Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Christianity’

This video is a rare version of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor produced by the Open University in 1975. The Grand Inquisitor selection is taken from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Book V:  Pro and Contra, Chapter 5.

The chapter opens with Ivan explaining to his brother Alyosha his fantasy poem of The Grand Inquisitor, which is really an unwritten prose story:

“You see, my action takes place in the sixteenth century, and at that time, as you probably learnt at school, it was customary in poetry to bring down heavenly powers on earth. …He comes on the scene in my poem, but He says nothing, only appears and passes on. Fifteen centuries have passed since He promised to come in His glory, fifteen centuries since His prophet wrote, ‘Behold, I come quickly’ … My story is laid in Spain, in Seville, in the most terrible time of the Inquisition, when fires were lighted every day to the glory of God, and ‘in the splendid auto da fe the wicked heretics were burnt.’ …

He came down to the ‘hot pavements’ of the southern town in which on the day before almost a hundred heretics had, ad majorem gloriam Dei, been burnt by the cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor, in a magnificent auto da fe, in the presence of the king, the court, the knights, the cardinals, the most charming ladies of the court, and the whole population of Seville. …

He stops at the steps of the Seville cathedral at the moment when the weeping mourners are bringing in a little open white coffin. In it lies a child of seven, the only daughter of a prominent citizen. … [T]he mother of the dead child throws herself at His feet with a wail. ‘If it is Thou, raise my child!’ she cries, holding out her hands to Him. The procession halts, the coffin is laid on the steps at His feet. He looks with compassion, and His lips once more softly pronounce, ‘Maiden, arise!’ and the maiden arises. …

[A]t that moment the cardinal himself, the Grand Inquisitor, passes by the cathedral. He is an old man, almost ninety, tall and erect, with a withered face and sunken eyes, in which there is still a gleam of light. He is not dressed in his gorgeous cardinal’s robes, as he was the day before, when he was burning the enemies of the Roman Church-at this moment he is wearing his coarse, old, monk’s cassock. …

He stops at the sight of the crowd and watches it from a distance. He sees everything; he sees them set the coffin down at His feet, sees the child rise up, and his face darkens. He knits his thick grey brows and his eyes gleam with a sinister fire. He holds out his finger and bids the guards take Him. And such is his power, so completely are the people cowed into submission and trembling obedience to him, that the crowd immediately makes way for the guards, and in the midst of deathlike silence they lay hands on Him and lead him away.

The crowd instantly bows down to the earth, like one man, before the old Inquisitor. He blesses the people in silence and passes on’ The guards lead their prisoner to the close, gloomy vaulted prison–in the ancient palace of the Holy, inquisition and shut him in it.”

On one level, the story attacks the Roman Catholic Church and the Grand Inquisitor’s hierarchy. On another level, the story is a prophecy of the totalitarian state that intends to establish “universal happiness” through a form of positive Christianity to bring about a unanimous and harmonious world order.

In Ivan’s story, the Inquisitor makes his case that as long as man is free he will choose to satisfy his individual needs and not the collective needs of society, which means that a stable, perfect social order with necessities for all mankind is impossible. Only when men renounce their freedom and submit to the hierarchy’s plan for the universal happiness of man will they be free.

“Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar’s purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal state and have given universal peace. For who can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? We have taken the sword of Caesar, and in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him.” – the Grand Inquisitor

 

I.M. Kane

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

I have done some research on James White. In addition I have watched or listened to several of his debates with Dave Hunt, Chris Pinto, D.A. Wait, and others. What I have found is that White is pushing ecumenism by endorsing modern textual criticism and promoting modern Bible versions and the Roman Catholic, Gnostic manuscripts from which they are translated.

Mr. White has (either inadvertently or intentionally) aligned himself with the Roman Catholic Church state and its Jesuit henchmen to destroy the authority and credibility of the King James Bible that came out of the Reformation. Scripture alone is the final authority for the Christian faith, not the Pope, not White, and certainly not some motley crew of textual critics.      

Over the last four centuries, the Roman Catholic Church and its Jesuits have been working to undermine the authority and to destroy the credibility of the King James Bible and to abolish biblical Christianity in favor of a world religious system headed by the Roman Church state. White and the textual critics are helping the RCC achieve its goal.

Throughout the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church and her Jesuits used coercion, torture, and murder in their effort to destroy the Scripture as the sole authority for the Christian fatih, but Rome’s heavy-handed tactics of fear and intimidation didn’t work as planned and drove people from the church instead of keeping them in it. So she shifted her strategy to using indoctrination techniques and focused her Jesuit counter-reformation forces on infiltrating Protestant seminaries and secular colleges and universities. 

She lauded Westcott and Hort and the Revision Committee of 1881 for discrediting the Textus Receptus Greek texts of the New Testament and for undermining the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible as an inferior, untrustworthy translation. Westcott and Hort not only discredited the Textus Receptus and dethroned the KJV, but they also cleared a path to call for ecumenical unity between Evangelical Protestants and Rome.  

What is most disturbing about the defense of modern Bible versions by “Christian” scholars and apologists the likes of White, Daniel Wallace, Bruce Metzger, and Norman Geisler is that they seem to be intentionally keeping their sycophants and followers in the dark about Rome’s ties to the corrupted manuscripts and her influence on the “science” of modern textual criticism.

I have yet to see written or video documentation of White calling on Roman Catholics to leave the Roman Catholic Church, or of White echoing the Reformers condemnation of the Roman Church state as the Whore of Babylon and its vicars as antichrist. However, White has condemned King James Only advocates as cultists, many of whom are Reformed or Calvinist as White himself claims to be. 

It’s the Roman Catholic Church state and not Reformed Protestantism that benefits when Protestants like James White undermine and discredit the King James Bible and endorse modern Bible versions based on corrupted Roman Catholic and Gnostic manuscripts.

As long as White doesn’t call upon Roman Catholics to leave their church, and as long as he endorses Rome’s manuscripts and modern Bible translation over the King James Bible, he’s an unregenerate Christian and an appeaser to the cause of the Roman Catholic Church state.

In case anyone is interested, Chris Pinto has made three documentaries (about three hours each) addressing the history of the Bible and the modern translations issue. A Lamp in the Dark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmXBj2N9fhY; Tares among the Wheat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe3CMDXeG4w; and Bridge to Babylon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukRCVDmiAts.

They are well worth your time.

I.M. Kane

Read Full Post »

Unregenerate Christians are self-idenfied and not God-identified, therefore, they hate the doctrine that God has sovereignly elected some people for salvation. They misrepresent what Scripture clearly teaches, which is that God calls many, and of the many called a “few are chosen.”

To their way of thinking, a God who sovereignly chooses to save only the few and punish the many is not only an unjust judge but is also an evil monster. They say a God who saves only the elect and damns everyone else is unfair and unloving and bears a closer resemblance to the pagan deities of antiquity than to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

If Scripture is God’s written Word and the Christian’s authority for all matters of faith and practice, then what it teaches about God is what is true, regardless of what people understand or believe is fair, just, and loving.

According to Scripture, God destroyed everyone in the world except for Noah and his family; He also destroyed everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities except for Lot and his daughters. The question unregenerate Christians must answer is how can God destroy the entire world and its inhabitants, annihilate the cities on the plain and everyone in them, save only a few chosen people, and remain a loving God?

Scripture also says that God chose Israel above all people to be His treasured possession and servants on the earth, and He knows only Israel among all the families of the world. The question facing unregenerate Christians is how is it fair for God to choose Israel over all the nations and the Israelites over all people on the earth and make them His people, His servants, and His witnesses?

The Scripture is clear that God does not love every person equally. Paul writes in Romans that God loved Jacob and hated his brother Esau before the twin boys were born and had done any good or evil. In addition Paul writes that God decreed the elder would serve the younger, and that He elected Jacob instead of Esau to receive his father’s blessing when the birthright really belonged to Esau as the elder brother.

Paul clearly says that God cursed and hated Esau before the boy had been born or had done anything evil, so that “the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” The question for the unregenerate Christian is how is it right and just for God to hate and punish an unborn child before he’s born, and has done anything to warrant it?

In the same chapter of Romans Paul writes that God raised up Pharaoh to destroy him; and He hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that God’s power and name would be known and declared throughout the world.

It’s clear from Romans that God does what He pleases and no man can call Him to account or make Him responsible for anything He does. God is accountable to no one. He is bound by nothing. He has “mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”

Paul writes the potter has power over the clay to make from the same lump a vessel for honor and another for dishonor. Man was created to glorify God, and God is glorified through the vessels He has made. Everything God created is for His pleasure.

God is sovereign creator; what He does is just for nothing can constrain Him, and no law is above Him. God’s defining characteristic is holiness, not love; He is righteousness and justice. Who can hold Him responsible and say He is wrong in what He does? “Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.”

The law is man’s taskmaster, not God’s. God is bound by nothing, no law constrains Him. He created the law. He cannot be judged by it. God is judge, and His judgments are righteous.

Man has no rights to which God must acknowledge and acquiesce. “Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?”

The truth is the unregenerate Christian’s interpretation of Scripture is a direct assault against God’s sovereignty, and he can’t believe what the Scripture clearly teaches because the unregenerate “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

I.M.Kane

 

 

Read Full Post »

The gospel messages documented throughout the book of Acts and the Epistles are not identical. Most Christians fail to discern the differences in the New Testament gospel messages preached by the Apostle Peter and by the Apostle Paul.

“[T]here are two Gospels, each dependent upon the Blood of the Cross. The one Gospel is earthly (Kingdom), the other is heavenly (Grace). Both Gospels are “according to Jesus, ” and present only one way: by faith.

One Gospel was ministered by Christ on earth, during His pre-Cross humiliation, and was exclusively addressed to Israel regarding her Millennial Kingdom. The other–altogether “new creation” other–was ministered to Paul by the glorified Lord Jesus Christ; after Calvary, from heaven, exclusively to and for His Chosen heavenly Body.

John the Baptist’s, Jesus’, and the Apostles’ Gospel concerned the Messiah and His Kingdom–specifically and repeatedly referred to as “the Gospel of the Kingdom” (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14; Lu. 9:2,6). The other, “the Gospel of Grace of God,” was neither preached nor mentioned until Paul went forth to declare it (Acts 20:24; Rom. 3:21; Eph. 3:1-3).” Miles J. Stanford, Pauline Dispensationalism, pg 5.

 

 

Read Full Post »

If you’ve been taught that all Bible translations are basically the same, and it really doesn’t matter which version you read because they all say the same thing but in a different way, then you need to hear this presentation from the Underground Christian Network’s, Theo Hikmat. Hikmat provides answers for where the new Bible translations came from, who compiled them, how they were translated, and what they teach. Hikmat’s presentation is clear, well researched, and Biblically sound.

 

Read Full Post »

Does the Bible Forbid Ordination of Women? By Gordon H. Clark

http://gordonhclark.reformed.info/does-the-bible-forbid-ordination-of-women-by-gordon-h-clark/

Professor Gordon Clark’s article refutes the current arguments for women pastors and church officials. Clark writes, “If we accept Scripture as our norm, it is forbidden to seize one verse and misinterpret it to the detriment of other explicit passages. The more obscure must always be understood in the light of what is clear and indisputable. … In the New Testament there is no authority for or example of a woman elder or minister. And we are bound by the Scriptures, the infallible and only rule of church government. We dare not add, subtract, or alter.”

Read Full Post »

The Gospel is not:

you must be born again

you must repent

you must be saved

you must decide for Christ

you must trust Jesus

you must have a personal relationship with Christ

you must be filled with the Holy Spirit

you must be baptized with the Holy Spirit

you must speak in tongues

you can preform miracles

let Jesus into your heart

expect a miracle

Jesus set an example for us that we may follow Him to Heaven

let go and let God

draw nigh unto God

Christ died for all men and desires the salvation of all

Christians should take dominion over the earth

Jesus is coming again

The Gospel is

“that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures [emphasis mine]; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures [emphasis mine]” I Corinthians 15: 3,4

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »