Christianity: Pro-Racism, Pro-Slavery White Man’s Religion–Reject it for Atheism!
I have written a pamphlet dealing with attacks upon the Bible and Christianity from its (alleged) racism and (alleged) support of chattel slavery, compared with the (alleged) anti-racism and anti-slavery position of atheism. It deals with the objection that “Christianity is the racist white man’s religion” and, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation claims, “[W]hite supremacy [is] interwoven with Christianity … inextricably intertwined.” (Sources for all quotes are in the pamphlet.)
Click here to read the pamphlet Biblical Christianity vs. Atheism on Racism and Slavery
You may think that such claims are so ridiculous that they do not deserve a refutation. You are correct about them being ridiculous—and, as Bethel Baptist Church, where I serve the Lord, is not majority white now and has not been for a very long time, reflecting the ethnic diversity of the area, it is indeed a very foolish claim. However, sadly, in secular college campuses and in liberal media these egregious falsehoods are regularly propounded. Not that long ago a very angry black man at a place where I was passing out gospel literature said that all white Christians were supporters of white nationalism. (He also said, ironically, that they all denied it when he said that to them. Hmm… ). He said he had a degree in religious studies. (Perhaps they should give him his money back.) In any case, the attack on Christianity from its alleged racism and pro-slavery position is very much out there.
The pamphlet demonstrates that:
1.) The Bible rejects racism.
2.) Christian churches in Bible times rejected racism—for example, the church at Antioch had a leader in the category of “prophet and teacher” whose name was “Simon the Black” and another born in Africa, while the rest were all from Asia; an African whose family became close to the Apostle Paul helped Christ carry His cross; etc.
3.) Christian churches and the wider realm of Christendom were profoundly impacted by Africa. Did you ever think about the fact that possibly the two most influential people in the history of Western Christendom were from Africa—namely, Tertullian and Augustine? Furthermore, the ancient Anabaptist movements, the Novatians and Donatists, were both led by African Anabaptists. Did you know that the Baptists were the first group of churches in the American South to come out against slavery?
4.) Christianity very rapidly spread from Israel to Africa to China to India to Britain.
5.) Ancient paganism was pro-slavery while Christianity was pro-slave (since it taught that “All Lives Matter,” and therefore the lives of slaves, people of darker and lighter skin, etc. all matter), and Christian influence, unique among world religions, led to the abolition of slavery.
6.) Modern racism actually stems from the Enlightenment and its rejection of Biblical Christianity, combined with the anti-creation philosophy of biological evolution. (This fact should be taught in all public schools, and at the very least every student in Christian schools needs to know this. Did you know it?)
7.) Slavery exists today in atheist countries such as North Korea and China, in accordance with the racism of people like Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Hegel, and David Hume. Everyone should know that Darwin anticipated genocide by whites of “lower races”:
“The … Caucasian races have beaten … [others] in the struggle for existence. … [At] no very distant date … the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
Everyone should know Marx said:
“Let us … speak of the beautiful side … of the slavery of the blacks in the East, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America. … [S]lavery is an economic category of the highest importance. Without slavery … you would have … the complete decadence of modern commerce and civilization. … [S]ave slavery … [c]onserve the good side of this economic category.”
8.) The pamphlet then explains how spiritual slavery is the worst problem people suffer today. It illustrates that the root causes of racism (pride) and slavery (covetousness) are sins that the reader has been guilty of, and how, through the ransom payment of Christ, they can become spiritually free from the control of the sins that lead to racism and slavery now and eternal hell fire in eternity.
I would suggest reading the pamphlet yourself, keeping the link or a few copies on hand for people who run into this objection when preaching the gospel. I would also suggest that Christian schools, in history class, when they teach the Enlightenment and the impact of evolution and its pre-and post-Darwinian influence in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, make sure students know that modern racism came from these movements. Missionaries in Africa, the Caribbean, and, frankly, on most of the globe should know these things and share them with those to whom they minister.
Cancel culture should cancel Darwin, cancel Marx, cancel Biblical skepticism, cancel evolution, cancel atheism, and cancel agnosticism.
Everyone should recognize Christianity is the best friend of those who are against racism and slavery.
Click here to read the pamphlet Biblical Christianity vs. Atheism on Racism and Slavery
–TDR
In the Long Prayer of Jesus to His Father in John 17, Has “Of The World” Become Meaningless?
The model prayer of Matthew 6 and Luke 11, Jesus didn’t pray. He was teaching His disciples how to pray. Certain few times the New Testament records that He spoke to His Father, He didn’t ask for anything. He prays for one thing in John 12:28, “Father, glorify thy name.”
On the cross in Luke 23:34, Jesus prays, “Father, forgive them.” He prayed three times in the Garden of Gethsemane in Matthew 26, two of which He requested essentially the same thing, and the third time it says he prayed the same thing as the first two. In verse 39, He prayed, “Not as I wilt, but as thou wilt,” regarding His suffering and death, and then in verse 42, “Thy will be done,” which was about the same thing.We know Jesus prayed other times, but those passages don’t tell us what He prayed. John 17 most represents what Jesus prays, because it contains more that He prayed than all the other places combined. I will focus on one point of His requests in the chapter, which were not many, but of all of those prayers, He uses the words, “of the world,” seven times.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.
15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
How Even Apparently Conservative Evangelicals Justify Disobedience to Scripture as a Deconstruction
Today churches have gone “woke.” Many accept critical race theory and same sex relations. Before contemplating those extremes, we might consider something short of that and what leads to it.
A man I know well pastors in the same city as a conservative evangelical does, and the two discussed separation. The conservative evangelical church accepts membership of many and widely varied doctrinal and practical positions. Everyone is worldly also to sundry degrees, many very much so.
The conservative evangelical graduated from Masters Seminary and in general follows its way of thinking and operation. In a conversation, the man who I know well mentioned to the conservative evangelical 1 Timothy 1:3:
As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.
Paul besought Timothy to charge the pastors at Ephesus that they “teach no other doctrine.” That’s very clear. “Teach no other doctrine” is one Greek word, heterodidaskaleo. This matches up with what Paul also said in 1 Timothy 6:3-5:
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness . . . . from such withdraw thyself.
Here’s what the conservative evangelical, who went to Masters Seminary, said: “We teach that “doctrine” there [in 1 Timothy 1:3] is [or means] ‘the gospel.'”
This is the kind of dealing with scripture or teaching that justifies disobedience to scripture. Is “doctrine” “the gospel” in 1 Timothy 1:3 and in 1 Timothy 6:3-5 among other verses of scripture? Of course not. Still, that’s how conservative evangelicals will go ahead and understand “doctrine.” “Doctrine” refers only to “the gospel” in that passage.
Calling “doctrine” “the gospel” is a type of deconstruction. Rather than a verse asserting absolute truth, a person assigns a meaning that he conceives at that moment in time. In Is There Meaning in this Text? Kevin J. Vanhoozer writes (pp. 21-22) about the deconstruction of the postmodernist Derrida, the one most associated with it:
The belief that one has reached the single correct Meaning (or God, or “Truth”) provides a wonderful excuse for damning those with whom one disagrees as either “fools” or “heretics.” . . . Neither Priests, who supposedly speak for God, nor Philosophers, who supposedly speak for Reason, should be trusted; this “logocentric” claim to speak from a privileged perspective (e.g., Reason, the Word of God) is a bluff that must be called, or better, “deconstructed.”
A teacher or preacher may dismantle Christianity by deconstructing the language. Christianity is based upon language, the language of the Bible. Rather than say you don’t believe the Bible, you can just deny a “single correct meaning.”
Deconstructing the biblical text allows and even instructs men not to believe and obey the Bible. They not only disobey, but they disobey while thinking they’re obeying, because of the deconstruction of the language of scripture. A church can grow in numbers from the welcome of plenteous and diverse disobedience, while still labeling it obedience. It doesn’t fool God now or ever.
Charles Darwin on Design in Creation
The Bible teaches that all men know God’s nature and power from creation, but they suppress that knowledge, leaving them without excuse. “All men” includes Charles Darwin, the incredibly influential promoter of the theory of evolution.
Scripture says:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
Is there evidence in Darwin’s life that his study of the creation pointed the evolutionist to the Creator? In a conversation between the Duke of Argyll and Charles Darwin, in the last year of Darwin’s life, the Duke recounted:
In the course of [our] conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the “Fertilization of Orchids,” and upon “The Earthworms,” and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, ed. Francis Darwin, vol. 1, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881 (London: John Murray, 1887), 316.
In public schools, when they teach Darwinian evolution, they should tell impressionable young people that in Charles Darwin’s studies “often,” “with overwhelming force,” the reality that the intricate design of creation is “impossible” to explain except as “the effect and the expression of Mind” struck the author of The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection and The Descent of Man. This statement from Darwin should be pounded into them the way they pound atheism and socialism into them.
I’m not holding my breath.
You can share his sentiments, however, with those who believe that Darwinian evolution explains away the need for the Almighty Creator. They ought to know.
Learn more about God, science, and the Bible by clicking here.
–TDR
Editions of the King James Version and the Criticism of Not Updating It
I’m sure someone has made this argument, even though I haven’t heard it. Someone might call the five previous editions of the King James Version an argument for another update. Four editions followed the original 1611. Why no sixth edition? Why did we stop at 1769, the date of the last edition, what is called the Blayney Edition?Benjamin Blayney, English Hebraist, updated the King James Version. Dot Wordsworth in The Spectator wrote (based on his reading of Gordon Campbell’s Bible: The Story of the King James Version):
Dr Blayney made thousands of changes to the text of 1611. In vocabulary he incorporated amendments from another version from 1743, for example, fourscore changed to eightieth, neesed to sneezed, and the archaic crudled to curdled. In grammar he changed, among other things, number, so that ‘the names of other gods’ became ‘the name of other gods’; and tenses, so ‘he calleth unto him the twelve and began’ changed to ‘he called unto him the twelve, and began’. There were changes in spelling, in punctuation, and in the choice of words to italicise (which had been intended to indicate words not literally present in the original languages).
By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of 20 years’ work by Francis Sawyer Parris, who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762 and in John Baskerville’s fine folio edition of 1763. This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney, though with comparatively few changes from Parris’s edition; but which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings. Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own. They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text. In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of “supplied” words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. . . . Altogether, the standardization of spelling and punctuation caused Blayney’s 1769 text to differ from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.
[1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
[NASV] 1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
WHY NOT FURTHER UPDATES TO THE KING JAMES VERSION?
1. The 1769 Blayney Edition Is Good
2. Change Is Worse Than Possible Improvements
3. King James Version Churches Don’t Want the Update
4. An Update Is Far From a Priority
TO BE AN UPDATE, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?
1. King James Version Churches Would Want an Update
2. King James Version Churches Would Unify For an Update
3. King James Version Churches Would Provide the Good, Qualified Men from their Midst, Who Could Work Together to Accomplish an Update
4. King James Version Churches Would Approve of the Update
5. The Updated King James Version Would Become the King James Version for King James Version Churches
Mark Ward: KJVO “Sinful Anger,” the “Evasion” of the Confessional Bibliologians, and Success
Mark Ward wrote, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, which I read. He’s taken on a goal of dissuading people from the King James Version to use a modern version of the Bible. He also has a podcast to which someone alerted me when he mentioned Thomas Ross and me. I checked back again there this last week and he did one called, “Is My Work Working?” In it, he said he received three types of reactions to his work.
KJV “SINFUL ANGER”
Ward said he received more than 100 times praise than anything else. The next most reaction he said was “sinful anger” from KJV Onlyists. Last, he received the least, helpful criticism from opposition.
Critical text proponents very often use KJVO behavior as an argument. It does not add or take away from Ward’s position. Ward reads his examples of “sinful anger,” and well more than half didn’t sound angry to me. They disagreed with him.
My observation is that critical text advocates do not have better conduct. They disagree in a harsh manner and with ridicule. Ward himself uses more subtle mockery, sometimes in sarcastic tones. It just shouldn’t come as a point of argument. Many in the comment section of his podcast use sinful anger. Ward does not correct them or point out their sinful anger. It seems like Ward likes it when it points the other direction.
In these moments, Ward talks about his own anger. He finds it difficult not to be angry with these men. Why even mention it? Just don’t talk about it at all. Deal with the issue at hand. I’m not justifying actions of Ruckmanite types. They’re wrong too. Both sides are wrong. This is an actual argument though of critical text supporters — how they are treated. It comes up again and again, because they bring it up.
“EVASION” OF THE CONFESSIONAL BIBLIOLOGIANS
Ward says that few to almost none answer a main argument of his book, which he’s developed further since it’s publication. They don’t concede to his “false friends” with appropriate seriousness. He says they don’t think about false friends. He provides now 50 examples of these that appear many times in the King James Version. He includes the confessional bibliologians in this, which would be someone who believes in the superiority of the Textus Receptus of the New Testament. Their position might be perfect preservationism, Textus Receptus, confessional bibliology, or ecclesiastical text. He used the confessional title, referring to men like Jeff Riddle.
I’ve answered him in depth. Ward is just wrong. Hopefully calling him wrong isn’t considered sinful anger. “He said I was wrong!!” King James Version supporters all over buy Bible For Today’s Defined King James Version. It provides the meaning of those words in the margin. Lists of these from King James Version proponents are all over the internet, and books have been written by KJV authors (the one linked published in 1994) on the subject.
Ward says that every time he brings that up to Textus Receptus men, they sweep it away like it doesn’t matter, then turn the conversation to textual criticism. That’s a very simplistic way of himself swatting away the Textus Receptus advocate. They turn to textual criticism because the critical text and the Textus Receptus are 7% different. Many words differ. That matters more. It also denies the biblical doctrine of preservation.
The members of churches where men preach the KJV hear words explained. Sure, some KJV churches rarely preach the Bible. Talk about that. Where men preach expositional sermons from the KJV, relying on study of the original languages, they explain words to their people. They care. I have been one of those and the KJV doesn’t hurt our church in any way. Personally I read the KJV Bible twice last year and this year I’m on pace for one Old Testament and two New Testament.
SUCCESS
Is success how much praise one receives for what he does? Is that the measurement? That is a very dangerous standard of success. That is what Ward uses as his standard in his video. In Jeremiah 45:5, God told Baruch: “And seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them not.” We don’t succeed when we receive praise. We succeed when we are faithful to what God said, whether we’re praised or not. Seeking for praise is discouraged in scripture. Many faithful Bible preachers received far more harsh treatment than Ward. It’s not even close.
True success is finding what God says and doing it. It’s not success to turn a church away from the King James Version to a modern version, even if Ward supports that outcome.
Leading an Evangelistic Bible Study–How To Videos
Regular readers of What is Truth? are likely aware of the series of evangelistic Bible studies here which can be downloaded and personalized for use in your Baptist church here. People who are not willing to sit down or meet over Zoom with a church member can be directed to view the series itself taught here on YouTube.
I have had the privilege of doing a series at Bethel Baptist Church on how to lead one of these studies with a seeking unconverted person. We are almost done going through teaching study #3, “What Does God Want From Me?” There are currently twenty-four videos in the series (and counting) as I write this blog post. Church members who watch this series will be well equipped to lead an evangelistic Bible study. If you would like to watch the series on leading an evangelistic Bible study yourself, or recommend it for others in your church, you can access it here:
Watch the series on how to lead an evangelistic Bible study by clicking here
Please check back regularly as new videos are added to the series and we move through studies #4-7, Lord willing, and put what you are learning into practice by being Christ’s instrument for making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and teaching them to observe everything Christ has commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). You can subscribe to the KJB1611 channel to be notified whenever new videos are posted.
–TDR
The Seriousness of Religious Authority As Illustrated by Russia and Ukraine
Some reading may have heard that the Russia invasion of Ukraine relates to the religion in these two countries. They might consider it a religious war. I will go back to give perspective on this issue and then dovetail with something from the last few days.
No one has more authority than God. In fact, God possesses all authority and any group has authority only because of God. To say that you have authority means that you function for God and even speak for God. People who want to stay in good standing with God will do what God’s authority says. It’s like God telling them. Disobeying this authority, since it is from God, is disobeying God. This could also relate to someone’s eternal destiny, this often going along with the authority claim.
The true church authorized by Jesus Christ, the only church, is local only. Jesus started it in Jerusalem in the first century during His earthly life as seen in Matthew 16:18 and 18:15-17. The New Testament book of Acts records that first church reproduced other assemblies with scripture as their sole authority. The Lord Jesus Christ gave the true church authority, autonomy, with Him as the Head of each true church (Eph 1:22, 5:23, Col 1:18).
A true church has authority. It is serious enough that Jesus says the church looses and binds (Matthew 16:9, 18:18). It makes authoritative declarations as to whether someone is in the church or out. If someone is loosed, the true church regards him as unsaved. When the church sends someone out of the church, 1 Corinthians 5 says the church delivers this person unto Satan (5:5). These are true or real occurrences. They aren’t games being played. It’s very serious.
HISTORY
In the fourth century AD a counterfeit church arose in Rome. It claimed Christ’s authority through a bogus declaration of Petrine successionism (Petrine Theory). This spurious organization with the influence of Roman Emperor Constantine turned the church into a state church, the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic meaning universal. One could place the date at 313AD with the Edict of Milan, 325 with the Council of Nicea, 337 with the baptism of Constantine, or 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica. This institution, which preached a false gospel, claimed an authority it did not possess.
Nevertheless, for purposes of rule, Constantine split the empire into East and West in 330AD and the empire divided after the death of Theodosius I in 395AD. Roman Catholicism was still unified until it split into two in 1054, the Great Schism. The Orthodox Church (called Eastern Orthodox) formed from the division. The schism much related to authority, as the Eastern Church rejected the infallibility and unique authority of the Pope.
The authority of Eastern Orthodoxy describes itself a fellowship of self-headed churches, the term “autocephalous.” Orthodox churches recognize the preeminence of Constantinople, called the primacy of the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. This means Constantinople is a first among equals. The Orthodox hold that God’s authority passes down directly to Orthodox bishops and clergy through the laying on of hands. They consider this apostolic succession and each Orthodox. Each bishop has a territory, called a “see,” that he governs.
Roman Catholicism invented its own authority by procuring a non-existent apostleship. Eastern Orthodox then appropriated it as its own. It’s difficult to estimate, but stats say 1.3 billion Roman Catholics and 220 million Orthodox in the world, top two of Christendom in numbers. Neither of them possess authority. When they talk about authority, it’s not true. They say they have it. They don’t. Yet, if a religious organization says it is from God, we shouldn’t be surprised when it acts like it has authority.
Of all the autocephalous churches of the Orthodox by far the largest is the Russian Orthodox with over 100 million. It is known as the Moscow Patriarchate. This Orthodox church started when the early, original Russian prince, Vladimir I, was baptized by the Patriarchy of Constantinople in 988. The center of Russian Orthodoxy was Kyiv. It remained under Constantinople authority until 1488, when it moved to Kyiv as an autocephalous church. The Russian Orthodox Church relocated then to Moscow in 1686 when the region of Kyiv came under authority of the Tsars there.
I zoom forward to the period after the Soviet Union. The atheistic Soviet Empire swallowed religions. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church emerged again. Alexy Ridiger first became Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1990. This continued under Patriarch Kirill in 2009, who remains in that position.
CONSIDERING AMILLENNIALISM
Not only did and does the Roman Catholic Church not have authority, but it operates with a corrupt system of interpretation of scripture. The Eastern Orthodox and its autocephalous churches continued that system of allegorization or spiritualization of the Bible. These denominations within Christendom rationalized themselves with an eschatological and ecclesiological program called amillennialism.
According to amillennialism, the kingdom of God exists on earth in the present age in a universal church, a kind of spiritualized nation Israel. In the Old Testament passages about Israel, someone can read in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church. With amillennialism a nation can function like one that authoritatively enforces the precepts of the Bible as seen through the lens of church authority. This explains a Christian holy war fought on behalf of the church.
Amillennialism says there is no literal millennium where Christ comes to rule for a thousands years on the earth. The “a” of amillennialism means “no,” as in “no millennium.” This view allowed for a state church that functioned like a kingdom.
An inquisition that tortures or puts to death heretics also comes from authority allowed by an amillennial eschatology. The church does the work of God by punishing sinners and implementing what God said.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In 2018 the Patriarch of Constantinople, the foremost of the autocephalous churches, gave autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox. This formed a Ukrainian Orthodox Church, taking the jurisdiction of the Ukraine, the region of original Russia and the initial Russian Orthodox Church from the Patriarch of Moscow. Not all of the Orthodox Churches operate under the authority of the Ukrainian Patriarch but under the Moscow Patriarch, who now is Patriarch Kirill.
The Associated Press reported that just this week Kirill came out in support of the invasion of Ukraine by saying the following:
Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, leader of Russia’s dominant religious group, has sent his strongest signal yet justifying his country’s invasion of Ukraine — describing the conflict as part of a struggle against sin and pressure from liberal foreigners to hold “gay parades” as the price of admission to their ranks.
Kirill, a longtime ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, had already refrained from criticizing the Russian invasion – alienating many in the Ukrainian Orthodox churches who had previously stayed loyal to the Moscow patriarch during a schism in their country. Several of these former loyalists are now snubbing Kirill in their public prayers, with some demanding independence from the Moscow church even as their country’s political independence is imperiled.
Kirill, in a sermon delivered Sunday before the start of Orthodox Lent, echoed Putin’s unfounded claims that Ukraine was engaged in the “extermination” of Russian loyalists in Donbas, the breakaway eastern region of Ukraine held since 2014 by two Russian-backed separatist groups. [He] focused virtually all of his talk about the war on Donbas — with no mention of Russia’s widespread invasion and its bombardment of civilian targets.
Kirill on Sunday depicted the war in spiritual terms.
“We have entered into a struggle that has not a physical, but a metaphysical significance,” he said.
He contended that some of the Donbas separatists were suffering for their “fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power.”
He claimed that this unnamed world power is posing a “test for the loyalty” of countries by demanding they hold gay pride parades to join a global club of nations with its own ideas of freedom and “excess consumption.”
God holds all authority. When He looked down on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, he saw the corrupt lifestyles. This included homosexual or same sex activity. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Within the nation Israel, God expected punishment of death upon such behavior in Leviticus 18 and 20.
The fall of communism in Russia left a vacuum of authority the Russian Orthodox Church filled. Putin had become antagonistic to communism. The Russian Orthodox Church filled that void in harmony with his nationalistic thinking. This mirrors such a historical figure as Henry VIII in England in his role in the Anglican Church. He put many opponents to death. This arose from a belief held called “the divine right of Kings.” Henry was also the head of the state church in England, which like the Russian Orthodox, borrowed from the amillennialism of Roman Catholicism.
Putin may rationalize his acts according to an Eastern worldview. He sees the corruption, decline, and decay of the West. The West in hypocritic fashion commits its own barbaric acts by murdering its own children through abortion. Putin sees a Ukraine following in the trajectory of the West with its gay parades and then its separation from the state religion of Russia. Kirill expresses this. Many Russians still dwell in the Ukraine both ethnically but also religiously. They still submit to the Moscow Patriarchy.
I’m not saying I support Putin’s position, just that this is a matter of authority. God is still on the throne. He’s not ruling through the Russian Orthodox, but its strong adherents at least admit that God rules in some manner. They follow a historical position without a biblical basis. This is not inferior to those who do not give acquiescence in any way to God’s authority, even if they see themselves as having superior values.
RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY
God reigns. Authority exists. The United States and Western nations reject Divine authority. They face consequences for their rebellion.
The Orthodox do not possess genuine Divine authority, but many of them recognize it exists. Indications of belief in Divine authority appear all over historical monuments of the United States. It is seen in the founding documents. Statements like “In God we trust” evince these foundations. Even if a nation stops acknowledging the authority of God, it is still subject to His reign.
The Globalist and Leftist Institution and Media Use of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
Many reading know President Trump’s expressing genius to Putin is his way of playing American leftists. He is also fond in calling those in power, “our stupid leaders.” Those on the left turn this into Trump and his supporters advocating for Putin and Russia. When the media calls Trump a Putin supporter, he doesn’t back away from his “genius” language, because he won’t submit to their lie. This works nicely with the Russia narrative invented by the left between 2016 even until today. They conform that narrative, which is a lie, to the Russian invasion. The globalist left supports the Ukraine, which makes the invasion difficult to sort.
The left didn’t support Ukraine. President Obama gave them blankets. Trump gave them javelins, perhaps the most effective weapon against Russian conventional warfare. Ukraine did not gain NATO membership under any president. The country became useful in the Obama years for Vice President Biden to benefit through its corruption. Ukraine did not gain membership because of a malfeasance utilized by Biden and his son, Hunter. Trump dug into the corruption by asking Zelensky for help with the investigation, attempting to tie U.S. aid to elimination of criminal crookedness. The left impeached Trump for that.
Russia took Crimea under Obama and Biden. Russia invades Ukraine under Biden. Putin does nothing against Trump. Trump hurts Putin, because he increased oil production until the United States became energy independent. The lowered prices hurt Putin more than anything. Look at the gas prices now. This helps Putin, and President Biden does not ban Russian oil exports. The United States then looks to Venezuelan oil production instead of increasing U. S. generation.
Putin in a religious manner sees the Ukraine as Russian. Russian history started with Kiev, the Rus emerging there in the 10th century AD. Vladimir I adopted a unique Russian Orthodoxy in 988. When a cynical Putin became mistrustful of a Communism and a secular state, he embraced his version of religious nationalism, somewhat like a leader of a Moslem nation. Like conservative Jews see Palestine as Israel, Putin sees Ukraine as Russian. His version of Russian Orthodoxy plays a role in his aggression, irrationality, and brutality, much like a grand inquisitor burns heretics at the stake.
Trump understood the nationalistic instinct of Putin. Yes, Putin wants to make Russia great again and with a religious fervor. I’m sure he saw men like Putin in business. He could respect his opposition in the business world and on the world scene without supporting them. He states recognition of their toughness, a trait missing in those who allow homeless to defecate in our streets.
If the media and the Democrat Party cared about Zelensky and Ukraine, why did they not urge Obama or Biden to do more before the invasion? They care now, because they see an opportunity to blame on inflation and the related high gas prices. If they care about border security in the Ukraine, why not in our own country?
The underdog Ukrainians stand against Putin. By nature, Americans reject imperialism. The United States fought an imperialistic power for its own freedom. Americans want a free Ukraine. The left commandeers Zelensky like they did during the impeachment.
The left doesn’t represent freedom. Their wokeness didn’t stand for Hong Kong against China. President Biden and his son Hunter took money from China. The left rejects freedom of speech. They’re for allowing perversion, a college male swimmer winning medals against women in the name of transgenderism. They elevate a transgender general wearing a dress in the United States military. The left doesn’t want the freedom of adversarial speech. They shut-down and cancel political opposition to vaccines, vaccine mandates, Covid origination, Covid restrictions, religious freedom, the Russian conspiracy, critical race theory, and voter fraud. They don’t allow creation in the school system.
First amendment freedom originates for political speech. The left shuts down speech. They control the public schools like Putin puts down his protestors. Theirs and Putins are a religious fervor each with their own totalitarian values.
The United States has its own religion that sacrifices babies to abortion, defunds the police, and stops energy production for their apocalyptic eschatology. When they pose to support the Ukraine, they calculate this for opposition to Trump. They see a political opportunity.
I support the Ukraine. Some doctrine consistent with true American values should guide our present and future involvement. I’m against Putin. However, everyone should understand the left’s intentions of using this war for furthering its own agenda. I don’t know if Putin is worse than the leftists who appropriate the Ukraine to further their insidious causes.
John 20:28 and the Watchtower Society
John 20:28 is a very difficult passage for the Watchtower Society or so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses” to explain away. The Watchtower, in its New World “Translation” that was made by seven “translators” who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic, and only one of which had ever taken a single course in New Testament Greek in his life, egregiously mistranslates John 1:1 to affirm that the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, was “a god,” supporting a form of polytheism in the Watchtower, where their god Jehovah, who is different than the true Jehovah God of the Bible, is allegedly the Almighty God while Christ is a secondary true god, a “mighty god.” The Watchtower Society claims that their deity is “the God,” and only the true God is called “the God,” while Christ is merely “a god,” a secondary true god. Their mistranslation of John 1:1 is awful, but, in my opinion, is not the first place to go to in order to show members of the cult their error. While the facts are not at all on their side in John 1:1, it is too complicated in Greek for them to believe you; they will believe their cult over what you say.
However, their misinterpretation of John 1:1 leaves them with a huge problem in John 20:28. In John 20:28–the climax of John’s Gospel–we read the following. Notice John 20:28:
John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
In Greek, the Apostle Thomas calls Christ “the Lord of me and the God of me”–so Christ is called “the God” in the climactic section of the gospel of John! Christ then says that Thomas is “blessed” for having confessed the Lord Jesus as “the God” (v. 29), and then the Apostle John explains that this confession is involved in believing on Christ to receive life in His name (vv. 30-31).
Here are pictures of John 20:28 from an interlinear Greek New Testament. I recommend that you download or take a picture of these pics and keep them on your phone or other electronic device. Then, when you run into a member of the Watchtower Society, you can tell him that you noticed this in the Bible and would like to get his explanation.
The interlinear here is J. P. Green’s Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, 4 vol. ed., the volume on the New Testament. I believe Green’s interlinear, based on the Textus Receptus, is the best interlinear that is out there. I personally do not need to use an interlinear because my Greek has passed that stage, but on whatever occasions I would need to use one, I use Green’s (I have a leather-bound version of the NT portion of his interlinear and a big one-volume work that has the OT and NT. I am not sure if the leather-bound version is still in print.) If you want an interlinear, here are (affiliate) links to where you can get it on Amazon:
New Testament:
One volume edition Old and New Testament (bigger book and smaller print):
Four volume set:
Usually people in the Watchtower will refuse to talk to you if they are aware that you know what you are talking about–they seek to prey on the Biblically ignorant, not show their (alleged) truth to those who know God’s Word, because once you know the Bible well you are not going to get sucked into their cult. So it is wise to ask questions of members of the Watchtower when you seek to evangelize them, because as soon as they know you understand Scripture, they probably will not want to talk to you any more.
So what can you ask a member of the Watchtower? Something like the following (which also includes their very feeble attempts to explain the text away):
In John 20:28, at the climax of John’s Gospel, the point to which the whole Gospel has been building after the prologue of 1:1-18 and before the epilogue of chapter 21, Thomas answers and says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me” O Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou (John 20:28), addressing Jesus Christ as “the” God. Christ commends Thomas for this statement, saying he was blessed, and that those who similarly confess and believe that Jesus is “the God of me” are blessed (20:29). Why do you think Thomas calls Christ “the God of me”?
The only explanations from members of the Watchtower that I have heard are the following:
1.) Thomas was taking God’s name in vain, like people who say “Oh my G**,” because the Apostle was surprised at Christ’s resurrection appearance. However, Christ would not have commended the Apostle for taking God’s name in vain. One of the Apostles taking God’s name in vain is the climactic confession of the whole Gospel of John? That “explanation” is ridiculous.
2.) Thomas was not really speaking to Christ when the Bible says Thomas “answered and said unto him.” But that also is to read into the Bible what it does not say, rather than drawing from the text what it does say. The “him” in 20:28 refers to Christ in 20:27. That is simply what the grammar requires. Thomas “answered” and “said unto” Christ, “him” of 20:28 who had appeared to Thomas. It cannot possibly be speaking about God the Father.
One Watchtower elder told me that only the “the Lord of me” was addressed to Christ while “the God of me” was addressed to the Father. However, looking at all the NT verses where the construction of John 20:28 appears, in all 61 instances, the same person gets the whole address (Matthew 11:4; 12:39, 48; 15:3, 23, 28; 16:17; 17:11; 19:4, 27; 21:21, 24, 27; 25:26, 37, 44; 26:33; Mark 6:37; 7:28; 9:12, 38; 11:14, 29; 12:17, 34; 14:48; Luke 1:19, 35; 3:11; 4:8; 7:22; 8:50; 10:41; 11:45; 13:8, 15; 17:20; 20:34; 24:18; John 2:19; 3:10; 4:10; 5:11, 19; 6:26; 7:16, 21, 52; 8:14, 33, 48; 9:20, 27, 30, 34; 10:25, 33; 12:34; 14:23; 18:5; 20:28). So this attempt to evade what sure looks like the plain sense of John 20:28 also fails badly. Thomas called Christ both “the Lord of me” and “the God of me.” Thomas answered and said to Jesus, “the Lord of me and the God of me.”
Because this text is so difficult for the Watchtower to explain away, they attempt to conceal from their members that Christ is called “the God” in John 20:28 (as He is in Hebrews 1:8). The Watchtower hopes that their “Jesus is a god, but not the God” explanation for John 1:1 works and that nobody notices that Christ is called “the God of me” in John 20:28. That is why this fact is very helpful and something worth pressing a Watchtower witness on.
The original audience who got the Gospel of John would have concluded that Thomas was “the Lord” and “the God” of Thomas, and that those who similarly believed were blessed (20:29). The Apostle Thomas was blessed when he confessed Jesus to be “the Lord of me and the God of me,” and I am blessed to make the same confession, 20:29. If members of the Watchtower repent, they also can make the same confession and receive eternal life through repentant faith alone in the one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who is in all three Persons possessed of the glorious Name “Jehovah.” (Matthew 28:19).
You can learn more about the blessed truth of the Trinity by clicking here.
–TDR
Recent Comments