporate worship, this was all never commanded in Scripture. There are many fine hymns that honor and glorify God. RPW will assert since the Psalms are Scripture that they are the only acceptable mode of worship. However, by that logic, we couldn’t have sermons. Pastors would just read Scripture with no additional commentary! It just shows how silly and overly restrictive the RPW can be.
Old Testament worship
As we see in the Psalms quoted below, musical instruments were used in worship in the Old Testament. They were even commanded by God.
The first pillar in the Biblical foundations of instrumental music in worship is the Psalms. When considering the Psalms and instrumental music, most instrumentalists think of Psalm 150, but there are actually a total of twenty-four psalms that mention the use of instruments in worship, either in the psalm heading or in the text itself. We won’t take the time to examine all those psalms, but let’s take a closer look at two of the more familiar psalms that mention musical instruments, Psalm 150 and Psalm 33.
Psalm 150 concludes the book of Psalms with a chorus of praise, including every family of instruments: woodwinds, brass, percussion, and strings:
“Praise Him with trumpet sound; Praise Him with harp and lyre; Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; Praise Him with stringed instruments and pip. Praise Him with loud cymbals. Praise Him on the high-sounding cymbals.” Psalm 150:3-5
Pipe, trumpet, timbrel (or tambourine), cymbals, harp, lyre (similar to the harp), and stringed instruments, representing all four families of instruments and all used in praise of almighty God! Even though this psalm mentions instruments in each of the four families, note the conspicuous absence of singing. Commentators on this psalm have seen this as undeniable Biblical support for instrumental praise alone.
Psalm 33 is the first psalm to mention instruments, and connects the worship attitudes of joy, thanksgiving, and praise with the use of instruments:Sing for joy in the Lord, O you righteous ones;
Praise is becoming to the upright.
Give thanks to the Lord with the lyre;
Sing praises to Him with a harp of ten strings.
Sing to Him a new song;
Play skillfully with a shout of joy.
(Psalm 33:1-3)Take special note of the latter half of verse three in this particular psalm: “Play skillfully with a shout of joy.” We are to play skillfully as we worship the Lord. The famous British preacher, Charles Spurgeon, comments on this verse, “It is wretched to hear God praised in a slovenly manner. He deserves the best that we have.” Let us remember this Biblical mandate to faithfully minister with excellence.
https://preachitteachit.org/articles/detail/psalms-worship-with-instruments/New Testament worship
Musical instruments
Further, contrary to what some RPW adherents assert, we do have precedence of worshiping God with musical instruments in the New Testament. Specifically in the book of Revelation.
“Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Revelation 5:8).
“And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps” (Revelation 14:2).
“And I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God” (Revelation 15:2).
Singing
According to the RPW the only acceptable form of worship is exclusive psalmody. Is this a biblical position? There answer is a resounding no! Here’s the evidence why:
Ephesians 5:18–19 says, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart” (ESV).
Colossians 3:16 continues that idea: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
So we see that the psalms were used for worship, yet other forms of music such as hymns and spiritual songs were also used! Jesus Himself sang a hymn with the disciples after the Last Supper.
Matthew 26:30 “And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.”
Conclusion
We’ve seen that biblically speaking the RPW is unworkable and highly problematic. It nullifies Christian liberty (not abuse), it is overly restrictive in what is allowed in church, and it contradicts Scripture both in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus Himself sang hymns in worship.
We see clearly that, in the context of worship, God allowed:
- musical instruments
- hymns and spiritual songs
Thus, I see no good reason to adopt the RPW, and many reasons to adopt the NPW.
Personally, I find singing the psalms to be edifying. I also find singing certain hymns highly edifying. If churches want to have exclusive psalmody they can, but they shouldn’t condemn other churches which don’t follow that model. Nor should they assert that the RPW makes their worship more biblical and pleasing to God.
I also find pipe organ music very edifying and powerful and a great way to worship God. Here is a performance of a chorale prelude by Johann Sebastian Bach on the hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” (originally written in the German language with the title “Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott”). It is one of the best-known hymns by the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther, a prolific hymn writer. Luther wrote the words and composed the hymn tune between 1527 and 1529. Played by David Christensen on a 1966 Moller organ.
The field of sacred music is vast. God has given brilliant composers the mental capability to write complex and beautiful pieces of music for worship. He also allowed musicians and singers to train and develop their God-given talents.
Here is what I, and many learned musicologists, consider to be the most epic and amazing piece of sacred music ever written. It’s the St. Matthew Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach. It was written by Bach for use in the Lutheran church’s liturgy.
I believe God wants us to give Him our best, and that applies to worship.
acapella, Bach, Bible, Calvin, Christ, classical music, Exclusive Psalmody, forbidden, God, hymns, instruments, Jesus, Johann Sebastian Bach, legalistic, Luther, Lutheran, musical instruments, New Testament, Normative principle of worship, NPW, NT, Old Testament, OT, overly restrictive, precedence, psalm singing, Psalms, regulative principle of worship, Revelation, RPW, Scripture, spiritual songs, St. Matthew Passion, Strange Fire, temple, theology, worship -
New Year Medley 2023
Happy New Year – 2023! Here are a few songs to ring in the new year.
Where Have All The Flowers Gone
This is a very poignant anti-war anthem performed by the 60’s folk music trio Peter, Paul & Mary.
Lyrics
Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing? Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago? Where have all the flowers gone? Young girls have picked them, every one Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn? Where have all the young girls gone, long time passing? Where have all the young girls gone, long time ago? Where have all the young girls gone? Gone for husbands, every one Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn? Where have all the husbands gone, long time passing? Where have all the husbands gone, long time ago? Where have all the husbands gone? Gone for soldiers, every one Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn? Where have all the soldiers gone, long time passing? Where have all the soldiers gone, long time ago? Where have all the soldiers gone? Gone to graveyards, every one Oh when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn? Where have all the graveyards gone, long time passing? Where have all the graveyards gone, long time ago? Where have all the graveyards gone? Gone to flowers, every one Oh when will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn?
The End
This is a fascinating and powerful poetic rock song performed by The Doors. It was co-written by band frontman Jim Morrison. I wonder if his mind was addled by drugs, or if he was suffering from a psychologically disturbed state of mind at the time. Jim was open about hearing voices that plagued him and drove him to drink alcohol in excess and take illegal hard drugs. Morrison likely had undiagnosed schizoaffective disorder. A very tragic talented figure who went too soon.
Lyrics
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I’ll never look into your eyes again
Can you picture what will be?
So limitless and free
Desperately in need
Of some stranger’s hand
In a desperate land
Lost in a Roman wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane
All the children are insane
Waiting for the summer rain, yeah
There’s danger on the edge of town
Ride the King’s Highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby
Ride the snake, ride the snake
To the lake, the ancient lake, baby
The snake, he’s long, seven miles
Ride the snake
He’s old and his skin is cold
The west is the best
The west is the best
Get here and we’ll do the rest
The blue bus is calling us
The blue bus is calling us
Driver, where you taking us?
The killer awoke before dawn
He put his boots on
He took a face from the ancient gallery
And he walked on down the hall
He went into the room where his sister lived, and then he
Paid a visit to his brother, and then he
He walked on down the hall, and
And he came to a door
And he looked inside
“Father?” “Yes, son?” “I want to kill you”
“Mother? I want to…”
Come on baby, take a chance with us
Come on baby, take a chance with us
Come on baby, take a chance with us
And meet me at the back of the blue bus
Doin’ a blue rug, on a blue bus, doin’ a
Come on yeah
Fuck, fuck-ah, yeah
Fuck, fuck
Fuck, fuck
Fuck, fuck, fuck yeah!
Come on baby, come on
Fuck me baby, fuck yeah
Whoa
Fuck, fuck, fuck, yeah!
Fuck, yeah, come on baby
Fuck me baby, fuck fuck
Whoa, whoa, whoa, yeah
Fuck yeah, do it, yeah
Come on!
Huh, huh, huh, huh, yeah
Alright
Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
It hurts to set you free
But you’ll never follow me
The end of laughter and soft lies
The end of nights we tried to die
This is the endAuld Lang Syne
This is a popular song. Traditionally, it is sung to bid farewell to the old year at the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Eve. It’s performed here by The Choral Scholars of University College Dublin.
The text is a Scots-language poem written by Robert Burns in 1788 but based on an older Scottish folk song. In 1799, it was set to a traditional tune, which has since become standard.
The poem’s Scots title may be translated into standard English as “old long since” or, less literally, “long long ago”, “days gone by”, “times long past” or “old times”. Consequently, “For auld lang syne”, as it appears in the first line of the chorus, might be loosely translated as “for the sake of old times”.
The phrase “Auld Lang Syne” is also used in similar poems by Robert Ayton (1570–1638), Allan Ramsay (1686–1757), and James Watson (1711), as well as older folk songs predating Burns. Matthew Fitt uses the phrase “in the days of auld lang syne” as the equivalent of “once upon a time” in his retelling of fairy tales in the Scots language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Lang_SyneLyrics
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and auld lang syne?
Chorus
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we’ll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
And surely you’ll buy your pint cup!
and surely I’ll buy mine!
And we’ll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
Chorus
We two have run about the hills,
and picked the daisies fine;
But we’ve wandered many a weary foot,
since auld lang syne.
Chorus
We two have paddled in the stream,
from morning sun till dine;
But seas between us broad have roared
since auld lang syne.
Chorus
And there’s a hand my trusty friend!
And give me a hand o’ thine!
And we’ll take a right good-will draught,
for auld lang syne.
Chorus -
The Baptism Debate
Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, other Reformed, and some Anglican all believe in either infant baptism or both infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. I submit, respectfully, that these believers are all wrong in their understanding of baptism. In this post, I will discuss the fundamental differences between the credobaptist and paedobaptism positions, and I’ll show why the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is utterly unbiblical.
Background
All the Church Fathers were fallible men who weren’t writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thus I don’t find long lists of Church Father quotes convincing in the least when it comes to baptism and baptismal regeneration! I go solely by Scripture. SOLA SCRIPTURA!
And I’ve heard Christians say, “What about people like Polycarp, Ignatius, and others the apostles trained, surely they have a correct doctrine?” I reject this position because even in Scripture while the New Testament was still being written, we see the apostle Paul had to correct the heretical beliefs of people who he himself trained in the faith! If it can happen to an apostle, it can happen to someone the apostle trained. I put more stock in what the Reformers of the Church believe because they operate on the basis of Sola Scriptura which is thoroughly biblical! Catholics, Orthodox, and other heterodox churches also greatly appeal to the Church Fathers for much of their erroneous theology. So that doesn’t pass muster with me.
It’s clear in Scripture that:
- Infant baptism is not biblical.
- Baptismal regeneration is utterly alien to Scripture and only heavy eisegesis and cherry-picking words or sentences out of proper context can be used to support it.
Infant Baptism
Some of the seminal texts used to legitimize the practice of infant baptism are:
Acts 16:15 “And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ And she prevailed upon us” [cf. 18:18].
Acts 16:33 “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.”
1 Corinthians 1:16 “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.”
It is a major assumption to infer from these texts that infants were baptized. Many households have no infants. There is not one explicit text in Scripture demonstrating conclusively that infants were baptized. Thus the paedobaptist argument is one from silence which is the weakest of all arguments.
Hermeneutics
Some salient points to keep in mind:
- Misinterpreting the covenant signs: The new covenant is wholly new and better than the old. It is not merely a continuation or addendum of the old covenant. It represents a radically new paradigm. The covenant sign of the old covenant was the circumcision of males only. The covenant sign of the new covenant is spiritual baptism (circumcision of the heart), of males and females.
- Covenant membership: In the old covenant, not every member was regenerated. In fact, it seems the majority were not. The new covenant however has all members as being regenerate (the elect).
- Following the wrong model: The New Testament model of salvation is clear and unambiguous: one is to repent and then believe the Gospel. An infant can do neither.
- Argument from silence: The New Testament does not contain one explicit or unambiguous example of an infant being baptized. If infant baptism is true and given its importance it’s hard to fathom how God could have silence on this issue. Given that the majority of Reformed adhere to the Regulative Principle they would have to reject infant baptism since God doesn’t command it.
The Bible is entirely silent about infant baptism, either pro or con. We admit it. We do not profess to get infant baptism from its pages.” “We would not find infant baptism in the Bible, because it is not there, and cannot be gotten out of the Bible.
Dr. Albertus Pieters – Reformed theologian, “Why we baptize infants”.Baptismal Regeneration
I will not address the strongest evidence proponents of baptismal regeneration use to defend their doctrine.
The following quote may appear at face value to support their position. However, if we scrutinize it with the proper hermeneutics and do solid exegesis of the texts we will see clearly that the proper interpretation of Scripture does not affirm baptismal regeneration.
But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
1 Peter 3:14-22 (ESV)Puritan Matthew Henry, in his famous commentary on Scripture, explained what the Apostle Peter truly meant and it does not support baptismal regeneration.
We sanctify God before others, when our conduct invites and encourages them to glorify and honour him. What was the ground and reason of their hope? We should be able to defend our religion with meekness, in the fear of God. There is no room for any other fears where this great fear is; it disturbs not. The conscience is good, when it does its office well. That person is in a sad condition on whom sin and suffering meet: sin makes suffering extreme, comfortless, and destructive. Surely it is better to suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing, whatever our natural impatience at times may suggest. The example of Christ is an argument for patience under sufferings. In the case of our Lord’s suffering, he that knew no sin, suffered instead of those who knew no righteousness. The blessed end and design of our Lord’s sufferings were, to reconcile us to God, and to bring us to eternal glory. He was put to death in respect of his human nature, but was quickened and raised by the power of the Holy Spirit. If Christ could not be freed from sufferings, why should Christians think to be so? God takes exact notice of the means and advantages people in all ages have had. As to the old world, Christ sent his Spirit; gave warning by Noah. But though the patience of God waits long, it will cease at last. And the spirits of disobedient sinners, as soon as they are out of their bodies, are committed to the prison of hell, where those that despised Noah’s warning now are, and from whence there is no redemption. Noah’s salvation in the ark upon the water, which carried him above the floods, set forth the salvation of all true believers. That temporal salvation by the ark was a type of the eternal salvation of believers by baptism of the Holy Spirit. To prevent mistakes, the apostle declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but that baptism, of which the baptismal water formed the sign. Not the outward ordinance, but when a man, by the regeneration of the Spirit, was enabled to repent and profess faith, and purpose a new life, uprightly, and as in the presence of God. Let us beware that we rest not upon outward forms. Let us learn to look on the ordinances of God spiritually, and to inquire after the spiritual effect and working of them on our consciences. We would willingly have all religion reduced to outward things. But many who were baptized, and constantly attended the ordinances, have remained without Christ, died in their sins, and are now past recovery. Rest not then till thou art cleansed by the Spirit of Christ and the blood of Christ. His resurrection from the dead is that whereby we are assured of purifying and peace.
Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary on the Whole BibleNote that Henry says “to prevent mistakes”, because he saw the errors of the Papists and Lutherans. He knows there would be many, sadly, who interjects the false notion that an ordinance & sacrament could confer saving grace, rather than the Holy Spirit who does quicken a soul and thus confer regeneration wholly apart from any work of man.
Salvation is monergistic (God acting alone), not synergistic (God and man acting together). The latter is the heresy of semi-Pelagianism.
I should note that baptismal regenerationists love using the early Church Fathers, to prove their diabolical misinterpretation of 1 Peter 3. They do this with all the so-called proof verses which they believe legitimize baptismal regeneration.m The Church Fathers were fallible men. They were given insights on some matters of Scripture, but to treat them as if they are an infallible oracle of truth is quite absurd.
Credobaptism
I believe that the credobaptist position (also known as believer’s baptism) is the most consistent and biblical. In this view, a sinner is effectually called by God, is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, repents, and believes the Gospel.
Debate
Here’s a great debate between two good friends, Drs. R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur on the topic of baptism
Conclusion
We must love our paedobaptist brethren, yet we have a duty to point out their flagrant error and call them to repentance and right belief. Soli Deo Gloria!
Much weight is given to the Reformers and certainly, their teaching is vital and much needed. I love the Reformers, and I thank God for their obedience and service. However, I don’t believe they were infallible. We must be careful not to idolize a group of people and believe they alone had the greatest understanding of the truth. Or believe that their theological opinions were infallible and inerrant! Catholics and Orthodox do this with the Church Fathers.
Luther was certainly wrong in his support of baptismal regeneration. And I believe Calvin was wrong on infant baptism.
I believe God wants us to be always Bereans searching the Scriptures and comparing doctrine with what Scripture says. We should always be striving for perfection in our doctrine and should always be reforming (semper reformanda); I believe we Reformed Baptists have done that. At great cost and through much suffering we held on to the truth. Everything comes back to God’s Word.
Postscript
My friend David left a good comment on this post which I wanted to address and publish in the post itself because I think it helps clarify some issues readers may have.
Good evening David.
The new covenant is radically different than the old as I said in my post. Scripture does explain the purpose and nature of the new covenant. Most in the old were not regenerated whereas everyone in the new is regenerated.
You are thinking in OT terms. You need to think by NT mindset since so much has changed. God has always had a covenant people, but the old system was always a shadow pointing to the fuller and better covenant in Christ. To assert that since circumcision was the sign of the old covenant, infant baptism must thus be the sign of the new covenant is simplistic and fallacious. Circumcision of the heart (as I explained in my post) is the sign of entrance into the new covenant in Christ. The old covenant was a physical covenant. Man had to do certain work to enter the covenant. The new covenant is a purely spiritual covenant as Jesus explained to Nicodemus. Thus a work like an infant baptism is meaningless and does nothing, but get the baby wet. You can’t do physical work to enter into the new covenant.
Being born again through the Holy Spirit quickening a soul and bringing it to life spiritually, and then sincere repentance and belief in the Gospel is the ONLY way to enter into the new covenant. Infants can neither repent nor believe. Thus they are excluded from the old covenant until and if such time the Lord is pleased to regenerate them. And one more thing about the old covenant: it applied to the children (technically only the males, the females were left in the lurch) and granted them entrance into the covenant but what benefits did they receive? They were part of the nation of Israel (citizenship as we’d say) and had temporal blessings such as the right to live, work, and marry. They were NOT guaranteed salvation in the old covenant. Salvation has always been by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The vast majority of those Israelites under the old covenant were reprobates who were never to be regenerated. The new covenant is a covenant of salvation.
The majority of people I know who were baptized as infants and considered by their parents and churches to be “covenant children” grew up to be reprobates! So that is prima facie evidence that infant baptism is futile. Whereas I know very very few people who sincerely repented and believed the Gospel and later fell away proving they were never regenerated. It does happen, but there are literally hundreds of millions of baptized infants who go to Hell and that is a fact. When Scripture says your children are holy it means through the faith of the parents and being raised in a Christian home they are set apart from pagan children, and they have the chance to be exposed to God’s Word and the Gospel. However, that doesn’t mean they are part of the Elect.
Plenty of Elect parents have non-Elect children! In fact, the pagan who hears the Gospel for the first time, repents, and is granted saving faith in Christ alone is much better off than the hundreds of millions of people who I’ve seen were baptized as infants, even in Reformed families, and heard the Gospel hundreds or even thousands of times, yet they hardened their hearts and were inoculated again the Gospel! These people are much harder to reach. I’d argue that infant baptism does more harm than good overall. For so many people it lures them into a false sense of security and they grow up thinking they are saved by virtue of their infant baptism!
Oh and my post addresses baptismal regeneration and infant baptism – 2 different topics. I never asserted that the Reformed held to baptismal regeneration so you should apologize for fo accusing me of a strawman fallacy.
Anglican church, apologetics, Catholic church, Catholicism, Christian theology, Christianity, Lutheran, Orthodox church, Reformed, theology1 Peter 3, Anglican, Apostle Peter, Apostles, baptism, baptismal regeneration, believer's baptism, biblical interpretation, Catholic, Church Fathers, credobaptism, credobaptist, doctrine, dogma, Dr. Albertus Peters, Early Church, Early Church Fathers, ECF, heresy, hermeneutics, heterodox, Ignatius, infant baptism, Lutheran, Lutherans, Matthew Henry, monergistic, Orthodox, paedobaptist, Papists, Paul, Polycarp, Puritan, R. C. Sproul, R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur, Reformed, Roman Catholic, semi-Pelagianism, synergistic, theology -
Sheer Folly: America’s Ukraine/Russia Policy
It’s madness and utter idiocy for America to goad and antagonize Russia thus provoking a potential nuclear war. The stakes are too high and the risks are not mitigated sufficiently to behave so brazen and foolish. Yet that is precisely the policy the Biden Administration and Congress (including many Republicans) are taking.
The $1.7 trillion omnibus spending package the House of Representatives passed this week, which Biden is likely to approve, will authorize $45 billion in additional spending on Ukraine. That will bring total U.S. funding on that effort to over $100 billion since the start of this year when the conflict started.
Even the way the American mainstream media and the Biden administration characterize the conflict is offensive to Russia and needlessly polarizing. They keep referring to Russia’s involvement as an invasion of Ukraine. Calling Putin Hitler and a fascist is so absurd.
The truth is that Ukraine had a pro-Russian president and majority government until 2014 when the US (led by CIA operatives and funding from people like George Soros) worked to destabilize the region and ousted the pro-Russia president and replaced him with an aggressively anti-Russian leader.
When the Soviet Union broke up in the early 1990s assurances were given to Russia by America and NATO that no former Soviet bloc countries would enter NATO. NATO and EU countries are pushing Russia to a breaking point.
Ethnic Russians in the Donbas region of Ukraine were being killed by the thousands by president Volodymyr Zelensky’s government. They provoked Russia to intervene. Russia is currently taking action to secure the Donbas region and remove the Ukrainian government’s ability to wage war.
Sadly the neocons (neoconservatives) and war hawks have learned nothing since the US debacles in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq! They are pushing for an all-out war with Russia. It’s a proxy war now, but it could easily widen into a broader and deadlier conflict – one involving nuclear weapons.
America, geopolitics, global, government, history, politics, Russia, Soviet Union, The West, Ukraine, war$100 billion, 1990s, absurd, Afghanistan, Biden, Biden administration, CIA, Congress, EU, foolish, George Soros, Hitler, idiocy, Iraq, madness, NATO, neocons, neoconservatives, nuclear, nuclear conflict, nuclear weapons, President Biden, President Zelensky, proxy war, Republicans, Russia, Soviet Union, Ukraine, Vietnam, Volodymyr Zelensky, war, war hawks, Zelensky -
The Christian fish symbol
The fish was used in the Early Church to identify oneself as a Christian. Until the late 4th century Christianity was illegal in the Roman Empire and punishable by death. So Christians had to be cautious and take protective measures to avoid detection by the authorities.
The acrostic ICHTHUS (ΙΧΘϒΣ) identifies Jesus Christ as God’s Son and as the Savior. Thus it is a Christological symbol. Ichthus is the Greek word for fish. Thus we see how it was used as a Christian symbol. Ichthus is the Greek word for fish.
- Ισούς (Iesous) = Jesus
- Χριστός (Christos) = Christ
- Θεού (Theou) = God’s
- ΥιόΣ (Huios) = Son
- Σωτήρ (Soter) = Savior
This fish symbol, also became a code of communication, especially for the first
Christians when persecuted during the Roman Empire. Although Common (Vulgar) Latin was the language, everyone, across the known Western world spoke (the English of the time). Many people, especially educated people, but also Middle Eastern people spoke and understood Greek (and that is why the sign above the Cross said “The King of the Jews” in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek).The fish symbol can also be signified thus:
-
January 6th, 2021: Insurrection or Idiocy?
On January 6th, 2021, as Congress was certifying Joe Biden as the newly elected President as a result of his winning the 2020 presidential election, a group of angry supporters of President Trump stormed the Capitol Building where the members of Congress were, including Vice President Mike Pence. They wanted to stop Congress from certifying the election in favor of Biden. Some of them had previously planned to target certain politicians for assassination including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and also Vice President Pence because he refused Trump’s request to invalidate the election. For months since the election Trump had refused to concede, he claimed there was a vast conspiracy that stole the election from him, the rightful winner in his mind, and given it to Biden. On January 6th, mere hours before Trump supporters sprang into violent action Trump had cajoled and encouraged them to “fight” for him.
Here is a minute-by-minute timeline of the attack/riot.
The Justice Department results of the criminal investigation into the rioters as of December 30, 2021. Based on the public court documents, below is a snapshot of the investigation. Complete versions of most of the public court documents used to compile these statistics are available on the Capitol Breach Investigation Resource Page at https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases.
Arrests made: More than 725 defendants have been arrested in nearly all 50 states and the District of Columbia. (This includes those charged in both District and Superior Court).
Criminal charges:
- More than225 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including over 75 individualswho have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.
- Approximately 140 police officers were assaulted Jan. 6 at the Capitol including about 80 U.S. Capitol Police and about 60 from the Metropolitan Police Department.
- Approximately 10 individuals have been arrested on a series of charges that relate to assaulting a member of the media, or destroying their equipment, on Jan. 6.
- Approximately 640 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds.
- Over 75 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
- More than 45 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, and over 30 defendants have been charged with theft of government property.
- At least 275 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.
- Approximately 40 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three.
Pleas:
- Approximately 165 individuals have pleaded guilty to a variety of federal charges, from misdemeanors to felony obstruction, many of whom will face incarceration at sentencing.
- Approximately 145 have pleaded guilty to misdemeanors. Twenty have pleaded guilty to felonies.
- Six of those who have pleaded guilty to felonies have pleaded to charges related to assaults on law enforcement. Four face statutory maximums of 20 years or more in prison as well as potential financial penalties. Two face statutory maximums of eight years in prison as well as potential financial penalties.
Sentencings:
- Approximately 70 federal defendants have had their cases adjudicated and received sentences for their criminal activity on Jan. 6. Thirty-one have been sentenced to periods of incarceration. Eighteen have been sentenced to a period of home detention, and the other defendants have been sentenced to probation with no term of incarceration.
Public Assistance:
- Citizens from around the country have provided invaluable assistance in identifying individuals in connection with the Jan. 6 attack. The FBI continues to seek the public’s help in identifying more than 350 individuals believed to have committed violent acts on the Capitol grounds, including over 250 who assaulted police officers.
- Additionally, the FBI currently has 16 videos of suspects wanted for violent assaults on federal officers and one video of two suspects wanted for assaults on members of the media on January 6th and is seeking the public’s help to identify them. For images and video of the attackers, please visit https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/capitol-violence. Anyone with tips can call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or visit tips.fbi.gov.
Recently, the Jan. 6 Congressional panel, the House select committee, investigating the Jan. 6 incident, unveiled its comprehensive 845-page final report on the insurrection. This bipartisan committee describes Trump as being deeply rooted in a ‘conspiracy’ to commit insurrection.
The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection recommends barring former President Donald Trump from holding office again.
The recommendation is among the conclusions of the panel’s final report, a comprehensive overview of the bipartisan panel’s findings on how Trump and his allies sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election, released late Thursday evening.
The 845-page report – based on 1,000-plus interviews, documents collected including emails, texts, phone records and a year and a half of investigation – includes allegations that Trump “oversaw” the legally dubious effort to put forward fake slates of electors in seven states he lost, arguing that the evidence shows he actively worked to “transmit false Electoral College ballots to Congress and the National Archives” despite concerns among his lawyers that doing so could be unlawful.
In a symbolic move Monday, the committee in its last public meeting referred Trump to the Justice Department on at least four criminal charges, while saying in its executive summary it had evidence of possible charges of conspiring to injure or impede an officer and seditious conspiracy.
“That evidence has led to an overriding and straight forward conclusion: the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, whom many others followed. None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him,” the report states.
Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, said on Monday that he has “every confidence that the work of this committee will help provide a road map to justice, and that the agencies and institutions responsible for ensuring justice under the law will use the information we’ve provided to aid in their work.”
Special counsel Jack Smith is leading the Justice Department’s investigations related to Trump, including both his post-election actions and classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago resort earlier this year.
Trump swiftly lashed out over the report on his Truth Social platform with false claims about the riot and the 2020 election. He did not address specific findings from what he called the “highly partisan” report but instead falsely blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the breakdown in security that day and resurfaced his unfounded claims of election fraud.
Here’s what’s in the report:
Trump and his inner circle engaged in ‘at least 200’ attempts to pressure state officials
In an effort to overturn election results in key states, Trump and his inner circle targeted election officials in “at least 200 apparent acts of public or private outreach, pressure, or condemnation,” between Election Day and the January 6 attack, according to the report.
There were 68 meetings, attempted or connected phone calls, or text messages, aimed at state or local officials, as well as 125 social media posts by Trump or senior aides targeting state officials.
Trump “spearheaded outreach aimed at numerous officials in States he lost but that had GOP-led legislatures, including in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona,” the report says. (He lost all of those states.)
DC National Guard commander ‘strongly’ considered sending troops to Capitol without approval, Jan. 6 report says
For example, during a January 2, 2021, call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the then-president went through a “litany of false election-fraud claims” and then asked Raffensperger to deliver him a second term by “finding” just enough votes to ensure victory, according to the report.
Trump infamously said, “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”
Committee identifies pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro as architect of fake electors plot
The January 6 committee identifies a little known pro-Trump attorney as being the original architect of the legally dubious fake electors plan: Kenneth Chesebro.
Conservative attorney John Eastman authored a now-infamous memo detailing step-for-step how then-Vice President Mike Pence could theoretically overturn the 2020 election results. But the committee points to Chesebro, a known associate of Eastman, as being responsible for creating the fake electors plot.
“The fake elector plan emerged from a series of legal memoranda written by an outside legal advisor to the Trump Campaign: Kenneth Chesebro,” the report says.
It was previously known that Chesebro was involved in the fake electors scheme, but the committee’s conclusion about his leadership role is new.
What’s in the House January 6 committee report summary
The effort to put forward fake slates of pro-Trump electors is under scrutiny by federal and state prosecutors investigating efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory in 2020.
The committee wrote that Chesebro sent a memo to then-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani after a request from Trump campaign official Boris Epshteyn about a “‘President of the Senate’ strategy,” which wrongly asserted that the vice president could pick which presidential electors to count during the joint session of Congress on January 6.
“President Trump in the days immediately before January 6th, Chesebro – an attorney based in Boston and New York recruited to assist the Trump Campaign as a volunteer legal advisor – was central to the creation of the plan,” the report says. “Memos by Chesebro on November 18th, December 9th, and December 13th, as discussed below, laid the plan’s foundation.”
CNN has previously asked Chesebro to comment about these topics and he has not responded.
Trump WH called Eastman on the day he wrote his memo
Eastman reached out to speak to Trump on December 23, 2020, the same day that he drafted his initial memo on the Pence theory.
Eastman emailed Trump’s assistant, Molly Michael, at 1:32 p.m., according to the committee. “Is the President available for a very quick call today at some point? Just want to update him on our overall strategic thinking.”
The committee wrote that Eastman received a call from the White House switchboard, and the call lasted 23 minutes, according to Eastman’s phone records. Eastman’s two-page memo discussed various ways to ensure “President Trump is re-elected,” even though by then, he had been projected to lose the election, according to the committee.
These new details show how the committee used emails and phone records it obtained after it successfully fought in court to obtain the documents.
The committee obtained Eastman’s emails after a judge sided with the House in a lawsuit where the committee accused both Eastman and Trump of a criminal conspiracy to obstruct Congress and to defraud the government.
Trump latched onto Eastman’s theories that incorrectly claimed Pence could overturn the election, and launched a pressure campaign against Pence in the days leading up to January 6. Eastman was present at a January 4, 2021, meeting between Trump and Pence in the Oval Office where Trump tried to convince Pence he could intervene when Congress certified the Electoral College vote on January 6.
January 6 committee recommends barring Trump from holding office again
Barring Trump from further public office is one of 11 recommendations the committee is making as a result of its investigation.
The panel zeroes in on the section of the Constitution that states an individual who has taken an oath to support the US Constitution but has “engaged in an insurrection” or given “aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution” can be disqualified from office. The former president and others have been referred by the committee to the Department of Justice for assisting or aiding an insurrection.
It calls on congressional committees of jurisdiction to create a “formal mechanism” for evaluating whether those individuals violate that section of the 14th Amendment should be barred from future federal or state office.
Says lawyers should be held responsible
In addition to criminal referrals, the select committee is calling for lawyers involved in the efforts to overturn the election to be held accountable.
“Those courts and bar disciplinary bodies responsible for overseeing the legal profession in the states and the District of Columbia should continue to evaluate the conduct of attorneys described in this Report” the panel writes, adding that there are specific attorneys the report identifies as having “conflicts of interests” for the Department of Justice to evaluate.
The report even calls on Congress to amend statutes and consider the severity of penalties that deter individuals from efforts to obstruct, influence or impede the Joint Session of Congress that certifies election results. It calls for statutes of federal penalties for certain types of threats against election workers to be strengthened.
Although the panel was successful in getting more than 1,000 witnesses to testify as part of its investigation, it still had difficulty gaining cooperation from everyone it wanted to speak to. Its report recommends congressional committees of jurisdiction “develop legislation” to create “a cause of action” for the House to enforce its subpoenas in federal court.
Electoral Count Act reform
One recommendation may soon become reality.
The panel calls on Congress to pass an overhaul of the 1887 Electoral Count Act aimed at making it harder to overturn a certified presidential election – the first legislative response to the insurrection and Trump’s relentless pressure campaign to stay in power.
The House and Senate have each passed their own version of the legislation.
Committee refers Trump to Justice Department
A video of former President Donald Trump is shown on a screen on Capitol Hill on December 19, 2022. J. Scott Applewhite/AP
The House committee lays out a number of criminal statutes it believes were violated in the plots to stave off Trump’s defeat and says there’s evidence for criminal referrals to the Justice Department for Trump, Eastman and “others.”
The report summary first released Monday says there’s evidence to pursue Trump on multiple crimes, including obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make false statements, assisting or aiding an insurrection, conspiring to injure or impede an officer and seditious conspiracy.
The panel says it also has the evidence to refer Eastman on the obstruction charge, and it names him as a co-conspirator in other alleged criminal activity lawmakers have gathered evidence on.
The committee alluded to evidence of criminal obstruction of the House investigation but the summary does not go into detail about that evidence.
Trump’s false victory declaration was ‘premeditated’
The committee outlines 17 findings from its investigation that underpin its reasoning for criminal referrals, including that Trump knew the fraud allegations he was pushing were false and continued to amplify them anyway.
“President Trump’s decision to declare victory falsely on election night and, unlawfully, to call for the vote counting to stop, was not a spontaneous decision. It was premeditated,” the report states.
The committee also revealed emails from Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, from before the 2020 presidential election that say Trump should declare victory regardless of the outcome.
It notes that Trump’s top allies, including those who testified before the committee, acknowledged they found no proof to back up the former president’s claims.
“Ultimately, even Rudolph Giuliani and his legal team acknowledged that they had no definitive evidence of election fraud sufficient to change the election outcome,” it adds, referring to Trump’s then-personal attorney.
“For example, although Giuliani repeatedly had claimed in public that Dominion voting machines stole the election, he admitted during his Select Committee deposition that ‘I do not think the machines stole the election,’” it states.
Millions of dollars were raised on false claims, but RNC showed caution to not go too far
The committee investigators describe how Trump campaign and Republican National Committee fundraising pitches containing false claims of a stolen election ultimately raised more than $250 million – but were met internally with some resistance.
Investigators describe three options that were considered for a post-election fundraising appeal by the campaign. One option, that the campaign opted against using because they knew it was false, said that Trump had won. A second unused option said the campaign was waiting on results. Ultimately, according to the committee, the Trump campaign approved a message that Democrats are going to “try to steal the election” that was written before election night.
The committee describes, based on interview with Trump campaign officials, that much of the material in the fundraising emails was based on messages said by Trump – but were not checked for accuracy before being used to ask for donations.
“President Trump’s claims were treated as true and blasted to millions of people with little to no scrutiny by those tasked with ensuring accuracy,” the committee wrote.
Trump campaign’s deputy director of communications and research Zach Parkinson told investigators that reviews for accuracy were limited to “questions concerning items such as time and location.”
The RNC did eventually tone down some messages, which the committee suggests shows “the RNC knew that President’s Trump’s claims about winning the election were baseless” and made “changes to fundraising copy that seemingly protected the RNC from legal exposure,” according to investigators.
House investigators said that RNC lawyers directed copywriters not to use the term “rigged,” according to interviews conducted by the committee. The panel obtained several examples of fundraising appeals that were toned down to be accurate and less inflammatory.
Trump privately called some of Sidney Powell’s election claims ‘crazy’
White House communications director Hope Hicks told the January 6 committee that Donald Trump had laughed at one of his election lawyer’s claims about foreign powers interfering in the election, calling them “crazy,” according to the committee’s final report.
“The day after the press conference, President Trump spoke by phone with Sidney Powell from the Oval Office. During the call, Powell repeated the same claims of foreign interference in the election she had made at the press conference,” the report said, referring to conspiratorial claims made by Powell, Trump’s onetime attorney, at an outlandish press conference after the 2020 election.
“While she was speaking, the President muted his speakerphone and laughed at Powell, telling the others in the room, ‘This does sound crazy, doesn’t it?’” the report says.
During the press conference, Powell falsely claimed, among other things, that widely used voting machines from the election technology company Dominion Voting Systems featured software created “at the direction” of deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to swing his own election results, and that the company has ties to the Clinton Foundation and George Soros.
“A few days later, the Trump campaign issued a statement claiming Powell was not part of the Trump campaign’s legal team. But Powell’s outlandish claims were no different from those President Trump was making himself,” the committee writes.
Trump refused to act as riot unfolded
Pro-Trump supporters storm the US Capitol following a rally with President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021 in Washington.Samuel Corum/Getty Images
The committee lays out Trump’s failure to act as the riot unfolded, noting that as he watched the riot on television, he made no calls for security assistance and resisted efforts from staffers asking him to call off his supporters.
“President Trump did not contact a single top national security official during the day. Not at the Pentagon, nor at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the F.B.I., the Capitol Police Department, or the D.C. Mayor’s office,” the committee writes. “As Vice President Pence has confirmed, President Trump didn’t even try to reach his own Vice President to make sure that Pence was safe.”
Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee he had this reaction to Trump, “You know, you’re the Commander in Chief. You’ve got an assault going on on the Capitol of the United States of America. And there’s nothing? No call? Nothing? Zero?”
White House staffers, meantime, described being appalled that as the Capitol was under attack, Trump fired off a tweet criticizing Pence.
Republicans release their own US Capitol riot report focused on security failures
Hicks texted a colleague that night to say, “Attacking the VP? Wtf is wrong with him,” according to the committee’s summary report.
“No photographs exist of the President for the remainder of the afternoon until after 4 p.m. President Trump appears to have instructed that the White House photographer was not to take any photographs,” the committee writes, citing testimony from former White House photographer Shealah Craighead.
In the aftermath, on the evening of January 6, Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale told Katrina Pierson, one of the rally organizers, that he felt guilty helping Trump win, the report states.
The events of the day, Parscale said, resulted from “a sitting president asking for civil war.”
Aide characterized Trump’s tone on January 6 as, ‘can you believe this sh*t?’
Trump’s tone during his last known phone call on January 6 was like, “wow, can you believe this sh*t?” according to the White House aide who spoke with him that night.
In newly revealed testimony included in the January 6 committee’s final report, the aide, John McEntee, said Trump told him “[t]his is a crazy day.” The report added, “McEntee said his tone was one of “like, wow, can you believe this sh*t?”
Trump did not express any sadness over the violence that had unfolded at the Capitol that day, McEntee told the panel.
“I think he was shocked by, you know, it getting a little out of control, but I don’t remember sadness, specifically” McEntee said.
He wasn’t the only person with that impression about Trump’s mood.
Ivanka Trump, a senior White House adviser at the time, told the select committee her father was “disappointed and surprised” by the attack on the Capitol.
But when pressed by committee investigators, she could not provide any instances of the president discussing whether or not he did the right thing on January 6 or speaking about those who were injured or died that day.
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN’s Marshall Cohen, Dan Berman and Adam Levine contributed to this report.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/22/politics/jan-6-committee-final-report/index.htmlTrump could be the first president in American history to go to prison after they left office. It is a shame this happened. I don’t know Trump’s level of culpability, but it seems clear that he made many mistakes. Was Trump the man behind a vast orchestrated conspiracy? Or were the people who rioted just idiots getting carried away?
2020 presidential election, 2021, abuse of power, America, arrests, bipartisan, committee, Congress, Congressional panel, conspiracy, controversy, criminal, criminal charges, defendants, Democrat, Donald Trump, evidence, Executive branch, final report, government, history, House, House select committee, illegal, insurrection, Jan. 6, January 6th, Joe Biden, mayhem, Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, panel, President Biden, President Trump, presidential election, prison, report, Republican, riot, Speaker of the House, supporters, timeline, Trump, United States, United States of America, US, USA, Vice President, video, violence - More than225 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including over 75 individualswho have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Zach Uram's Blog 