Archive for the ‘American Idolatry’ Category

h1

Punk’d of Laodicia

July 25, 2007
I had a great laugh this morning… especially after all I went through as i was trying to correct someone on how misinformed he was on emergent/emerging. It was a complete wash as no matter what I stated… even when we agreed… I was wrong and a liar and whatever else they decided to judge me about…

I mean I AM an emerging folk, I think I might know a bit more than they? Nope, they told me what I beleive and insisted they were right.

I found this first at CRNinfo, then I read it at MMI.

Slice Website Punked Yesterday, I talked about how the Slice website has twice in the past month deleted articles from their website without explanation or apology. The first was a story Ingrid got totally wrong. She backtracked, then deleted. Yesterday, she withdrew a story about Tammy Faye and her eternal destiny. Yesterday, news came that the Slice site has been being punked. .

One man who says he was treated unfairly at Slice has taken a different approach. He’s been posting there to see how silly his comments can be and still be taken seriously. According to Rev. Scotty, “I said some really stupid and outright mean things, used scripture way out of context and just made up stuff to post. As long as my target was one of the people they disagreed with I was able to say anything I wanted even to the point of calling a fellow pastor and friend a “dirty old man”.”

While I’m not condoning “Dr Louis” alias, I do find it funny that a group that is constantly calling out people for taking scripture out of context would allow this comment to stand:

I think Rev Scottie (Which I’m not sure if he is even an ordained Reverend) should carefully consider what it means to not be “conformed to this world.” I personaly feel that a goatee signifies a rebelious spirit. I believe this is the type of beard spoken of in Leviticus 19:27.

You can see the exchange here. You’ll notice that Rev. Scottie is the first to comment; then his altar ego, Dr Louis chimes in against himself.

Oh, by the way… Leviticus 19:27 says: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

You can see Rev. Scottie’s site here.

Be Blessed,

iggy

Advertisements
h1

Punk’d of Laodicia

July 25, 2007
I had a great laugh this morning… especially after all I went through as i was trying to correct someone on how misinformed he was on emergent/emerging. It was a complete wash as no matter what I stated… even when we agreed… I was wrong and a liar and whatever else they decided to judge me about…

I mean I AM an emerging folk, I think I might know a bit more than they? Nope, they told me what I beleive and insisted they were right.

I found this first at CRNinfo, then I read it at MMI.

Slice Website Punked Yesterday, I talked about how the Slice website has twice in the past month deleted articles from their website without explanation or apology. The first was a story Ingrid got totally wrong. She backtracked, then deleted. Yesterday, she withdrew a story about Tammy Faye and her eternal destiny. Yesterday, news came that the Slice site has been being punked. .

One man who says he was treated unfairly at Slice has taken a different approach. He’s been posting there to see how silly his comments can be and still be taken seriously. According to Rev. Scotty, “I said some really stupid and outright mean things, used scripture way out of context and just made up stuff to post. As long as my target was one of the people they disagreed with I was able to say anything I wanted even to the point of calling a fellow pastor and friend a “dirty old man”.”

While I’m not condoning “Dr Louis” alias, I do find it funny that a group that is constantly calling out people for taking scripture out of context would allow this comment to stand:

I think Rev Scottie (Which I’m not sure if he is even an ordained Reverend) should carefully consider what it means to not be “conformed to this world.” I personaly feel that a goatee signifies a rebelious spirit. I believe this is the type of beard spoken of in Leviticus 19:27.

You can see the exchange here. You’ll notice that Rev. Scottie is the first to comment; then his altar ego, Dr Louis chimes in against himself.

Oh, by the way… Leviticus 19:27 says: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

You can see Rev. Scottie’s site here.

Be Blessed,

iggy

h1

HITLER’S THEOLOGIANS: The Genesis of Genocide by Stan Meyer

April 24, 2007

Even today there is a theology of hate that states it is alright to judge other’s salvation. Meaning that we can now judge if someone is going to hell… and treat them that way.

Many have already forsaken the way of Love… the way of kindness that leads to repentance and feel it is better to judge others by their redefinition of the “fruit of the Spirit” which is, tithing, reading your bible, going to church, and singing worship songs, none which in itself is bad, but it is a new form of pharisee-ism as it replaces Jesus with “doctrinal rules” and whenever we replace the Bible’s teachings with man made doctrine we are headed for trouble…

This is a tough article but it shows were a theology of hate has lead some before.

Blessings,
iggy

HITLER’S THEOLOGIANS: The Genesis of Genocide by Stan Meyer

April 4, 2007

“For almost twenty centuries . . . the church was the archenemy of the Jews—our most powerful and relentless oppressor and the worlds’ greatest force for the dissemination of Anti-Semitic beliefs and the instigation of the acts of hatred. Many of the same people who operated the gas chambers worshiped in Christian churches on Sunday. . . . The question of the complicity of the church in the murder of the Jews is a living one. We must understand the truths of our history.”

—Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation Leaguei

WAS HITLER FOLLOWING THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS?

Most Christians would say that Adolf Hitler was not a Christian because he did not follow the teachings of Jesus nor did he understand the meaning of the New Testament writings. Yet, in his own way, perverse though it was, he saw the genocide of the Jewish people as a “sacred” mission. Writing in Mein Kampf, Hitler said: “Today, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” [italics in the original].” In addition, there are those who would allege that it was not only Hitler’s personal “theology” but also two thousand years of anti-Semitism by the church in the name of Jesus that laid the foundation for the Holocaust.

Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti- Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years’ prehistory of ‘Christian’ anti-Judaism. . . . —Hans Küngii

It is a painful but inescapable truth that anti- Semitism, which seethes with hate, was spawned and nourished by Christianity, which reveres a Jewish prophet who preached love and compassion. . . .Two thousand years of Christian anti-Judaism . . . hardened hearts against Jews. . . .This mind-set, deeply embedded in the Christian outlook, helps to explain why so many people were receptive to anti- Jewish propaganda. —Marvin Perryiii

From the standpoint of history, was it really Christian teaching that supplied the fuel for the crematoria? Did conservative Christian doctrine really pave the way for the poison that filled the showers? Is there anything in orthodox Christian theology that would lead Germany’s church leaders to advocate murdering six million Jews? Who were the heads of the church, the seminary instructors, the spiritual leaders of Germany’s church in the 1930s? What “religion” were they really teaching? Could it be that a Germany that was leading the world in art, physics and literature—producing Mahler and Wagner, Uhlmann, Klaus Fuchs and Max Born—was sending the world down the road of genocidal mania? Could a Germany that was pioneering in the fields of theology, religious study and biblical scholarship be morally bankrupt? And how could those whose profession was to study God’s Word and lead pastors into God’s truth, based on the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the New Testament, condone or even advocate Hitler’s demonic course? Who were Hitler’s theologians? And what “Christianity” did they teach?
BIRTH OF THE MODERN ERA

To understand the religious climate of a pre-Holocaust Germany (circa 1930s) it is helpful to re-visit the seventeenth century when the Modern Era dawned on Western Europe. The Age of Reason, also known as the Enlightenment and the Age of Rationalism,iv was a period in history when philosophers emphasized the use of reason as the best method of learning truth. Thinkers relied heavily on the scientific method to discover truth in all disciplines. Philosophers emphasized experimentation and careful observation.v These modern thinkers believed that reason could be tested and was therefore reliable, but revelation (which claims to be Godgiven) was beyond testing and therefore unreliable. Many believed that reason must “validate” the claims of the Bible for those claims to be true. John Locke (1632-1704) asserted that reason is “the candle of the Lord set up by Himself in men’s minds” and “must be our final judge and guide in everything.”vi

The Age of Reason produced a generation of Bible scholars known as Rationalists. They argued that only through reason could we learn about God.
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)

Friedrich Schleiermacher, called the founder of Liberal Protestantism, argued that God is unknowable. He taught that it is not possible to verify the historical events described in the Scriptures, such as the parting of the Red Sea, the Exodus from Egypt, or even the giving of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, according to him, faith is merely a “religious feeling.” He wrote, “. . . belief in God, and in personal immortality, are not necessarily a part of religion; one can conceive of religion without God, and it would be pure contemplation of the universe.”vii According to Schleiermacher, religious truth is subjective; it is not derived from the Scriptures but rather is relative to a person’s conscience. Consequently, religious principles of right and wrong are merely interpretations based on an individual’s perspective.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche carried reason’s critique of religion much further. In Thus Spake Zarathustra the protagonist proclaimed, “God is dead.” This was Nietzsche’s dramatic way of alleging that most people no longer believed in God. He lamented that civilization was left with a terrible void since religion no longer provided a basis for making moral choices. He put forth the idea of the übermensch (super human), who through his “will to power” could bring down false ideals and moral codes of his day. This übermensch could overcome nihilism by creating new or better ideals.
CRITICIZING THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES

By the late nineteenth century Liberal Protestant Bible scholars regarded the historical accounts of both Israel and the life of Jesus as inaccurate. In 1906 Albert Schweitzer published The Quest for the Historical Jesus, arguing that we can know very little about the real Jesus. Jesus’ life, the New Testament and even the Torah were cloaked in mythology. Schweitzer claimed that historians needed to “demythologize” the Bible—strip away the miracles and ask questions such as “who really wrote these books?” He maintained that only an historical method rather than a religious one was needed to get a verifiable biography of Jesus. A scientific approach to the Bible was developed, known as the historical-critical approach. In this approach, readers attempted to reconstruct what they believed was the original text. Important to note is that this method denied divine inspiration, rejected miracles, and presumed that the biblical text we have is a composite of editions and alterations by various parties with varying and unique interests.
Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918)

Julius Wellhausen was born in Westphalia, Germany. He earned his doctorate in theology at the University of Gottingen. After teaching theology for twelve years, he resigned his position because he began to doubt the authority of the Scriptures to teach religious truth. In 1882, he took a position at the University of Halle, teaching Middle-Eastern and Semitic languages. He applied the historical-critical approach to studying the Jewish Bible. Wellhausen proposed the Documentary Hypothesis, which argued that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. Rather, Wellhausen suggested that the Pentateuch is a composite originating from four sources that he designated as J, E, P and D. J stood for Jehovah and referred to those documents in which God is identified by his four-letter name. E represented those documents in which God was referred to as Elohim. P stood for the Priestly source used to identify those parts of the Torah that Wellhausen believed had been added by the Jewish priesthood. Finally, D stood for Deuteronomy, referring to those portions of the text that were repeated in the final book of the Torah. Wellhausen believed that the D source possibly originated in the era of a late Judean king. According to his hypothesis, different groups added portions of text, with each redaction reflecting that source’s human agenda and version of Israel’s history.

The Documentary Hypothesis quickly spread among Bible scholars in Central Europe. It eventually crossed the Atlantic and debuted at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Rabbinic scholars immediately protested what they perceived as an attack on the holiest books in Judaism. Solomon Schechter, the founder of Conservative Judaism, stated his concerns in a 1903 seminary address titled “Higher Criticism— Higher Anti-Semitism.” Schechter believed that the Documentary Hypothesis would lead to an attack on Judaism and ultimately an assault on the Jewish people. Jewish historian Marc Zvi Brettler summarized Schechter’s comments, which in hindsight seem rather prophetic:

[He] equated Wellhausen’s approach with “professional and imperial anti-Semitism,” calling it an “intellectual persecution” of Judaism. viii

THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGION

As historical-critical tools sought to explain textual origins, new theories such as those put forth in Darwin’s Origin of the Species attempted to explain human origins in purely scientific terms. Darwin alleged that humans were evolved from more primitive animal species. Theologians adopted his language and began explaining religion in terms of evolutionary forces as well—the “Evolution of Religion.” They reasoned that if modern man evolved from more primitive species, many of which are now extinct, then perhaps modern religion evolved from primitive religions, such as Judaism. The corollary, based on natural selection, was that the “primitive” religion should also become extinct to make way for more evolved religion. If the source of the Hebrew Scriptures was not divine, then Judaism and her Scriptures were merely the products of anthropological evolutionary forces, acted out in ancient Semitic societies.

In 1875, Professor Robert Smith of Edinburgh, Scotland delivered a series of lectures titled “The Religion of the Semites.” Smith outlined the primitive origins of the Jewish beliefs as follows:

We have seen that ancient faiths must be looked on as matters of institution rather than of doctrines or formulated beliefs, and that the system of an antique religion was part of the social order under which its adherents lived . . . broadly speaking, religion was made up of a series of acts and observances, the correct performance of which was necessary to secure the favour of the gods or avert their anger.ix

In The History of Israel and Judah, Wellhausen predicted that Judaism and the Jewish people would become extinct:

The . . . emancipation [i.e. assimilation] of the Jews must inevitably lead to the extinction of Judaism wherever the process is extended beyond the political to the social sphere. For the accomplishment of this centuries may be required.x

Following this progression, Liberal Christianity would take center stage.
Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930)

Adolf von Harnack, born in Estonia, earned his doctorate at the University of Leipzig. He taught church history at the University of Giessen and later at the University of Berlin. Over time he became convinced that Jesus was not divine. The main focus of Liberal Protestantism is the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. As one of its proponents, von Harnack tried to show that Jesus was a progressive teacher, but not divine. According to his theories, the god of the Hebrew Scriptures was a tribal war god, jealous for his subjects’ worship and waging war on his enemies. The Jewish belief that God required an atonement for sin was dismissed as merely stemming from the primitive semitic belief in a tribal god who demanded blood to satisfy his wrath. Von Harnack maintained that the Christian teaching that Jesus’ death atoned for sin was Hebrew in origin, obsolete, and should be discarded. Von Harnack’s views are not original. In the second century, the Gnostic Marcion taught that the god of the New Testament had defeated the war god of the Hebrew Scriptures. Marcion and many Gnostics urged the church to reject the Jewish Scriptures. Von Harnack asserted that:

To reject the Old Testament in the second century perhaps was a mistake which the great Church refused rightfully . . . but to conserve it after the nineteenth century as a canonical text in Protestantism, was the result of a religious and ecclesiastical paralysis.xi

By 1930, Liberal Protestant church leaders in Germany had come to believe that the Jewish people, like their Bible, had served their purpose and therefore the Jewish roots of Christianity were to be denied as well:

We must emphasize with all decisiveness that Christianity did not grow out of Judaism but developed in opposition to Judaism. When we speak of Christianity and Judaism today, the two in their most fundamental essence stand in glaring contrast to one another. There is no bond between them, rather the sharpest opposition. (Reich Bishop Ludwig Muller, 1934)xii

Church leaders endeavored to remove all Jewish influence from German society in both the political and religious spheres. Alfred Rosenberg, publisher of Der Stürmer, (the weekly Nazi newspaper most notorious for its anti-Semitic cartoons) was the link between nineteenthcentury Liberal Protestantism and Hitler’s twentiethcentury Aryan agenda. Doris Bergen, professor of history at Notre Dame explains:

Alfred Rosenberg dubbed the Old Testament a collection of “stories of pimps and cattle traders”; but the high school religion teacher and German Christian agitator Reinhold Krause earned sustained applause in November 1933, when he repeated that phrase at a rally of twenty thousand people.xii

It was in this setting that Liberal Protestant pastors founded the German Christian Movement in 1932. They wanted to create a “Reich” or “state” church that all German Protestant Christians would rally around; their symbol was a Christian cross with a swastika in the middle. They did not hold to a high view of Scripture; conversely they were devoted to eradicating Old Testament readings from their worship services and they even altered the New Testament so as to excise references to the Jewish people or worse, demonize them. They did not want Jews to believe in Jesus either— they saw all Jews as a cancer to be excised. Point nine of the German Christian Movement’s 1932 platform stated:

In the mission to the Jews we see a serious threat to our Volkstrum (race). That mission is an entryway for foreign blood into the body of our Volk. . . . We reject missions to the Jews [because of ] . . . the danger of fraud and bastardization [of the German race].xiii

In 1939, they issued the Godesberg Declaration, which said, “Christianity is the irreconcilable religious opposite of Judaism.” The declaration also announced the establishment of the Institute for Research into and Elimination of Jewish Influence in German Church Life.xiv
CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTS RESPOND

Conservative Protestants maintained that both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament were inspired by God, and they were incensed by the platform of the German Christian Movement and their advocacy for altering the Scriptures. They contended there was nothing “Christian” about the German Christian Movement. They saw the movement’s agenda as a collapse both of faith and Judeo-Christian morals. In 1934, theologically conservative pastors and theologians founded the Confessing Church, a movement broad enough to include Lutheran, Reformed and United churches of Germany. Committed to resisting the downward tide of the German Christian Movement, their theological underpinnings can be found in the Barmen Declaration written largely by Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth. This statement not only affirmed the key doctrines of the Christian faith, but also served as a protest against the Liberal Protestant Church that embraced Hitler’s ideology. The declaration repudiated any other doctrine as false that made the church “an organ of the State” or that gave religious status to “ruling powers.”

Notable Lutheran leaders such as Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer also had a hand in crafting the Barmen Declaration. These theologians were devoted to belief in the inspiration and authority of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. They were opposed to Hitler and his perversion of the Scriptures.

Conservative German church leaders such as Bonhoeffer publicly denounced Hitler and even plotted his assassination. As a result, he and many in the Confessing Church were executed. But the resistance was not limited to theologians and church leaders.

Yad Vashem contains the records of over 18,000 individuals deemed “Righteous Gentiles.” These men and women risked their own safety and that of their families to oppose the Nazis and save Jewish lives. One of the most well known among them was Corrie ten Boom, whose story was told in the book The Hiding Place. She and her family held to a conservative Christian theology and their faith led them to risk hiding Jews in their home. Eventually they ended up in a concentration camp. Others, like Diet Eman, joined the underground and fought in the Dutch resistance, risking their lives to stop Hitler and save our people from his evil.
MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL

In looking back at the theology that marked the Modern Era, it becomes apparent that era ended with the Holocaust. Most historians conclude that the Holocaust was the lid on its coffin. After all, the Modern Era failed to lead humanity to a higher level but instead brought it to the depths of degradation. And Liberal Protestantism, which rejected the foundational beliefs of Christianity and instead embraced Hitler’s ideology, was part and parcel of that failure. Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, in his popular work After the Evil—Christianity and Judaism in the Shadow of the Holocaust, points out that Hitler’s ideology “was not only not Christian, it was anti- Christian.”xv

Though Hitler used Christian jargon to spout his venom, his actions opposed the teachings of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. He certainly couldn’t embrace the promise made to the first Jew, Abraham:

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse. (Genesis 12:3)

Nor could Hitler acknowledge the words of the psalmist that the Jewish people would be set apart as God’s prized possession:

For the Lord has chosen Jacob to be his own, Israel to be his treasured possession. (Psalm 135:4)

Nor could he admit that the New Testament makes God’s commitment to the Jewish people clear:

Theirs [the Jewish people] is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! (Romans 9:4, 5)

So what was Hitler’s personal theology? Did he see himself as the übermensch (superman) espoused by Nietzsche 75 years earlier, the precursor of the master race? Some, like William Shirir, have indicated that Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche’s philosophy. Writing in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Shirrer, points out: “Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and published his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man.” Michael Kalish in his research paper, “Friedrich Nietzsche’s Influence on Hitler’s Mein Kampf,” makes a convincing case for this connection as well:

The underlying themes in Nietzsche and Hitler’s philosophies are the importance of impulses and action for self-preservation, the danger of the clever Jew (i.e. the slave who has re-valuated strong as evil and weak as good), and the prophesy of a new type of man that will question the Jewish values and return the glory of the blond beast.xvi

Hitler did not follow the biblical teachings of Christianity; nor did he emulate those theologians who held to the authority of the Scriptures. Instead, he burlesqued Christian teachings, twisting them to his own purposes. By using language that sounded familiar to Christians, he was able to pose as an adherent to the religion when in actuality he was a self-proclaimed pagan: “I am myself a heathen to the core.”xvii

Hitler took advantage of a time in which people had learned to measure the Bible according to their own thoughts and perspectives, rather than the other way around. God was deemed unnecessary to religion. Reason and science, both important disciplines, were revered beyond anything that true reason or science would suggest or even tolerate. And science and reason proved to be cruel gods that produced heartless followers.

Hitler’s theologians got it wrong. Their theology was fatally flawed. They denied the truth of the Hebrew and New Testament Scriptures. They denied that the Jewish people were special to God. They denied that Y’shua the Jew was God’s way of salvation for all people. In their revised Bible, John 4:22, which originally read, “Salvation is from the Jews,” was changed to read, “Jews are our misfortune,” xviii What a sad irony! In the end, Hitler’s theologians tragically missed the mark by denying the very people whom God chose to use to bring redemption, the Messiah Y’shua.

h1

HITLER’S THEOLOGIANS: The Genesis of Genocide by Stan Meyer

April 24, 2007

Even today there is a theology of hate that states it is alright to judge other’s salvation. Meaning that we can now judge if someone is going to hell… and treat them that way.

Many have already forsaken the way of Love… the way of kindness that leads to repentance and feel it is better to judge others by their redefinition of the “fruit of the Spirit” which is, tithing, reading your bible, going to church, and singing worship songs, none which in itself is bad, but it is a new form of pharisee-ism as it replaces Jesus with “doctrinal rules” and whenever we replace the Bible’s teachings with man made doctrine we are headed for trouble…

This is a tough article but it shows were a theology of hate has lead some before.

Blessings,
iggy

HITLER’S THEOLOGIANS: The Genesis of Genocide by Stan Meyer

April 4, 2007

“For almost twenty centuries . . . the church was the archenemy of the Jews—our most powerful and relentless oppressor and the worlds’ greatest force for the dissemination of Anti-Semitic beliefs and the instigation of the acts of hatred. Many of the same people who operated the gas chambers worshiped in Christian churches on Sunday. . . . The question of the complicity of the church in the murder of the Jews is a living one. We must understand the truths of our history.”

—Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation Leaguei

WAS HITLER FOLLOWING THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS?

Most Christians would say that Adolf Hitler was not a Christian because he did not follow the teachings of Jesus nor did he understand the meaning of the New Testament writings. Yet, in his own way, perverse though it was, he saw the genocide of the Jewish people as a “sacred” mission. Writing in Mein Kampf, Hitler said: “Today, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” [italics in the original].” In addition, there are those who would allege that it was not only Hitler’s personal “theology” but also two thousand years of anti-Semitism by the church in the name of Jesus that laid the foundation for the Holocaust.

Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti- Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years’ prehistory of ‘Christian’ anti-Judaism. . . . —Hans Küngii

It is a painful but inescapable truth that anti- Semitism, which seethes with hate, was spawned and nourished by Christianity, which reveres a Jewish prophet who preached love and compassion. . . .Two thousand years of Christian anti-Judaism . . . hardened hearts against Jews. . . .This mind-set, deeply embedded in the Christian outlook, helps to explain why so many people were receptive to anti- Jewish propaganda. —Marvin Perryiii

From the standpoint of history, was it really Christian teaching that supplied the fuel for the crematoria? Did conservative Christian doctrine really pave the way for the poison that filled the showers? Is there anything in orthodox Christian theology that would lead Germany’s church leaders to advocate murdering six million Jews? Who were the heads of the church, the seminary instructors, the spiritual leaders of Germany’s church in the 1930s? What “religion” were they really teaching? Could it be that a Germany that was leading the world in art, physics and literature—producing Mahler and Wagner, Uhlmann, Klaus Fuchs and Max Born—was sending the world down the road of genocidal mania? Could a Germany that was pioneering in the fields of theology, religious study and biblical scholarship be morally bankrupt? And how could those whose profession was to study God’s Word and lead pastors into God’s truth, based on the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the New Testament, condone or even advocate Hitler’s demonic course? Who were Hitler’s theologians? And what “Christianity” did they teach?
BIRTH OF THE MODERN ERA

To understand the religious climate of a pre-Holocaust Germany (circa 1930s) it is helpful to re-visit the seventeenth century when the Modern Era dawned on Western Europe. The Age of Reason, also known as the Enlightenment and the Age of Rationalism,iv was a period in history when philosophers emphasized the use of reason as the best method of learning truth. Thinkers relied heavily on the scientific method to discover truth in all disciplines. Philosophers emphasized experimentation and careful observation.v These modern thinkers believed that reason could be tested and was therefore reliable, but revelation (which claims to be Godgiven) was beyond testing and therefore unreliable. Many believed that reason must “validate” the claims of the Bible for those claims to be true. John Locke (1632-1704) asserted that reason is “the candle of the Lord set up by Himself in men’s minds” and “must be our final judge and guide in everything.”vi

The Age of Reason produced a generation of Bible scholars known as Rationalists. They argued that only through reason could we learn about God.
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)

Friedrich Schleiermacher, called the founder of Liberal Protestantism, argued that God is unknowable. He taught that it is not possible to verify the historical events described in the Scriptures, such as the parting of the Red Sea, the Exodus from Egypt, or even the giving of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, according to him, faith is merely a “religious feeling.” He wrote, “. . . belief in God, and in personal immortality, are not necessarily a part of religion; one can conceive of religion without God, and it would be pure contemplation of the universe.”vii According to Schleiermacher, religious truth is subjective; it is not derived from the Scriptures but rather is relative to a person’s conscience. Consequently, religious principles of right and wrong are merely interpretations based on an individual’s perspective.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche carried reason’s critique of religion much further. In Thus Spake Zarathustra the protagonist proclaimed, “God is dead.” This was Nietzsche’s dramatic way of alleging that most people no longer believed in God. He lamented that civilization was left with a terrible void since religion no longer provided a basis for making moral choices. He put forth the idea of the übermensch (super human), who through his “will to power” could bring down false ideals and moral codes of his day. This übermensch could overcome nihilism by creating new or better ideals.
CRITICIZING THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES

By the late nineteenth century Liberal Protestant Bible scholars regarded the historical accounts of both Israel and the life of Jesus as inaccurate. In 1906 Albert Schweitzer published The Quest for the Historical Jesus, arguing that we can know very little about the real Jesus. Jesus’ life, the New Testament and even the Torah were cloaked in mythology. Schweitzer claimed that historians needed to “demythologize” the Bible—strip away the miracles and ask questions such as “who really wrote these books?” He maintained that only an historical method rather than a religious one was needed to get a verifiable biography of Jesus. A scientific approach to the Bible was developed, known as the historical-critical approach. In this approach, readers attempted to reconstruct what they believed was the original text. Important to note is that this method denied divine inspiration, rejected miracles, and presumed that the biblical text we have is a composite of editions and alterations by various parties with varying and unique interests.
Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918)

Julius Wellhausen was born in Westphalia, Germany. He earned his doctorate in theology at the University of Gottingen. After teaching theology for twelve years, he resigned his position because he began to doubt the authority of the Scriptures to teach religious truth. In 1882, he took a position at the University of Halle, teaching Middle-Eastern and Semitic languages. He applied the historical-critical approach to studying the Jewish Bible. Wellhausen proposed the Documentary Hypothesis, which argued that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. Rather, Wellhausen suggested that the Pentateuch is a composite originating from four sources that he designated as J, E, P and D. J stood for Jehovah and referred to those documents in which God is identified by his four-letter name. E represented those documents in which God was referred to as Elohim. P stood for the Priestly source used to identify those parts of the Torah that Wellhausen believed had been added by the Jewish priesthood. Finally, D stood for Deuteronomy, referring to those portions of the text that were repeated in the final book of the Torah. Wellhausen believed that the D source possibly originated in the era of a late Judean king. According to his hypothesis, different groups added portions of text, with each redaction reflecting that source’s human agenda and version of Israel’s history.

The Documentary Hypothesis quickly spread among Bible scholars in Central Europe. It eventually crossed the Atlantic and debuted at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Rabbinic scholars immediately protested what they perceived as an attack on the holiest books in Judaism. Solomon Schechter, the founder of Conservative Judaism, stated his concerns in a 1903 seminary address titled “Higher Criticism— Higher Anti-Semitism.” Schechter believed that the Documentary Hypothesis would lead to an attack on Judaism and ultimately an assault on the Jewish people. Jewish historian Marc Zvi Brettler summarized Schechter’s comments, which in hindsight seem rather prophetic:

[He] equated Wellhausen’s approach with “professional and imperial anti-Semitism,” calling it an “intellectual persecution” of Judaism. viii

THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGION

As historical-critical tools sought to explain textual origins, new theories such as those put forth in Darwin’s Origin of the Species attempted to explain human origins in purely scientific terms. Darwin alleged that humans were evolved from more primitive animal species. Theologians adopted his language and began explaining religion in terms of evolutionary forces as well—the “Evolution of Religion.” They reasoned that if modern man evolved from more primitive species, many of which are now extinct, then perhaps modern religion evolved from primitive religions, such as Judaism. The corollary, based on natural selection, was that the “primitive” religion should also become extinct to make way for more evolved religion. If the source of the Hebrew Scriptures was not divine, then Judaism and her Scriptures were merely the products of anthropological evolutionary forces, acted out in ancient Semitic societies.

In 1875, Professor Robert Smith of Edinburgh, Scotland delivered a series of lectures titled “The Religion of the Semites.” Smith outlined the primitive origins of the Jewish beliefs as follows:

We have seen that ancient faiths must be looked on as matters of institution rather than of doctrines or formulated beliefs, and that the system of an antique religion was part of the social order under which its adherents lived . . . broadly speaking, religion was made up of a series of acts and observances, the correct performance of which was necessary to secure the favour of the gods or avert their anger.ix

In The History of Israel and Judah, Wellhausen predicted that Judaism and the Jewish people would become extinct:

The . . . emancipation [i.e. assimilation] of the Jews must inevitably lead to the extinction of Judaism wherever the process is extended beyond the political to the social sphere. For the accomplishment of this centuries may be required.x

Following this progression, Liberal Christianity would take center stage.
Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930)

Adolf von Harnack, born in Estonia, earned his doctorate at the University of Leipzig. He taught church history at the University of Giessen and later at the University of Berlin. Over time he became convinced that Jesus was not divine. The main focus of Liberal Protestantism is the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. As one of its proponents, von Harnack tried to show that Jesus was a progressive teacher, but not divine. According to his theories, the god of the Hebrew Scriptures was a tribal war god, jealous for his subjects’ worship and waging war on his enemies. The Jewish belief that God required an atonement for sin was dismissed as merely stemming from the primitive semitic belief in a tribal god who demanded blood to satisfy his wrath. Von Harnack maintained that the Christian teaching that Jesus’ death atoned for sin was Hebrew in origin, obsolete, and should be discarded. Von Harnack’s views are not original. In the second century, the Gnostic Marcion taught that the god of the New Testament had defeated the war god of the Hebrew Scriptures. Marcion and many Gnostics urged the church to reject the Jewish Scriptures. Von Harnack asserted that:

To reject the Old Testament in the second century perhaps was a mistake which the great Church refused rightfully . . . but to conserve it after the nineteenth century as a canonical text in Protestantism, was the result of a religious and ecclesiastical paralysis.xi

By 1930, Liberal Protestant church leaders in Germany had come to believe that the Jewish people, like their Bible, had served their purpose and therefore the Jewish roots of Christianity were to be denied as well:

We must emphasize with all decisiveness that Christianity did not grow out of Judaism but developed in opposition to Judaism. When we speak of Christianity and Judaism today, the two in their most fundamental essence stand in glaring contrast to one another. There is no bond between them, rather the sharpest opposition. (Reich Bishop Ludwig Muller, 1934)xii

Church leaders endeavored to remove all Jewish influence from German society in both the political and religious spheres. Alfred Rosenberg, publisher of Der Stürmer, (the weekly Nazi newspaper most notorious for its anti-Semitic cartoons) was the link between nineteenthcentury Liberal Protestantism and Hitler’s twentiethcentury Aryan agenda. Doris Bergen, professor of history at Notre Dame explains:

Alfred Rosenberg dubbed the Old Testament a collection of “stories of pimps and cattle traders”; but the high school religion teacher and German Christian agitator Reinhold Krause earned sustained applause in November 1933, when he repeated that phrase at a rally of twenty thousand people.xii

It was in this setting that Liberal Protestant pastors founded the German Christian Movement in 1932. They wanted to create a “Reich” or “state” church that all German Protestant Christians would rally around; their symbol was a Christian cross with a swastika in the middle. They did not hold to a high view of Scripture; conversely they were devoted to eradicating Old Testament readings from their worship services and they even altered the New Testament so as to excise references to the Jewish people or worse, demonize them. They did not want Jews to believe in Jesus either— they saw all Jews as a cancer to be excised. Point nine of the German Christian Movement’s 1932 platform stated:

In the mission to the Jews we see a serious threat to our Volkstrum (race). That mission is an entryway for foreign blood into the body of our Volk. . . . We reject missions to the Jews [because of ] . . . the danger of fraud and bastardization [of the German race].xiii

In 1939, they issued the Godesberg Declaration, which said, “Christianity is the irreconcilable religious opposite of Judaism.” The declaration also announced the establishment of the Institute for Research into and Elimination of Jewish Influence in German Church Life.xiv
CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTS RESPOND

Conservative Protestants maintained that both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament were inspired by God, and they were incensed by the platform of the German Christian Movement and their advocacy for altering the Scriptures. They contended there was nothing “Christian” about the German Christian Movement. They saw the movement’s agenda as a collapse both of faith and Judeo-Christian morals. In 1934, theologically conservative pastors and theologians founded the Confessing Church, a movement broad enough to include Lutheran, Reformed and United churches of Germany. Committed to resisting the downward tide of the German Christian Movement, their theological underpinnings can be found in the Barmen Declaration written largely by Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth. This statement not only affirmed the key doctrines of the Christian faith, but also served as a protest against the Liberal Protestant Church that embraced Hitler’s ideology. The declaration repudiated any other doctrine as false that made the church “an organ of the State” or that gave religious status to “ruling powers.”

Notable Lutheran leaders such as Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer also had a hand in crafting the Barmen Declaration. These theologians were devoted to belief in the inspiration and authority of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. They were opposed to Hitler and his perversion of the Scriptures.

Conservative German church leaders such as Bonhoeffer publicly denounced Hitler and even plotted his assassination. As a result, he and many in the Confessing Church were executed. But the resistance was not limited to theologians and church leaders.

Yad Vashem contains the records of over 18,000 individuals deemed “Righteous Gentiles.” These men and women risked their own safety and that of their families to oppose the Nazis and save Jewish lives. One of the most well known among them was Corrie ten Boom, whose story was told in the book The Hiding Place. She and her family held to a conservative Christian theology and their faith led them to risk hiding Jews in their home. Eventually they ended up in a concentration camp. Others, like Diet Eman, joined the underground and fought in the Dutch resistance, risking their lives to stop Hitler and save our people from his evil.
MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL

In looking back at the theology that marked the Modern Era, it becomes apparent that era ended with the Holocaust. Most historians conclude that the Holocaust was the lid on its coffin. After all, the Modern Era failed to lead humanity to a higher level but instead brought it to the depths of degradation. And Liberal Protestantism, which rejected the foundational beliefs of Christianity and instead embraced Hitler’s ideology, was part and parcel of that failure. Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, in his popular work After the Evil—Christianity and Judaism in the Shadow of the Holocaust, points out that Hitler’s ideology “was not only not Christian, it was anti- Christian.”xv

Though Hitler used Christian jargon to spout his venom, his actions opposed the teachings of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. He certainly couldn’t embrace the promise made to the first Jew, Abraham:

I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse. (Genesis 12:3)

Nor could Hitler acknowledge the words of the psalmist that the Jewish people would be set apart as God’s prized possession:

For the Lord has chosen Jacob to be his own, Israel to be his treasured possession. (Psalm 135:4)

Nor could he admit that the New Testament makes God’s commitment to the Jewish people clear:

Theirs [the Jewish people] is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! (Romans 9:4, 5)

So what was Hitler’s personal theology? Did he see himself as the übermensch (superman) espoused by Nietzsche 75 years earlier, the precursor of the master race? Some, like William Shirir, have indicated that Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche’s philosophy. Writing in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Shirrer, points out: “Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and published his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man.” Michael Kalish in his research paper, “Friedrich Nietzsche’s Influence on Hitler’s Mein Kampf,” makes a convincing case for this connection as well:

The underlying themes in Nietzsche and Hitler’s philosophies are the importance of impulses and action for self-preservation, the danger of the clever Jew (i.e. the slave who has re-valuated strong as evil and weak as good), and the prophesy of a new type of man that will question the Jewish values and return the glory of the blond beast.xvi

Hitler did not follow the biblical teachings of Christianity; nor did he emulate those theologians who held to the authority of the Scriptures. Instead, he burlesqued Christian teachings, twisting them to his own purposes. By using language that sounded familiar to Christians, he was able to pose as an adherent to the religion when in actuality he was a self-proclaimed pagan: “I am myself a heathen to the core.”xvii

Hitler took advantage of a time in which people had learned to measure the Bible according to their own thoughts and perspectives, rather than the other way around. God was deemed unnecessary to religion. Reason and science, both important disciplines, were revered beyond anything that true reason or science would suggest or even tolerate. And science and reason proved to be cruel gods that produced heartless followers.

Hitler’s theologians got it wrong. Their theology was fatally flawed. They denied the truth of the Hebrew and New Testament Scriptures. They denied that the Jewish people were special to God. They denied that Y’shua the Jew was God’s way of salvation for all people. In their revised Bible, John 4:22, which originally read, “Salvation is from the Jews,” was changed to read, “Jews are our misfortune,” xviii What a sad irony! In the end, Hitler’s theologians tragically missed the mark by denying the very people whom God chose to use to bring redemption, the Messiah Y’shua.

h1

The hypocrisy of the “religionist”

April 13, 2007

The hypocrisy of the “religionist”

The hypocrisy of the “religionist” is rather interesting at times.

Romans 9: 30 – 33

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”
As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

We see that the religionist misses the point… They pursue God on wrong terms… they seek Him by their works, that is not by faith but by works as they seek the law of righteousness for themselves. There is no righteousness apart from Christ Himself and to think we can add to the righteousness that we have through Jesus nullifies the very Grace of God.

Paul warned the Galatians or rather spoke strongly to the Galatians of the “religionists” of that day called the Judaizers. These men were believers in Christ who believed that since God chose Abraham, and then gave the Law to Moses… and then spoke through Jewish prophets of the Messiah to come… being Jesus Who was a Jew… that naturally one would have to convert to Judaism in order to be accepted by Jesus as the Messiah. That is the reason Paul wrote the book of Galatians and it is dramatically played out to the point that Paul even confronts Peter of Peter’s hypocrisy as it was through Peter the gentiles were even realized to be included in this outpouring of God’s Grace…

Paul writes to the Galatians in chapter 3: 1-5

“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?”

Paul then build on these questions… yet what most seem to miss is this one question. “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” Paul is saying that one cannot add to what the Holy Spirit has began by human effort… or works. What has begun by the Spirit is complete and sustained and maintained by the Holy Spirit… if not then it is considered works.

Many religionists will say… “But I trust in the Holy Spirit and I am saved by Grace yet we are told to do good works…” yes we are, yet these are not OUR good works but Gods and Gods alone. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling… yet that is where the religionist stops… he seems to not read the rest of the passage (as is the case in Romans chapter 1 that leads into the first sentence of chapter 2, or that they read the whole of Chapter 9 of Romans in its context… only stopping to prove their doctrine that God hates some and loves others… yet missing that in that very passage the ones hated, being the gentiles and considered vessels of wrath by the Jew are actually the vessels of mercy… and Gods grace and mercy are displayed through that!) which leads me to this point.

A religionist places doctrine before Love…

A religionist will be overly concerned with doctrine… that it be perfect. Yet, in expecting that, the do not realize that while doctrine in itself is not BAD, one then has shifted into works as the way they are justified.

Doctrine is not bad… but as in the passage I quoted:

Romans 9: 30 “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”

They stumble over Jesus as they try to fulfill their doctrine… in a sad way some religionist have replaced the Law even with doctrines… and in that have fallen from Grace into the Law.

Galatians 5: 4 “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
Again, often this is very subtle and is the reason we must go humbly to someone to restore them lest we too fall into a sin similar.
So what are some of the sign of a religionist besides too much emphasis on the Law?

Well a person named Julie (in the comments) over at CRNinfo has set up a few questions which I will dress out further… that are gleaned from the questions that were demanded of Dan Kimball at Teampyro which then seemed to not care to get any answers as they have closed down the comments on that post… These are a type of questioning and not the exact questions asked by Phil Johnson of Dan Kimball.

1. “We need precise answers.”
They demand that a specific definition (theirs) is the standard and in that display no Grace.

2. “It’s a valid question.” They demand that their authority is greater and their question is not to be questioned nor their authority

3. “Answer me.” They demand an answer immediately.

4. “That’s not sufficient. You’ve not answered me well enough.” When given an answer and it does not meet their definition they demand to have more… much like the Pharisees did with Jesus in the Gospels.

5.“I don’t believe the words you are saying correctly cover your true belief.” Even if you tell them they will deny that you believe what you have stated and call you a liar… like the Pharisees telling Jesus that His miracles were of Satan.

6.“Matthew 18 is a cop-out.” They simple deny scripture as they place their doctrine over it and interpret scripture through their doctrinal bent.

7. “I’m only trying to discern.” Which really means we are judging you as to whether you are saved or not while over looking that they too are but sinners saved by Grace?

8. “He hasn’t answered my question and obviously I have the right to an answer.” Victory is declared even if they are wrong… they demonize the other. They take that when one gives up as there is not way to win, they are the winner.

9. “Comments closed.” We really never cared or wanted to listen as our pride does not allow us to.

Notice that none of this is done with humility nor with Love… they want it done their own way. This is the bottom line of the religionist. They have placed God into a religious structure to be able to control Him… they are no better than the Idolaters who used idol to control their gods… in fact they are worse without even realizing it as they in their religious zealousness, have turn Christianity into an idolatress religion that seeks to only control God by their rules and doctrines… that is a dangerous state to be in.

That is why I call for prayer as a religious spirit is one of the hardest to cast out. I know as it took the grace of God to cast it out of me… and even now I still must resist the desire to control God with my performance. This is truly a lie from Satan and sadly many believers in Christ fall for this every day.

Blessings,
iggy

h1

The hypocrisy of the “religionist”

April 13, 2007

The hypocrisy of the “religionist”

The hypocrisy of the “religionist” is rather interesting at times.

Romans 9: 30 – 33

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”
As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

We see that the religionist misses the point… They pursue God on wrong terms… they seek Him by their works, that is not by faith but by works as they seek the law of righteousness for themselves. There is no righteousness apart from Christ Himself and to think we can add to the righteousness that we have through Jesus nullifies the very Grace of God.

Paul warned the Galatians or rather spoke strongly to the Galatians of the “religionists” of that day called the Judaizers. These men were believers in Christ who believed that since God chose Abraham, and then gave the Law to Moses… and then spoke through Jewish prophets of the Messiah to come… being Jesus Who was a Jew… that naturally one would have to convert to Judaism in order to be accepted by Jesus as the Messiah. That is the reason Paul wrote the book of Galatians and it is dramatically played out to the point that Paul even confronts Peter of Peter’s hypocrisy as it was through Peter the gentiles were even realized to be included in this outpouring of God’s Grace…

Paul writes to the Galatians in chapter 3: 1-5

“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?”

Paul then build on these questions… yet what most seem to miss is this one question. “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” Paul is saying that one cannot add to what the Holy Spirit has began by human effort… or works. What has begun by the Spirit is complete and sustained and maintained by the Holy Spirit… if not then it is considered works.

Many religionists will say… “But I trust in the Holy Spirit and I am saved by Grace yet we are told to do good works…” yes we are, yet these are not OUR good works but Gods and Gods alone. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling… yet that is where the religionist stops… he seems to not read the rest of the passage (as is the case in Romans chapter 1 that leads into the first sentence of chapter 2, or that they read the whole of Chapter 9 of Romans in its context… only stopping to prove their doctrine that God hates some and loves others… yet missing that in that very passage the ones hated, being the gentiles and considered vessels of wrath by the Jew are actually the vessels of mercy… and Gods grace and mercy are displayed through that!) which leads me to this point.

A religionist places doctrine before Love…

A religionist will be overly concerned with doctrine… that it be perfect. Yet, in expecting that, the do not realize that while doctrine in itself is not BAD, one then has shifted into works as the way they are justified.

Doctrine is not bad… but as in the passage I quoted:

Romans 9: 30 “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”

They stumble over Jesus as they try to fulfill their doctrine… in a sad way some religionist have replaced the Law even with doctrines… and in that have fallen from Grace into the Law.

Galatians 5: 4 “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
Again, often this is very subtle and is the reason we must go humbly to someone to restore them lest we too fall into a sin similar.
So what are some of the sign of a religionist besides too much emphasis on the Law?

Well a person named Julie (in the comments) over at CRNinfo has set up a few questions which I will dress out further… that are gleaned from the questions that were demanded of Dan Kimball at Teampyro which then seemed to not care to get any answers as they have closed down the comments on that post… These are a type of questioning and not the exact questions asked by Phil Johnson of Dan Kimball.

1. “We need precise answers.”
They demand that a specific definition (theirs) is the standard and in that display no Grace.

2. “It’s a valid question.” They demand that their authority is greater and their question is not to be questioned nor their authority

3. “Answer me.” They demand an answer immediately.

4. “That’s not sufficient. You’ve not answered me well enough.” When given an answer and it does not meet their definition they demand to have more… much like the Pharisees did with Jesus in the Gospels.

5.“I don’t believe the words you are saying correctly cover your true belief.” Even if you tell them they will deny that you believe what you have stated and call you a liar… like the Pharisees telling Jesus that His miracles were of Satan.

6.“Matthew 18 is a cop-out.” They simple deny scripture as they place their doctrine over it and interpret scripture through their doctrinal bent.

7. “I’m only trying to discern.” Which really means we are judging you as to whether you are saved or not while over looking that they too are but sinners saved by Grace?

8. “He hasn’t answered my question and obviously I have the right to an answer.” Victory is declared even if they are wrong… they demonize the other. They take that when one gives up as there is not way to win, they are the winner.

9. “Comments closed.” We really never cared or wanted to listen as our pride does not allow us to.

Notice that none of this is done with humility nor with Love… they want it done their own way. This is the bottom line of the religionist. They have placed God into a religious structure to be able to control Him… they are no better than the Idolaters who used idol to control their gods… in fact they are worse without even realizing it as they in their religious zealousness, have turn Christianity into an idolatress religion that seeks to only control God by their rules and doctrines… that is a dangerous state to be in.

That is why I call for prayer as a religious spirit is one of the hardest to cast out. I know as it took the grace of God to cast it out of me… and even now I still must resist the desire to control God with my performance. This is truly a lie from Satan and sadly many believers in Christ fall for this every day.

Blessings,
iggy

h1

Quotes

April 9, 2007

“Subtract miracles from Islam,Buddhism,Confucianism,or Taoism, and you have essentially the same religion left. Subtract miracles from Christianity, and you have nothing but the cliches and platitudes most American Christians get weekly (and weakly) from their pulpits.”

Peter Kreeft